Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 04-09 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER APRIL 9, 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. January 29, 1990 - Regular Session *b. February 12, 1990 - Regular Session *c. February 26, 1990 - Regular Session 7. Presentation: a. Charter Commission - Retiring Member 8. Proclamation: *a. Declaring April 22 -28, 1990, as Brooklyn Center Volunteer Recognition Week 9. Resolutions: *a. Amending the 1990 General Fund Budget -This action will transfer funds from the contingency account to the City Council's account to pay for the transportation survey approved by the City Council on March 12, 1990. *b. Approving Vacation Leave and Sick Leave Benefits for the EDA Assistant Coordinator C. Regarding Tree Removal Project No. 1990 -13, Contract 1990 -B *d. Accepting Proposal for Replacement of Post Lights in Front of Civic Center -1990 budget item. e. Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Improvement Project 1988 -18 - Reconstruction of West River Road from 66th Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- April 9, 1990 f. Approving Agreement with Northern States Power Company to Remove Overhead Power Lines on West River Road between 66th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North, Improvement Project 1988 -18 *g. Accepting Quotes and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1) GVW Cab /Chassis, Pump Body, Hydraulics and Plow - Approved in 1990 Parks Maintenance Budget *h. Declaring Surplus Property - Annual Auction - April 28, 1990 i. Amending the 1990 General Fund Budget -This action will transfer funds from the contingency account to pay for the application process for the All America City Committee. 10. Planning Commission Items: (8:30 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 90002 submitted by David Roop requesting special use permit approval to operate a custom woodworking home occupation involving one nonresident employee in the basement dwelling and in a portion of the detached garage at 7219 Grimes Avenue North. -This application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its March 15, 1990, meeting. b. Planning Commission Application No. 90003 submitted by E and H Properties requesting rezoning from R5 to C2 a sliver of land east of the Atkins Mechanical site at 6550 West River Road. Also, a request to rezone from R5 to Cl the rest of the land eastward to Willow Lane, north of the Ketroser Apartments. -This application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its March 29, 1990, meeting through Planning Commission resolution No. 90 -1. 1. Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Application No. 90003 Submitted by E and H Properties C. Planning Commission Application No. 90004 submitted by E and H Properties requesting preliminary plat approval to resubdivide the four parcels of land south of 66th Avenue North and east of T.H. 252 owned by E and H Properties into two parcels, one adjacent to the T.H. 252 frontage to be zoned C2 and one adjacent to Willow Lane to be zoned C1. -This application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its March 15, 1990, meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- April 9, 1990 d. Planning Commission Application No. 89012 submitted by Fina Oil and Chemical Company requesting site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a service station/ convenience store /car wash at the southeast corner of T.H. 252 and 66th Avenue North. This application was considered by the Commission at its May 25, 1989, meeting and tabled because of inadequate plans and the imposition of a moratorium. A new set of plans has been submitted for consideration. -This application was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission at its March 15, 1990, meeting. e. Planning Commission Application No. 90005 submitted by the Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority (EDA) requesting variance approval for a package of signs to be used at the Earle Brown Heritage Center, 6105 Earle Brown Drive, etc. -This application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its March 15, 1990, meeting. 11. Ordinances: (7:30 p.m.) a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring Certain Actions as Public Nuisances -This ordinance amendment relates to the parking and . storage of vehicles and equipment in residential areas. This item was first read on February 26, 1990, published in the City's official newspaper on March 7, 1990, and is offered this evening for a second reading. b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Height of Fences, Hedges, and Walls -This ordinance amendment would allow higher fences, hedges, and walls in certain yards that abut public streets. This item was first read on February 26, 1990, published in the City's official newspaper on March 7, 1990, and is offered this evening for a second reading. c. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Permitted and Special Uses in the Cl, C2, and I -1 zoning districts -This item was offered for a first reading on March 12, 1990, published in the City's official newspaper on March 21, 1990, and is offered this evening for a second reading. d. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the Brooklyn Center City Ordinances -This amendment pertains to changes in the liquor licensing ordinance. This item was first read on March 12, 1990, published in the City's official newspaper on March 21, 1990, and is offered this evening for a second reading. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- April 9, 1990 e. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning of Certain Land This ordinance amendment describes the land the City Council rezoned from I -1 to C2 under Planning Commission Application No. 89003 on March 12, 1990. This item is offered this evening for a first reading. f. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the Brooklyn Center City Ordinances Regarding Collection of Yard Waste -This item is offered this evening for a first reading. 12. Public Hearing: (8 p.m.) a. Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Improvements to Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue between Shingle Creek and T.H. 252 and to Humboldt Avenue North between 65th and 69th Avenues North - Notices of this hearing have been published in the City's official newspaper and individual notices were sent to the owners of property affected by the proposed improvements. It is recommended that the public hearing be conducted in accordance with the following format: Part 1: City staff present an overview of the proposed improvements Part 2: Open public hearing for comments regarding proposed improvements Part 3: Close public hearing Part 4: Discussion by City Council Part 5: Consideration of the following resolutions: Resolution Ordering Improvement, Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Improvement Projects 1988 -25, 1989 -26, 1989 -27, 1990 - 11, and 1990 -12, Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue between Shingle Creek and T.H. 252; and for Improvement Project 1989 -27, Humboldt Avenue North between 65th and 69th Avenues North Resolution Establishing Parking Restrictions on MSAP 109 - 191 -04 and 109 - 119 -13, Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue between Shingle Creek and T.H. 252, and MSAP 109 - 108 -04, Humboldt Avenue North between 65th and 69th Avenues North 13. Recess to EDA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - - 5 April 9 199 P , 0 14. Public Hearing: a. Resolution Approving a Modified Project Plan for Housing Development Project No. 01 and a Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 01 15. Discussion Items: a. Northwest News Newspaper - City Newsletter Proposal b. Appointing Barb Jensen to Hennepin County Citizens Advisory Committee - Block Grant C. Amending 1990 Pay Plan to Add One Additional Maintenance Worker in the Public Utilities Division d. Review of 1990 Planning Session e. Review of 69th Avenue Construction Project - Impact on South Side Properties 16. Approval of Class F On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Omega Foods, Inc. dba Atrium Catering -Earle Brown Heritage Center *17. Licenses 18. Adjournment EDA AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER APRIL 9, 1990 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: a. January 29, 1990 - Special Session b. February 12, 1990 - Special Session C. February 26, 1990- Regular Session 4. Resolution: a. Approving a Modified Project Plan for Housing Development Project No. 01 and Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 01 Requesting the Brooklyn Center City Council to Conduct a Public Hearing Thereon; Recommending Approval of the Plans 5. Discussion - Acquisition of 419 69th Avenue North 6. Adjournment i 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 JANUARY 29, 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 7:01 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, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Administrative Aide Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Helen Jacobsen of the Brooklyn Center Prayer Breakfast Committee. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had received a request for the open forum session which pertained to the ordinance on cigarette vending licenses. He noted the public hearing for this item would be scheduled for February 26, 1990, and asked that anyone present please submit any new materials to the City Manager. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Cohen requested 7h be removed, and Mayor Nyquist requested item 7e be removed from the consent agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 27 1989 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to approve the minutes of the November 27, 1989, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 6 1989 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to approve the minutes of the December 6, 1989, City Council meeting. The motion a g passed unanimously. y APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 18 1989 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion b Councilmember r Scott and seconded b Councilmember Paulson son to approve the minutes of the December 18, 1989, City Council meeting. The motion a ssed unanimousl y. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 8 1990 - REGULAR SESSION There was a o mo ' tinb Councilmember ouncilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson 1/29/90 -1- to approve the minutes of the January 8, 1990, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 90 -14 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PROCESS FOR APPEALS FROM DECISIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -15 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF LORNA SEBURG The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO 90 -16 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING MAYOR NYQUIST'S 1990 SALARY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO 90 -17 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) 28,000 GVW CAB AND CHASSIS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO 90 -18 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) 19,000 GVW CAB AND CHASSIS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO 90 -19 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • 1/29/90 -2- RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to approve the following list of licenses: BULK VENDOR D & G Vending, Inc. 4313 NE Washington St. CIGARETTE OVER THE COUNTER SALES: Applebee's 1347 Brookdale Center Boulevard Superette 6912 Brooklyn Blvd. C.W.'s Corner (Holiday Inn) 2200 Freeway Blvd. Jerry's New Market 5801 Xerxes Ave. N. Target t g 6100 Shingle Ck. Pk MACHINE SALES: Ala Carte Vending Systems, Inc. 2550 Kasota Avenue Modern Control i 6820 Shingle Ck g Pkwy. Consumer Vending 2828 Lyndale Ave. N. Br' idgemans 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. Five Star Vending 15034 Fillmore St. NE Hiawatha Rubber Co. 1700 67th Ave. N. Mikros Engineering 3715 50th Ave. N. GASOLINE SERVICE STATION Brooklyn Service Center (Unocal 76) 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. Duke's Amoco 6501 Humboldt Ave. N. Green Meadows 3319 49th Ave. N. ©R SuperAmerica #4160 6545 West River Road Bill West's Service Center 2000 57th Ave. N. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES ARA Services 2830 North Fairview Northwestern Nat'l. Life Ins. Co. 6200 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Bro- Midwest Vending Company 9110 Grand Ave. S. American Legion 4307 70th Ave. N. Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. Days Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. Pilgrim Cleaners 5748 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Service "76" 6245 Brooklyn Blvd. Canteen Company of MN, Inc. 6300 Penn Ave. S. Caterpillar Paving 1800 Freeway Blvd Medtronics 6700 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. D. L. Service Co. 2516 83rd Ave. N. Lowell's Automotive 6211 Brooklyn Blvd. Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. Northern States Power 4501 68th Ave. N. 1/29/90 -3- Precision, Inc. 3415 48th Ave. N. Twin City Vending Co., Inc. 1065 East Highway 36 Sears 1297 Brookdale Center PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES ARA Services 2830 North Fairview Northwestern Nat'l. Life Ins. Co. 6200 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Bro- Midwest Vending Company 9110 Grand Ave. S. Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. Canteen Company of MN, Inc. 6300 Penn Ave. S. Caterpillar Paving 1800 Freeway Blvd. Medtronics 6700 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. Twin City Vending Co., Inc. 1065 East Highway 36 Sears 1297 Brookdale Center RENTAL DWELLING Initial: Jane DeFrance Maranatha Place Lambert and Ethel Ackermann 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #234 Kathryn D. Hess 1329 68th Lane North Renewal: Willwerscheid, Robbins, Rafter 6331, 6401, 6425 Beard Ave. N. Duane and Jessie Erickson 7019 Dallas Road Christine J. Stendal 5456 Emerson Ave. N. Beisner Limited 1525 Humboldt Place Hallard N. Corey 4201 Lakeside Ave. N. #118 L. Larry Law 4201 Lakeside Ave. N. #302 Residential Alternatives, Inc. 5449 Lyndale Ave. N. Daryl Losey 5931 Pearson Drive Gary and Danae Morrison 5104 E. Twin Lake Blvd. SIGN HANGER Scenic Sign Corporation Box 881, St. Cloud SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Liquor Store #1 1500 69th Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Liquor Store #2 6250 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Liquor Store #3 1966 57th Ave. N. C.W.'s Corner (Holiday Inn) 2200 Freeway Blvd. Carson Pirie Scott 1200 Brookdale Center Ideal Drug 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. Mr. Movies 1964 57th Ave. N. Total Petroleum 6830 Brooklyn Blvd. TAXICAB Town Taxi 2812 University Ave. SE The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) 1/29/90 -4- The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Proposal and Awarding Contract for Purchase of a Backhoe Mounted Pavement Breaker. He noted staff proposes to fund the purchase of this unit from the public utility fund. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -20 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AWARDING CONTACT FOR PURCHASE OF A BACKHOE MOUNTED PAVEMENT BREAKER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing P g ng resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Sign the Document Approving the City's Emergency Plan. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -21 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE DOCUMENT APPROVING THE CITY'S EMERGENCY PLAN The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into a Joint Powers Agreement for the Formation and Administration of the Hennepin -Anoka Suburban Drug Task Force. Mayor Nyquist questioned what the liability was among the four cities. The City Attorney explained the current draft provides indemnity to the other cities, other than the City which the event occurred in. He noted the League of Minnesota Cities is suggesting language which will cover its concerns without exposing cities to further liability. Councilmember Scott inquired if this item should be tabled until the language issue is cleared up. The Finance Director stated he has spoken with the Police Chief, and the Chief is concerned because the Task Force is already operating and feels it would be better to operate under this agreement than none at all. Councilmember Pedlar inquired what benefit the City would be receiving from this agreement. The City Manager briefly explained how the four communities hope to operate. Councilmember Cohen stated from his past dealings with the City of Maple Grove, it seems they are only interested in help from Brooklyn Center and surrounding cities if it will benefit Maple Grove directly. He asked Mayor Nyquist to communicate his concerns to the Mayor of Maple Grove. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -22 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE FORMATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE HENNEPIN -ANOKA SUBURBAN DRUG TASK FORCE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. 1/29/90 -5- L The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Proposal and Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Sign an Agreement for Phase II of the Proposed Communications Audit. Councilmember Cohen asked to be excused from this discussion because of a conflict of interest. Councilmember Pedlar inquired if the City has received any references or history of this company. The City Manager stated the company has been in existence for 10 to 15 years and has a wide range of experience in this field. Councilmember Paulson stated he feels it is important the City is moving ahead with this issue and added he would like to propose open public meetings in place of the phone survey. RESOLUTION NO 90 -23 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT FOR PHASE II OF THE PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS AUDIT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. Philip Cohen abstained. The City Manager presented a Resolution Relating to $3,600,000 City of Brooklyn Center Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Brookwood Estates Project) Series 1985. The City Manager noted this resolution authorizes the transfer of a letter of credit from a defunct financial institution to a different institution. RESOLUTION NO 90 -24 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RELATING TO $3,600,000 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS (BROOKWOOD ESTATES PROJECT) SERIES 1985 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 Approving Sale of One Parcel of Land on Nonconservation List 741 -NC. He noted adoption of this resolution would approve the public sale of a tax forfeited lot located at 3113 68th Avenue North based on Hennepin County's reappraisal of the lot with consideration to soil conditions which exist on this lot. The Director of Public Works gave a brief history of this property. Councilmember Cohen inquired if this property is a buildable lot. The Director of Public Works stated it would be buildable with enough soil corrections. Councilmember Cohen inquired what the cost would be for the lot. The Director of Public Works stated he has not received the final figure yet, but he believes it will be between $2,000 and $3,000. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -25 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SALE OF ONE PARCEL OF LAND ON NONCONSERVATION LIST 741 -NC The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. 1/29/90 -6- ORDINANCES Mayor Nyquist explained if anyone was present for the cigarette vending ordinance, they should be aware that the public hearing is held at the second reading of the ordinance which would most likely be on February 26, 1990. He stated if anyone has materials or written comments they would like the Council to receive, they should be given to the City Manager's office. Councilmember Paulson inquired if there would be some way to allow the people present this evening to speak. Councilmember Pedlar stated he would have no objections to allowing the public to speak this evening. Councilmember Cohen inquired if it were possible to see how many people in the audience were present for this ordinance. Mayor Nyquist inquired how many people in the audience were present for the ordinance on cigarette vending licensing. Five groups appeared, and all indicated they would be willing and able to appear at the second reading and public hearing being held on February 26, 1990. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Establish a Planned Unit Development Zoning District. He noted this item was first read on January 8, 1990, published in the City's official newspaper on January 17, 1990, and is offered this evening for a second reading. Councilmember Scott inquired when this ordinance would become effective. The City Manager noted it would become effective 30 days after publication which would be approximately February 17. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Establish a Planned Unit Development Zoning District 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 Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 90 -03 Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES TO ESTABLISH A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 of the City Ordinances Regarding Personnel. He noted this amendment would add Columbus Day as a paid holiday. He stated this item was first read on January 8, 1990, published in the City's official newspaper on January 17, 1990, and is offered this evening for a second reading. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 of the City Ordinances Regarding Personnel and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak. There being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott 1/29/90 -7- to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 90 -04 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING PERSONNEL 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 Extending the Interim Ordinance for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and the Health, Safety and Welfare of the Residents of the City, and Regulating and Restricting Certain Development at the Property Located at 6626 West River Road and All Land South of 66th Avenue and North of I -694 Lying between Willow Lane and T.H. 252. He noted this item was first read on December 18, 1989, published in the City's official newspaper on December 27, 1989, and is offered this evening for a second reading. Councilmember Cohen noted the Planning Commission has recommended rezoning and inquired if the Council should concur with this recommendation. He asked the Director of Planning and Inspection to comment. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated he would like to review the study for the Council. He noted the Planning Commission recommendation does differ from the study's proposal. He then went on to review the results of the land use study. He explained the comprehensive plan does recommend the northerly portion of Atkins property be used as a general commercial retail zoning use. He then briefly reviewed the three land areas of the study. He noted he believed the Short- Elliott- Hendrickson proposal involved a considerable amount of public involvement. He stated there are consistencies in all five alternatives with regard to Areas 1 and 3. He then reviewed the five alternates. The Director of Planning and Inspection went on to review the Planning Commission recommendation and noted it recommends Area 1 be zoned Rl and Area 3 be zoned R5. He noted it supports the design alternate to the roadway, but the recommendation differed from the SEH proposal in Area 2. He stated the Planning Commission recommends rezoning from C2 to Cl because it is concerned regarding the intense commercial use of this property. Mayor Nyquist stated if Area 1 is the only area rezoned, there would be no need for a moratorium. The Director of Planning and Inspection responded affirmatively. Councilmember Cohen inquired if the Planning Commission found anything that would justify rezoning in Area 2 other than the rezoning option. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the Planning Commission did not approach this issue from a marketing point. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:37 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m. ORDINANCES (CONTINUED) The Director of Planning and Inspection briefly reviewed the plan for the realigned roadway and stated the City would possibly need to take a small sliver of land to provide the realignment. Councilmember Cohen stated he is concerned because the Planning Commission recommended downzoning of the property which 1/29/90 -8- l could be considered to be a taking of Mr. Atkins' property. He noted this could result in possible litigation and very high expenses. The City Attorney stated downzoning must first serve a reasonable and legitimate public purpose. He noted it must not exclude the owner from reasonable legitimate uses of the property. He stated there is nothing in the Short - Elliot - Hendrickson proposal supporting the downzoning of this area. He added he is not prepared to state whether downzoning would deprive the owner of all reasonable legitimate uses for his property. However, he added downzoning could result in litigation which could easily cost $30,000 which may or may not be covered by insurance. He noted an additional $10,000 - $20,000 would be spent on expert witness fees. Mayor Nyquist stated he believed the data presented by the applicant pertaining to the need for office space is outdated. There is presently an increased demand for office space in the northwest metro area. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Extending the Interim Ordinance for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and the Health, Safety and Welfare of the Residents of the City, and Regulating and Restricting Certain Development at the Property Located at 6626 West River Road and All Land South of 66th Avenue and North of I -694 Lying between Willow Lane and T. H. 252. He recognized Mr. Mike Merrick, attorney for Howard Atkins. Mr. Merrick stated he can find no basis for the recommended downzoning of his client's property. He noted there seems to be a disparity on how his client was treated versus the treatment of the SuperAmerica station across the street. He noted he and his client have some concerns regarding the realignment of the roadway because working with MNDOT can sometimes be a lengthy ordeal. He noted Mr. Atkins desires to work with the City for all reasonable requests. Mr. Merrick stated he and his client appear to be back to where they started seven months ago. He added they are opposed to Alternate E because of the delay in implementation and also because it would take a portion of his client's lot. He stated he and his client would like to see option A approved, however, they do have some concerns with rezoning for Area 1. He added if Alternate E could be done in an expedious manner, it may be acceptable. Mayor Nyquist inquired of the Director of Public Works if he could foresee any problems with doing the rerouting concurrently with Mr. Atkins' development. The Director of Public Works stated MNDOT has indicated an offer could be submitted to the City by the end of March. He noted the turnback proceedings for the service road have been initiated and should go fairly smooth. He noted there is a reasonable chance this could be accomplished within two to three months. Councilmember Cohen stated it appears Alternate E would give the City the opportunity to provide the necessary buffer for protection to the R1 homes but a buffer area must be provided. Councilmember Paulson stated Alternate A appears to provide possibly an even better buffer. Mayor Nyquist recognized Phil Dahlen, 6518 Willow Lane. Mr. Dahlen stated he felt there would be even more congestion in the neighborhood if the street were realigned. He noted he opposes the closing of the service road. Mayor Nyquist recognized Arlow Johnson of the Brookdale Motel. Mr. Johnson stated he is in favor of Alternate E, and he feels this would be a very workable 1/29/90 -9- solution and would not hurt his business. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Kurt Danielson, 7035 Willow Lane. Mr. Danielson stated he is on the Northeast Citizens Advisory Group. He stated he feels the Fina station would cause a great deal of congestion in the area and also that Alternate E would be the best solution. Mayor Nyquist recognized Greg Cameron, 6620 Willow Lane. He noted at the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant stated he did not want to do anything that would harm the other properties. He inquired how the area would be affected if the traffic levels change. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak at the public hearing. There being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Extending the Interim Ordinance for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and the Health, Safety and Welfare of the Residents of the City, and Regulating and Restricting Certain Development at the Property Located at 6626 West River Road and All Land South of 66th Avenue and North of I -694 Lying between Willow Lane and T.H. 252. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to deny An Ordinance Extending the Interim Ordinance for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and the Health, Safety and Welfare of the Residents of the City, and Regulating and Restricting Certain Development at the Property Located at 6626 West River Road and All Land South of 66th Avenue and North of I -694 Lying between Willow Lane and T.H. 252. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Cohen stated he still has some concerns with the Fina station and its uses and noted the buffer issue must be addressed as a part of any plan. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances Regarding General Licensing Regulations. He noted this amendment would ban the sale of cigarettes from vending machines, and this item is offered this evening for a first reading. He stated recently there have been some changes in cigarette vending machines which would allow for a remote control device to be connected to a vending machine. He noted the City will be receiving information on this in the near future, and if the Council wished they could pass the ordinance for first reading this evening and make whatever changes necessary at the second reading. Councilmember Pedlar stated he has received calls from a number of people who feel the City is trying to eliminate the sale of cigarettes totally. He noted this is not true, the City is only trying to eliminate the sale of cigarettes to minors. Councilmember Scott stated she is concerned that someone will rig the remote control device so the machine is open all the time. Councilmember Cohen stated he is sure the Council will have many solutions at the public hearing. Councilmember Paulson stated he would like to see the Council move forward with this issue, and he feels this is a socially justifiable ordinance. 1/29/90 -10- There was a motion b Councilmember er Cohen and seconded b y Councilmember Pedlar to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances Regarding General Licensing Regulations and setting a public hearing date of February 26, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESOURCES COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE A SURVEY OF RESIDENTS REGARDING TRANSPORTATION The City Manager explained the Human Rights and Resources Commission has recommended a survey be completed pertaining to transportation in Brooklyn Center. He noted the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council would be able to assist the City and the Human Rights and Resources Commission in this survey. Councilmember Scott inquired how many times Brooklyn Center has participated in this type of survey. The City Manager stated he does not believe the City has ever conducted a transportation survey. Councilmember Scott inquired if this would be in conflict with existing programs. The City Manager stated staff feels there is a need to evaluate transportation needs, not only senior transportation, but all types including light rail transit, MTC, and handicap. Councilmember Paulson stated it may also give the City information on other types of options and how much the transportation systems would be used. Councilmember Cohen stated he feels this is the right way to proceed, and the City should move forward because it will give the City answers to many questions. Councilmember Scott stated she does not have a problem with the survey, she would just like to know what types of questions are going to be asked and who will be asking them. The Personnel Coordinator stated a survey would be done of a random sampling of the City, but final decisions have not been made for target areas. Mayor Nyquist inquired if the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council would handle this survey with its own staff or if it would hire someone outside. Ms. Patty Wilder of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council stated the survey would be completed using its own staff and noted the Human Rights and Resources Commission would actually be conducting the phone surveying. Councilmember Pedlar inquired if the City could request PostNews to do a brief article requesting input. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Paulson approving the Human Rights and Resources Commission's proposal as submitted with review of the questionnaire by the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - FIRE TRAINING FACILITY The City Manager noted Brooklyn Center has been asked to join a four city joint powers agreement to build and maintain a fire training facility. He stated the City of Fridley has taken the lead in developing a proposal which will provide a permanent facility for training our firefighters. He noted the four cities include Fridley, Columbia Heights, Spring Lake Park, and Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Paulson inquired if there would be other cities that are interested and also joining. The Fire Chief stated it has been decided to limit this to four cities so each city ould have adequate e time fo y q r trainin g and if there are dates available, the sites could then be rented to nonmembers with the money going towards operating costs. 1/29/90 -11- There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen approving the preliminary concept of a Joint Powers Agreement and instructing the City Manager or his designee to proceed with finalization of a Joint Powers Agreement to be brought back for Council approval. The motion passed unanimously. LELS CONTRACT AMENDMENT The City Manager stated staff is recommending approval of the amendments to the LELS contract. There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Scott approving the amendments to the 1990 -91 LELS Local No. 82 union contract. The motion passed unanimously. PROPOSAL FROM DCA INC. FOR EMPLOYEE FLEX PLAN The Finance Director briefly reviewed the proposal submitted by DCA, Inc. for flexible spending accounts for full -time City employees. He noted the program would enable City employees to pay health insurance premiums, unreimbursed medical expenses, and child care from pre -taxed dollars. He stated the cost per employee per month is $3.60. He noted most of the costs would be recovered through savings on the City's share of taxes for FICA (social security). There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar directing staff to enter into an agreement with DCA, Inc. to provide services for a flexible spending account program for the City's full -time employees. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager noted at a recent City Council meeting staff was directed to place the City's three off -sale liquor stores on the State lottery mailing list to receive information on selling lottery tickets. He noted the City has received the necessary information and is ready to submit the applications if the Council so wishes. Councilmember Paulson inquired if the City gets a percentage of the ticket sales. The City Manager responded the City would receive five percent. Councilmember Paulson inquired if there was any way to predict what this five percent would actually mean in dollars. The City Manager responded negatively. Councilmember Pedlar stated it is possible there would be a greater impact on liquor stores if we did not sell lottery tickets. The City Manager stated it was hard to say at this point, but it could be considered an asset. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar instructing staff to submit the applications for selling lottery tickets at the three municipal liquor stores. The motion passed with Councilmember Paulson opposed. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION REGARDING TWIN LAKE PARK STUDY The City Manager noted the Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed and discussed the Twin Lake Park Study prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. He stated the commission recommended the City Council accept the concept plan proposed by Westwood Professional Services regarding the Twin Lake Park Study at its January 16, 1990, meeting. He noted the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has granted general concept approval. He added the Park and 1/29/90 -12- a Recreation Commission feels it will be the final step in the park plan. Councilmember Cohen inquired what type of use Joslyn could sell the property for in its condition. He inquired if the City could take an easement and let them retain the title. The City Manager noted this could be the way to go and added the City has a problem appraising that property. Councilmember Cohen stated if Joslyn were to let the property go tax delinquent, he does not believe the City should try to purchase it but should just wait and see who gets the title. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen approving the concept plan as proposed by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. The motion passed unanimously. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION REGARDING USE OF SKATE BOARDS The Personnel Coordinator stated in the fall of 1989, the Brooklyn Center Employee Safety Committee expressed concern over the misuse /abuse of skate boards in central park and the community center. She noted the City Manager forwarded this concern to the Park and Recreation Commission for its review. After much review and discussion, the Commission has recommended to the City Council that the problem of misuse /abuse of skate boards in City parks and property be monitored to determine if the situation warrants further action. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar accepting the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendation regarding skate boards. The motion passed unanimously. LMCIT PROPOSAL FOR AN ACCIDENT POLICY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AND CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSIONS The Finance Director explained that the cost of Workers' Compensation was prohibitive for most Minnesota cities to offer it to councils and commissions. He stated LMCIT has developed an accident or short disability policy which is much cheaper. He noted this policy is not a substitute for Workers' Compensation coverage. He stated it is a low cost alternative to Workers' Compensation coverage. He noted the accident coverage applies while the individual is traveling to or from a committee meeting or while conducting other official business on behalf of, and at the request of, the council or commission. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson directing staff to make application for coverage for the City Council and its Advisory Commissions. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10 :38 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 1/29/90 -13- 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 FEBRUARY 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 7:01 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, Finance Director Paul Holmlu nd Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Administrative Aide Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Ms. Elaine Bernards of the Brooklyn Center Prayer Breakfast Committee. 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. No requests were made. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO 90 -26 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1989 -H (SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS 1989 -18) AND (BROOKDALE SQUARE ENTRANCE 1989 -19) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -27 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND NORTH HENNEPIN MEDIATION PROJECT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. 2/12/90 -1- f RESOLUTION NO. 90 -28 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB 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: BULK VENDOR Brooklyn Center Lions P.O. Box 29092 Curtis Products, Inc. 2516 Dodds Ave. CATERING FOOD VEHICLE Bridgeman's 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Lions /Band Boosters 6500 Humboldt Ave. N MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Hopkins Plumbing & Heating 30 North 8th Ave. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Drive Minnesota Vikings Food Service 5200 West 74th Street Hennepin Co. Service Center 6125 Shingle Ck. Pkwy Hiway 100 N. France Health Club 4001 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Schmitt Music 2600 Freeway Blvd. Silent Knight Security Systems 1700 Freeway Blvd. State Farm Insurance 5930 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Service America Corporation 7490 Central Ave. NE Dayton's 1100 Brookdale Center Graco 6820 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. MTC 6845 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Theisen Vending Company 3804 Nicollet Ave. S. Brookdale Ford 2550 Co. Rd. 10 Budgetel Inn 6415 James Circle Econo Lodge 6445 James Circle Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Blvd. Bill West's Service Center 2000 57th Ave. N. PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Jimmy Jingle 1304 East Lake Street Brookdale Corporate Center nter 6300 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Builders Square 3600 63rd Ave. N. Fingerhut Telemarketing 6860 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Palmer Lake Plaza 6860 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. 2/12/90 -2- TCR Corporation 1600 67th Ave. N. Minnesota Vikings Food Service, Inc. 5200 West 74th Street Hiway 100 N. France Health Club 4001 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Schmitt Music 2600 Freeway Blvd. State Farm Insurance 5930 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Service America Corporation 7490 Central Ave. NE Dayton's 1100 Brookdale Center Graco 6820 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. MTC 6845 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE Bridgeman's 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT Adventures in Video 6914 Brooklyn Blvd. M & S Drug Emporium 5900 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Fun Services 3615 50th Ave. N. Gift Shop, Too (Days Inn) 1501 Freeway Blvd. Maid of Scandinavia Company 5717 Xerxes Ave. N. Snyder Brothers Drug Store 1296 Brookdale Center TAXICAB Town Taxi 2812 University Ave. SE Travel Express Taxi 4109 42nd Ave. N. Yellow Taxi Service Corp. 3555 5th Ave. S. The motion passed unanimously. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had received an application for an appointment to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Advisory Commission. He stated he would like to contact the applicant before making the appointment, and thus far, had not been able to reach the applicant. He recommended laying the item over until the February 26, 1990, City Council meeting. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1990 -05, Improvement of Lift Station No. 2 and Approving Proposal for Preliminary Evaluation of Options. He noted this sewer lift station is located on Lyndale Avenue at 55th Avenue North. He stated the proposed study would review the feasibility of upgrading the existing station to provide odor control, meet OSHA standards, and improve operating features. He stated the proposed study would also evaluate the option of constructing a new lift station. Mayor Nyquist stated it sounded like a lot of money to pay for a study. The Director of Public Works stated it will take a considerable amount of time and study to prepare this report. He noted this company has completed this type of study for a number of cities and the Metropolitan Waste Commission. Councilmember Paulson inquired if staff has any type of breakdown on how much work any one firm does for the City. The City Manager stated it would be possible for staff to prepare this type of breakdown for Councilmember Paulson. Councilmember Scott stated at the time Lyndale Avenue was improved, the 2/12/90 -3- r neighborhood complained of the odor from the lift station. She noted she lives in this area and understands why the residents complained. She stated she is glad to see this study taking place. Councilmember Pedlar stated he has visited two other lift stations on a tour of the City and inquired if they have the same situation. The Director of Public Works stated the other two lift stations do not have this problem. He noted this particular lift station is much larger and contains more equipment. He noted the cost of retro- fitting the old lift station would be much lower than the cost of building a new one; however, the old building is 30 years old. Councilmember Pedlar inquired if it is necessary to pay someone else to tell the City what we already know. The City Manager noted he asked the same question. He then went on to discuss the areas which need to be studied. He noted the firm will also address the issue of whether the problem can be solved with the existing facility and the cost of fixing it. Councilmember Cohen stated even if City staff had the expertise to do this study, it would take a considerable amount of time, and he wouldn't want to see any other duties suffer because of staff working on this one project. Councilmember Paulson stated he would like to see a report detailing how engineering costs are distributed among engineering firms. The Director of Public Works stated at this point the project is in the preliminary and research stage, and fees are based on an hourly rate. He noted once this report is complete and the Council makes a decision, then proposals would be taken from interested firms. He noted he feels it is very important to have a consulting engineering firm which City staff is familiar with and knows how to deal with. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -29 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -05, IMPROVEMENT OF LIFT STATION NO. 2 AND APPROVING PROPOSAL FOR PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF OPTIONS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Amending the 1990 General Fund Budget to Appropriate Funds for Replacement of Police Resuscitator. RESOLUTION NO 90 -30 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR REPLACEMENT OF POLICE RESUSCITATOR The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF 1990 -1991 LOCAL 49 LABOR AGREEMENT The City Manager stated he received a phone call on Friday informing him that the Local 49 contract had been approved. He noted this agreement represents a settlement which is consistent with negotiations in the metropolitan area and internal negotiations with other bargaining units in the City. He added it is also consistent with the Council's action on nonorganized salaries in 1990. 2/12/90 -4- There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to sign the proposed 1990 -1991 Local 49 Labor Agreement. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCES 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 the City Manager or his designee to remove any items placed in the City's rights -of -way which are in violation of the existing ordinance. He noted this item is offered this evening for a first reading. The City Manager stated at this time prosecutors have difficulty working with the existing ordinance because of the interpretation of the ordinance. He explained the Administrative Traffic Committee requested the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amendment which would allow the City Manager to remove structures which are in violation of the State Statutes. He noted if the amendment is adopted, it is staff's intent to use this authority only when there is a serious problem which requires immediate action. Councilmember Cohen stated he felt it might be helpful if an inventory was taken of the various types of obstacles in the City's rights -of -way. The City Manager stated a very detailed survey has already been completed of the site corners, and the Council will be receiving it soon. Councilmember Pedlar stated he has mixed emotions with regard to this amendment. He noted he would like to see the wording much clearer as it pertains to safety hazards. The City Manager explained one of the problems is that residents are placing rocks and other structures near curbs and creating a safety hazard for the snow plows. The Director of Public Works stated the recommendation is based on an attempt to deal with fairly severe safety concerns. He then went on to review the present process for ordering removal of hazardous objects. He noted staff would like to be able to address these issues without going through a lengthy court process. Councilmember Cohen stated he would like to have the City Attorney comment on the City's liability, if they did not rectify the problem. The City Attorney stated under State law the Commissioner of Transportation has the right to remove items along State roadways. He noted under Brooklyn Center ordinances, it is unlawful to place anything in the right -of -way. He stated if the City knew of a hazardous object and did not take steps to abate the hazard, the City would be placed in a position of being sued if someone were injured because of this hazardous object. Councilmember Cohen inquired what the administrative process would be for notifying residents. The City Manager stated staff would notify the resident of a violation and request removal of the object. He stated a reasonable period of time would be allowed for removal of the object and then a tag would be issued. He noted occasionally residents will pay the fine and still not remove the object. He noted this would give the City authority to remove the object. Councilmember Pedlar stated he would like to see additional terminology added to the ordinance regarding safety hazards. The City Attorney explained the wording is virtually identical to the State Statute at this time. Councilmember Cohen requested pictures or a map of the area so the Council has an idea of what will be accomplished. 2/12/90 -5- There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to approve for first reading 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 and setting a public hearing date of March 12, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances Relating to Trespass. He noted this ordinance is based on the Minneapolis ordinance and would allow the property owner or manager of retail property to restrict the perpetrator of a crime from returning to their place of business for a period of up to one year. He noted the ordinance could be used at Humboldt Square, Brookdale, or any retail or office area. He added there is a slight typo in paragraph b of the ordinance noting the word retail should be inserted instead of retain. The City Attorney explained while the ordinance amendment is based on a Minneapolis ordinance some changes have been made to allow the Police Department to expand the areas where this ordinance will apply. He noted they also added the form of notice which the Minneapolis ordinance did not have. The City Manager stated staff could provide a copy of the Minneapolis ordinance at the second reading. Councilmember Paulson inquired if subdivision 2a is a written or verbal order. The City Attorney explained this is a verbal, short -term order. Councilmember Scott stated the Minneapolis ordinance has proven very effective to both owners and the Police Department. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances Relating to Trespass and setting a public hearing for March 12, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES DECLARING CERTAIN ACTIVITIES AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE RELATING TO THE PARKING AND STORAGE OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS The City Manager stated the draft ordinance proposes restrictions on the parking and storage of vehicles and equipment in residential areas within the City. Councilmember Cohen stated he would think that if the City is trying to improve residential aesthetics, they made a step forward when prohibiting commercial vehicles in residential areas. He noted, however, storage of other vehicles or RVs on grass areas is a very emotional issue. He stated if the ordinance is designed to restrict the amount of junk being stored in the yard that is great, but he does not feel the City should try to ban RVs. He noted people have rights to storage but they should also consider their neighbors feelings and City aesthetics. The City Manager stated staff has prepared a slide presentation which should be reviewed and then decisions can be discussed. The Director of Public Works stated the ordinance would affect storage of most vehicles in front yard setbacks that abut public streets. He noted an article was published in the City Manager's Newsletter, and he did receive a number of calls from the public with concerns regarding this amendment. He stated he also received calls from property owners of corner lots who felt they would be more affected because they have two sides which actually face a street and do not 2/12/90 -6- really have a true rear yard. He noted this statement is true and the issue should be reviewed. He then went on to review a transparency of yard setbacks followed by the slide presentation. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the proposed ordinance amendment would prohibit storage of vehicles on vacant property. He added the Council may wish to consider some type of screening for side yard storage. A discussion then ensued regarding adjusting the fencing ordinance. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott directing staff to prepare an ordinance amendment regarding fencing for side yard storage for a first reading at the February 26, 1990, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. John Mandrich, 2818 64th Avenue North, who stated he feels his property value has been decreased because of the types of items his neighbor to the rear of his lot stores in his back yard. The City Manager stated staff would review this concern with regard to the present ordinance and will notify Mr. Mandrich. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to prepare An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances Declaring Certain Activities as a Public Nuisance Relating to the Parking and Storage of Vehicles and Equipment in Residential Areas for a first reading to be held on February 26, 1990. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. REPORT ON YARD WASTE DISPOSAL PROBLEM AND OTHER RECYCLING EFFORTS The City Manager explained currently the HRG is working with BFI, the City's recycling contractor, Hennepin County and the Plastic Institute in developing a Pilot plastic recycling project. He noted the purpose of this pilot project is to evaluate the feasibility and determine the actual costs and benefits of plastic recycling. He noted there would be a minimal cost to the HRG. Councilmember Scott inquired what type of response the current recycling program has received. The City Manager stated currently there is 53% to 55% participation. He noted it could be as high as 75% because people do not put out their green recycling container every week. He noted the pilot plastic recycling project would implement a bar code system which will allow the HRG to get a better count for participation. He noted if the City wants to increase its participation and recycling, other areas will have to be included such as recycling in apartments and retail areas. The City Manager stated the yard waste issue is becoming a difficult problem to deal with. He noted Hennepin County has not helped any by passing punitive resolutions. He stated other counties are able to operate compost sites without the problems which Hennepin County experienced. Councilmember Cohen inquired what is being done to educate the public on composting at their homes. The City Manager stated at this point, the HRG feels the process has to be neutral in 1990 to help the problem while educating the public. He noted there is also a 2/12/90 _7_ r credibility problem with convincing the residents to not bag their grass clippings. He noted the people telling residents the benefits of not bagging their grass clippings are also the same people who told residents that there yards would go dormant during the drought. STATUS OF 1990 BROOKLYN CENTER PRIORITIES The City Manager briefly reviewed the 1990 Brooklyn Center priorities listing. He stated if the Council agrees with this listing he would send it out to the Advisory Commissions for updating before the annual planning process. Mayor Nyquist stated he had some concerns regarding public facilities housing social services. The City Manager stated there was some concern that some of the organizations would not get used as widely if they were housed in a public building. The Mayor recommended creating a task force to look into this issue separately. There is a general consensus among Councilmembers to create a task force for reviewing the facilities for social service organizations. PROPOSED COST OF CHANGING POLICE HANDGUNS AND THE STUDY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS The City Manager noted the Gun Selection Committee has completed its assignment and has. recommended its number one choice for a weapon. He explained if the Council concurs with its recommendation, it could pass the resolution approving specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for delivery of 45 semi- automatic weapons. He then went on to review the recommendation for disposal of the current handguns. He added the resolution approving the specifications should be passed subject to the City Attorney's review of the specifications. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar accepting the recommendation of the Gun Selection Committee to purchase a nine millimeter caliber semi - automatic Smith and Wesson, model 6926. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO 90 -31 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption; RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF 45 SEMI - AUTOMATIC WEAPONS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Scott inquired if the Gun Selection Committee was aware of the problems the Minneapolis Police Department is having with the ammunition clips. The City Manager stated he believed the committee was aware of the problems, but he would check with them. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to accept the recommendation for disposal of the current handguns. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center 2/12/90 _8_ 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 FEBRUARY 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 Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Ron Batty, City Engineer Mark Maloney, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, Public Works Coordinator Diane Spector, and Administrative Aide Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Scott. RECESS TO EDA MEETING The City Council recessed at 7:06 p.m. and reconvened at 7:08 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Paulson requested items 7b and 7f be removed. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -32 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF ROBBINSDALE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TWIN LAKE /RYAN LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AS AUTHORIZED BY THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -33 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 86 -123 REGARDING THE SCHEDULE FOR PLANNING AND INSPECTION DEPARTMENT FEES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. y RESOLUTION NO 90 -34 2/26/90 _1_ t Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1970 DEBT SERVICE FUND TO THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1976 DEBT SERVICE FUND The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -35 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1969 DEBT SERVICE FUND TO THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1976 DEBT SERVICE FUND 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: BULK VENDOR K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Drive FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Ck. Pkwy Inn on the Farm 6155 Earle Brown Drive MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Hoffman Corner Heating & A/C 3595 Hoffman Road NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES American Vending Company P. 0. Box 511 Sears Automotive Brookdale Center K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Drive NSI /Griswold Corporation 8300 10th Ave. N. Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd. Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Drive Travelers North 6601 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Norcroftt, Inc. 8841 Jefferson Highway Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. Don Waletzko 8751 Dallas Lane Humboldt Square Cleaners 6824 Humboldt Ave. N. Woodside Enterprises 11889 65th Ave. N. Brooklyn Center City Hall 6301 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Brooklyn Center Police Department 6301 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR Centerbrook Golf Course 5500 North Lilac Drive PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES American Vending Company P. 0. Box 511 2/26/90 -2- Sears Automotive Brookdale Center NSI /Griswold Corporation 8300 10th Ave. N. Travelers North 6601 Shingle C g k. Pkwy. Norcroftt, Inc. 8841 Jefferson Highway Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. RENTAL DWELLINGS INITIAL: Dale Voltin Lyn River Apartments Richard Shurman 4204 Lakebreeze Ave. N. David & Carolyn Wagtskjold 6845 Willow Lane RENEWAL: Egons Podnieks Garden City Court Apts. Curtis Erickson Lake Shore Apts. Invespro V Limited Partnership Unicorn Apts. Howard & Harriet Oien 5801 Brooklyn Blvd. James & June Ullom 6300 France Ave. N. Beisner Limited 1531 Humboldt Place M & J Properties 1537 Humboldt Place M & J Properties 1543 Humboldt Place M & J Properties 1549 Humboldt Place M & J Properties 1555 Humboldt Place Sharon M. Fratzke 4201 Lakeside Ave. N. #208 Daniel & Nadia Graskow 4201 Lakeside Ave. N. #310 Dr. Akbar Sajady 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #131 Dr. Akbar Sajady 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #224 Dr. Akbar Sajady 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #326 E. Alan Knudson 5547 Lyndale Ave. N. David W. Zemke 6813 Noble Ave. N. Reuben & Diane Ristrom, Jr. 6821 Noble Ave. N. Robert Berglund 6835 Noble Ave. N. Wayne K. Pearson 6900 Toledo Ave. N. Dr. John Lescault 3507 62nd Ave. N. Lee Marwede 4700 -02 68th Ave. N. Kim McDonough 4703 68th Ave. N. SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT Best Products Co., Inc. 5925 Earle Brown Drive Children's Palace 5900 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. TAXICAB Town Taxi 2812 University Ave. SE The motion passed unanimously. PRESENTATIONS Mayor Nyquist noted there were two members present this evening who would be retiring from the Charter Commission. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -36 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 2/26/90 -3- RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF MARY HEITZIG The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -37 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF NEIL SMEATON The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist presented plaques to Mary Heitzig and Neil Smeaton for their service on the Charter Commission. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Replacement Bonds under the Municipal Housing Act (Earle Brown Commons Project) . He referred the Mayor and City Council to the letter of explanation from Holmes and Graven. RESOLUTION N0. 90 -38 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REPLACEMENT BONDS UNDER THE MINNESOTA HOUSING ACT (EARLE BROWN COMMONS PROJECT) 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. 1990 -08, 1990 Sealcoating Program, Approving Plans and Specifications Therefore and Ordering Advertisement for Bids. Councilmember Paulson stated he would like staff to explore other options to the tar and trap rock treatment. He stated he feels the present sealcoating process is creating problems for residents' vehicles. He noted he felt the streets are fine in their present condition. The City Manager explained the reason the streets are in such good condition is because of the sealcoating process which is currently being used. The Director of Public Works gave a brief explanation of the current process and noted all sealcoat options are basically the same. He noted the method which is currently being used is the least troublesome to property owners. He also noted the other options are not as effective as the current method. The City Manager stated if sealcoating is not done on a periodic basis, the City would be facing a major financial drain to replace the street system. RESOLUTION NO 90 -39 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 0 2/26/90 -4- RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -08, 1990 SEALCOATING PROGRAM, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREFORE AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1990 -09, Rehabilitation of Well No. 2, Accepting Proposals for Work and Approving Contracts Thereto. The City Manager explained it has been determined the electric motor for well No. 2 cannot be rebalanced and the hollow shaft is out of tolerance. He noted any work on the existing motor and head shaft would be neither practical nor guaranteed. He stated it is recommended to replace the existing motor and head shaft. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -40 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -09, REHABILITATION OF WELL NO. 2, ACCEPTING PROPOSALS FOR WORK AND APPROVING CONTRACTS THERETO The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Receiving Engineer's Report Regarding Improvement Project No. 1990 -10, Reconstruction of 69th Avenue North from Noble Avenue North to Shingle Creek Parkway, and Calling for Hearing Thereon. He noted the public hearing has tentatively been scheduled for March 26, 1990. The Director of Public Works stated this resolution would set the public hearing date for March 26, 1990, at 8 p.m. He stated the public hearing would be held at Constitution Hall. He added the City Council may wish to consider opening the City Council meeting in the Council Chambers and moving to Constitution Hall for the public hearing. Councilmember Cohen stated it sounds as though this would be a quite comprehensive public hearing and inquired if the Council should consider holding a special meeting for this item or limiting the items on the regular agenda. He noted he feels it is best to make this item the primary item for the evening. The City Manager stated he would instruct his staff to keep the agenda clear for that evening to allow as much time as possible for the public hearing. The Director of Public Works went on to briefly review the project and noted the problem area is segment 2. He then went on to review Alternates A, B, and C for the Council. Councilmember Pedlar inquired how many notices have been sent out regarding this improvement project. The Director of Public Works stated approximately 800 notices went out which covered over 700 homes. He noted if a home was not owner occupied, it was sent to both the owner and the occupant. He noted there were approximately 150 people at each meeting. Councilmember Paulson inquired approximately how many homes would be assessed for the project. The Director of Public Works stated it could be anywhere from 10 to 30 depending on which Alternate is chosen. Councilmember Paulson inquired if staff will be able to prove the properties benefited by the proposed assessment amount once the 2/26/90 -5- project is complete. The Director of Public Works responded affirmatively. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -41 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT REGARDING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 - 10, RECONSTRUCTION OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM NOBLE AVENUE NORTH TO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, AND CALLING FOR HEARING THEREON The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCES The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances Regarding g g General Licensing Regulations. The g g City Manager noted this amendment would ban the sale of cigarettes from vending machines. He noted this item was first read on January 29, 1990, published in the City's official newspaper on February 7, 1990, and is offered this evening for a second reading. He explained staff did include an option B ordinance which would allow for. the sale of cigarettes from vending machines if a remote device or token is available. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances Regarding General Licensing Regulations. Mayor Nyquist recognized Dr. Jeanne Forester from the School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota. She stated she supports the total ban of cigarette sales from vending machines. She cited two studies which have been completed which indicate it is fairly easy for teenagers to purchase cigarettes from vending machines. She noted the increased penalty for sale of cigarettes to minors affected the sale of over - the - counter sales to minors but did not affect the vending machine sales. She stated she would urge Brooklyn Center to join with the ten other communities to enact a total ban. She added she has no illusions this will halt teenage smoking, but it will make it more difficult. Mayor Nyquist inquired if Dr. Forester had any opinion or data regarding the electronic devices for vending machines. Dr. Forester noted there has been a law in effect for ten years in Utah pertaining to electronic devices on cigarette vending machines. She noted it has been found this law is not very effective because the devices are not always correctly hooked up. Dr. Forester then introduced Theresa Buckholz, age 15, who went to businesses in Brooklyn Center and purchased cigarettes. Ms. Buckholz presented to the Council a number of packages of cigarettes with the names and addresses of the businesses from which she purchased them. Councilmember Pedlar inquired if the cigarettes were sold over the counter or through a vending machine. Ms. Buckholz stated she purchased these cigarettes from vending machines, but in many cases she was directed to the vending machines by adults or employees of the business. Mayor Nyquist recognized Tom Briant, from the Coalition for Responsible Vending Sales. He noted he does not represent the tobacco industry or the manufacturers. He noted the total ban is not the only option available to the City of Brooklyn Center. He stated the electronic devices which are now being 2/26/90 -6- considered are very sophisticated, unlike the device used in Utah. He explained the device must be pushed each time for the sale of cigarettes. He stated the retro -fit ' tin g of the machines is uite q expensive, but the expense would be borne by the vending operator and not the business in which the machine is located. Councilmember Cohen inquired if the operators would accept a penalty if cigarettes were sold to a minor through their machine. Councilmember Cohen inquired what the proximity of the machine to the device would have to be to make this effective. Mr. Briant stated the machine would have to be in clear view and close proximity to the electronic device. Mayor Nyquist pointed out Ms. Buckholz was directed to the vending machines by employees of many of the businesses. Mr. Briant stated installation of the electronic devices would have to be supplemented by an educational process. He noted the employees would have to be informed they could be guilty of a gross misdemeanor if they sold cigarettes to minors. Councilmember Paulson inquired how long this device has been available. Mr. Briant stated the current device became available in the past few months since the White Bear Lake council banned cigarette vending machines. Councilmember Paulson stated it appears action was only taken after a ban was put into place in White Bear Lake. Mayor Nyquist stated he believes what Councilmember Paulson is trying to point out is that smoking has always been unhealthy for children and that the cigarette vending machine ban did not make smoking bad for children. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Ronald Reinking, 1707 69th Avenue North. Mr. Reinking stated he is Vice President of Vendor Supplies and Service. He noted his company rebuilds and repairs vending machines. He stated he has also developed a device that is effective. He stated he feels the electronic devices can reach the Council's goal. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Ms. Pat Milton, 7020 Perry Avenue North. Ms. Milton stated she is President of the PTA for Willow Lane elementary school, and she strongly encourages a total ban of cigarette vending machine sales. She noted children learn more by example than anything else. She stated currently they are hearing one message, yet seeing a double standard. Children know it is very easy to obtain cigarettes from vending machines. She noted the children have no voice at the State or National level and the local cities should work for them. She also added if the City Council were to elect to allow the electronic devices, it would be placing a burden on young adults who must make a decision as to whether or not they sell cigarettes to friends or obey the law. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Tom Kiscaden, manager of the LaCasita restaurant. Mr. Kiscaden stated the vending machines at LaCasita are within plain view of the hostess. He noted this is the most secure and efficient way to sell cigarettes to adults who have the right to buy them. Councilmember Pedlar inquired if the vending machine ban were approved, does Mr. Kiscaden see an impact on his business. Mr. Kiscaden responded affirmatively and stated he feels adults will go to establishments that will provide cigarettes. Councilmember Paulson asked how much money LaCasita makes from the sales of cigarettes through vending machines. Mr. Kiscaden stated he did not have any figures on that. Councilmember Paulson asked for a rough estimate. Mr. Kiscaden stated he would estimate approximately $200 a month is received from the cigarette vending machines. Mayor Nyquist pointed out when Ms. Buckholz presented the cigarettes to the Council, LaCasita restaurant was mentioned once 2/26/90 -7- or twice. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. David Johnson, Program Director for the Association of Nonsmokers of Minnesota. Mr. Johnson stated the selling of cigarettes to minors is a gross misdemeanor in the State of Minnesota. He noted as long as there are cigarette vending machines which are accessible, teenagers will buy cigarettes. He noted alcohol is less addictive, but no one is suggesting we sell that from vending machines. Mayor Nyquist recognized Karl Gaardsmoe, manager of the Ground Round restaurant. Mr. Gaardsmoe stated he supports the restriction of sales of cigarettes to minors, but he feels adults should still be able to purchase them in the establishments which they frequent. He noted he spends a considerable amount of time educating his employees regarding the sales of liquor to minors, and this can also be done for cigarettes. Councilmember Cohen stated he has heard many times this evening that machines help inventory control. He inquired if the cigarette vending machines could be moved behind the counter. Mr. Gaardsmoe stated in some cases that may be possible, but at his restaurant they would have to do remodeling in order to achieve this. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Mary Forstad, a Project Coordinator with Dr. Jeanne Forester. She noted studies have indicated vending machines are not the major source of sales for tobacco. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Gene Winstead, American Amusement Arcades. Mr. Winstead stated a device has been designed which makes it necessary for a cigarette buyer to come face -to -face with an employee within the business to finish a sale. He pointed out since the City of Brooklyn Center does license cigarette vending machines, they could revoke or deny a license if there were violations pertaining to the use of the locking device. Mr. Winstead stated awareness is the key issue to this problem and the industry is willing to get on board. He noted it is against the law to sell cigarettes to minors; however, it is not against the law for a minor to buy cigarettes. He stated he feels the City should use its licensing ordinance as the enforcement tool. Councilmember Paulson stated he has not heard anyone this evening state they feel the health of the children in Minnesota is important. Mr. Winstead noted he would disagree and stated everyone in the industry is in favor of prohibiting children from smoking. Mayor Nyquist recognized John Doherty, 6424 Orchard Avenue North. Mr. Doherty stated he is in favor of the total ban of cigarette vending machine sales. Mayor Nyquist then recognized a resident from 6801 Zenith Avenue North who stated he is also in favor of the total ban of cigarette vending machine sales. He stated he felt it was interesting the industry had no concern for teenage smoking until a total ban was issued. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to address the City Council. No one appeared to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar 2/26/90 -8- 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 Paulson 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 r 19 of the C" g P 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- first reading. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Height of Fences, Hedges or Walls and setting a public hearing date of April 9, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Amending the 1990 Pay Plan. He noted this would approve the addition of the EDA Assistant Coordinator. He explained the EDA budget was approved after the pay plan, and this resolution would recognize the action of the Council. Councilmember Paulson stated he feels there is a need for this position; however, he is not convinced of the salary that is being suggested. The Personnel Coordinator stated the position was placed at this grade level because of where it fell with comparable positions within the City, those being the City Clerk and Appraiser. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -42 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING 1990 PAY PLAN The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Authorizing a Change in Accounting Practice to Record the Full Liability in the General Fund for Vacation and Sick Leave of City Employees. The Finance Director stated this is a one -time adjustment, and it will not actually cost the City anything. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -43 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING PRACTICE TO RECORD THE FULL LIABILITY IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR VACATION AND SICK LEAVE OF CITY EMPLOYEES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT The City Manager stated it is recommended the public hearing regarding the Tax Increment District scheduled for this evening be tabled to the March 12, 1990, City Council meeting. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to table the public hearing on the Tax Increment District to March 12, 1990. The motion passed unanimously. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to appoint John Vogel to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission. The motion passed unanimously. 2/26/90 -11- RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Requesting Authority to Issue an On -sale Liquor License from the State of Minnesota for the Earle Brown Heritage Convention Center. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -44 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REQUESTING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE AN ON -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FOR THE EARLE BROWN HERITAGE CONVENTION CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS RECOMMENDATION FROM HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESOURCES COMMISSION TO CONTRIBUTE FUNDING TO PEACEMAKER CENTER The City Manager noted in December 1989, the City received a request from Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. for a $5,000 contribution. He noted since the 1990 budget had already been established, the request was forwarded to the Human Rights and Resources Commission for its review. He stated at its February 14, 1990, meeting, the Commission reviewed the request and recommended to the City Council it contribute $5,000 to Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc., if the funds are available. The Personnel Coordinator stated if the Council did approve the recommendation, a contract would be written between the Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. and the City of Brooklyn Center. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott approving the recommendation of the Human Rights and Resources Commission to contribute $5,000 to Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. and instructing staff to prepare an agreement between the two parties. The motion passed. Mayor Nyquist and Councilmember Pedlar abstained. LOCAL 49 CONTRACT AMENDMENT The City Manager noted this amended Labor Agreement will make the contract consistent with Chapter 17 of the City ordinanc, -s regarding personnel and also correct a few typos within the body of the contract. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to amend the 1990 -91 Local 49 Agreement regarding use of sick leave for probationary employees. The motion passed unanimously. STREET LIGHTING POLICY The Director of Public Works stated in the 1990 budget $140,000 is budgeted to pay electrical costs, while $3,000 is budgeted for maintenance of street lights. He then went on to review the current street lighting policy and noted it is directed primarily towards traffic safety. He noted another direction could be property security. He noted staff has contacted other metro area cities regarding its street lighting policies. He noted while some have a policy similar to Brooklyn Center's, others have established or are contemplating systematic installation programs. He stated the City of Maple Grove charges its 2/26/90 -12- residents, on its utility bills, a $5.40 per quarter street lighting fee. He stated the City of Robbinsdale is considering such a fee. Councilmember Cohen noted he originally made the inquiry regarding street lighting. He noted a resident had called him who had installed a security light in his alley. He noted the resident is now retired and inquired if the City would pay the cost of this security light. Councilmember Cohen inquired if security lighting is something the City wants to get involved with. The City Manager stated he has not received any comments or complaints recently regarding street lighting. Councilmember Pedlar inquired if Councilmember Cohen wished to bring this issue to the community. Councilmember Cohen stated in some respect he would like to get the residents' views on this issue. He stated he thought the crime watch programs may be a good way to reach the public. The City Manager stated a survey could be done of the crime watch programs. Mayor Nyquist pointed out if the City has not received any complaints recently, he was not sure we should stir the issue up. The City Manager stated he could ask the Police Department to review security lighting options which are available. Councilmember Paulson inquired regarding the lighting on the Xerxes Avenue bridge. The Director of Public Works stated at the time of Councilmember Paulson's inquiry, MNDOT had not yet installed the lights on I -694. He noted lighting has been installed on I -694, and there is lighting on the bridge deck which comes from the I -694 lights. He noted staff would recommend installation of more lights at the time of the trail completion across the bridge. DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PERSONS 65 YEARS OF AGE AND FOR PERSONS WHO ARE TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED The City Manager stated following the public hearings regarding alley paving projects, the Council requested the existing policy regarding deferment of special assessments be reviewed prior to the completion of special assessment hearings. The Director of Public Works went on to review Minnesota Statutes 435.193 through 435.195 which allows cities to defer special assessments under certain conditions and the cities existing policy. The City Manager pointed out there are very few cases within the alley paving projects which would qualify for the deferment. Councilmember Pedlar pointed out the Council indicated staff would research the deferment policy for young families just starting out. He stated he feels something should be done about a deferment for them. Mayor Nyquist pointed out the City cannot set a policy for anyone other than those that are specified within the State Statutes. ALTERNATE FUNDING SOURCES FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS The City Manager stated a report has been prepared by the Public Works Coordinator which identifies a number of alternative funding options for public works projects and programs which warrant consideration and discussion. The Director of Public Works went on to review options one A, one B, and one C. He referred the Mayor and City Councilmembers to the report prepared by the Public Works Coordinator. He went on to explain the three options for funding of new storm sewers and the maintenance of these. The Finance Director pointed out one of the real problems is the levy limitations. Councilmember Cohen agreed with the Finance Director and noted the State and Federal governments are also trying to find alternative funding sources. He noted levy limits on the general fund would mean everyone pays for something whether they benefit or not. The 2/26/90 -13- Director of Public Works pointed out there is a need to treat storm sewer runoff, and the question is not how but when. The Director of Public Works went on to review option one D, one E, and one F. The Council had no questions regarding these options. He then reviewed option one G and stated he would like to get the 69th Avenue improvement project well under control and then start taking more money for maintenance costs. He recommended reviewing the general funding options for the Council when the need arises. POTENTIAL APPOINTMENTS TO MNDOT- HIGHWAY 100 CITIZENS COMMITTEE The City Manager noted MNDOT has requested Brooklyn Center appoint two members to represent Brooklyn Center on the Citizens Advisory Committee for the upgrading of T.H. 100. A discussion then ensued regarding potential citizens for this appointment. Councilmember Pedlar stated Dick Digatano and Dale Greenwald both live in this area. He noted Mr. Greenwald also has a business. There was a general consensus among commission members that the Mayor would appoint two representatives to the Citizens Advisory Committee. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE The City Manager briefly reviewed the newest house bill which basically repeals the Tax Increment Financing. Councilmember Cohen went on to review the other bills in the House and Senate regarding Tax Increment Financing and recommended the Council pass a resolution opposing House File 1760 and Senate File 2209. ADEQUATE FUND BALANCE FORMULA CHANGE The City Manager noted that a formula was adopted in 1980 which reserved 25% of the total general fund for working capital. He explained collection of both property taxes on local government aid have been pushed back even further, and nothing is received from those sources until after July 1 of each year. It is recommended the formula be changed to increase the amount to 40 %. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen approving the adequate general fund balance policy formula as set forth in M &C No. 80 -31 and amended on February 26, 1990. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 11:15 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 2/26/90 -14- PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 22 - 28, 1990, AS BROOKLYN CENTER VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION WEEK WHEREAS, the hard work and commitment of volunteers have made our community a better place in which to live; and WHEREAS, volunteerism embodies a spirit of giving and spirit of growth; and WHEREAS, volunteers are a vital resource and have contributed to the health, education, welfare, recreation, culture, and environment of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, we wish to Celebrate Brooklyn Center Volunteers by thanking them for their selfless efforts and dedication. NOW, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State of Minnesota, do hereby proclaim the week of April 22 through April 28, 1990, as Brooklyn Center Volunteer Recognition Week. Date Mayor Seal Attest: Clerk CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/9/90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET DEPT. APPROVAL: Personnel Coordinator Signature - tide r MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: f, , No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached At its March 12, 1990, meeting, the Brooklyn Center city council authorized the staff to proceed with a transportation survey. The City is working with Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council • (NWHHSC) to develop and administer the survey. Before proceeding further, staff is recommending the transferral of funds from the contingency account to the city council account, professional services, to cover the cost of the survey. Approximately 500 interviews are expected to be completed. Of these, 200 will be completed by the human rights and resources commissioners and some volunteers. The balance will be completed by NWHHSC. The cost of the survey is outlined on the attached page. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Pass a Resolution Amending the 1990 General Fund Budget qc Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General Fund Budget and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 1990, the City Council authorized a residential survey regarding transportation to be conducted in cooperation with Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council (NWHHSC); and WHEREAS, the cost of the services rendered by NWHHSC to prepare, conduct, and compile the survey is $3,266. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the 1990 General Fund Budget is hereby amended as follows: Increase the Appropriation for the following line item Professional Services Unit No. 11, Account No. 4310 $3,266 Decrease the Appropriation for the following line item Unallocated Expenses Contingency Unit No. 80, Account No. 4995 $3,266 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. SUMMARY OF EXPENSES CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION SURVEY APRIL 1990 SERVICE EXPENSE Questionnaire design and pretesting $ 600 Interview schedule design and training 60 Sample administration design and drawing 308 Interviewing 300 surveys - NWHHSC 1,000 200 surveys - City of Brooklyn Center 0 Editing, code design, coding 473 Data entry 225 Computer analysis and report writing 600 TOTAL $3,266 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4 s 90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING VACATION LEAVE AND SICK LEAVE BENEFITS FOR THE EDA ASSISTANT COORDINATOR DEPT. APPROVAL: Personnel Coordinator Signature title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _) Following a competitive recruiting and interviewing process, Thomas Bublitz will be hired as the new EDA assistant coordinator. As some of you may recall, Tom was previously employed by the City first as the police administrative assistant and then as the personnel coordinator /deputy city clerk. In accruing vacation leave benefits, we wish to give Tom credit for the time he was previously employed by the City, which was approximately six and one -half years. As we have done with some other employees, we would like to give Tom a 96 hour block of sick leave which he can use in the first year of employment, but which he must earn before accumulating additional hours. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Pass a Resolution Approving Vacation Leave and Sick Leave Benefits for the EDA Assistant Coordinator Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING VACATION LEAVE AND SICK LEAVE BENEFITS FOR THE EDA ASSISTANT COORDINATOR WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to authorize certain vacation leave and sick leave benefits for the new EDA assistant coordinator. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Thomas R. Bublitz, as EDA assistant coordinator, is authorized to receive credit towards vacation leave accrual for the time he was previously employed by the City from January 12, 1979, through May 15, 1985. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Thomas R. Bublitz, as EDA assistant coordinator, is granted a 96 hour block of sick leave which can be used in the first year of employment, but which must be earned before additional hours accumulate. 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 4/99/90 Agenda Item Number % G REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION REGARDING TREE REMOVAL PROJECT NO. 1990 -13, CONTRACT 1990 -B *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAP DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached On March 12, 1990, the City Council approved specifications for the City's annual Diseased Tree Removal program. Two bids for that work were received on April 5, 1990. The low bidder was Ceres Tree Company of St. Paul, Minnesota. The company held the City's contract in 1985. A routine check of the company's recent performance could not be completed in time for inclusion in this packet. It is anticipated that a resolution relating to this project will be presented for Council consideration at its April 9 meeting. City Council Action Required A resolution will be presented for consideration at the April 9 meeting. • s CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Councii Meeting Date 4/9/90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR 1990 TREE REMOVAL PROJECT NO. 1990 -13, CONTRACT 1990 -B *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: 4F t Tr MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments e is to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation • On March 12, 1990, the City Council, by Resolution No. 90 -46 established the above project and ordered the advertisement for bids. Bids for construction of this improvement were received and opened on April 5, 1990. Following is a tabulation of the two bids received: Bidder Amount Ceres Tree Company $ 99,330.00 North Wood Tree Company $122,462.00 The low bid received is slightly higher than the Engineer's Estimate of $92,535.00. The Engineer's Estimate reflected last year's unit prices and did not anticipate the increased cost of dumping tree cuttings that contractors are faced with this year. The second bidder, North Wood Company, submitted a move order y in lieu of a bid bond, and has requested it be returned. If the low bidder does not enter into a contract with the City, staff would not recommend award to the second bidder. Therefore, staff does recommend compliance with North Wood's request of returning their money order. A memorandum from City Engineer Mark Maloney discusses references regarding the experience of the low bidder, Ceres Tree Company, and is attached for consideration. • Accordingly, we recommend that the bid of Ceres Tree Company be accepted and a • contract awarded to that firm. Council Action Requested Adoption of the attached resolution. • • CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY D O F �T i1� ® ®KLY1r BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 To . Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works From : Mark Maloney, City Engineer Date : April 9, 1990 Subj : 1990 Tree Removal Project I have contacted the following references with regards to the qualifications of Ceres Tree Company: ► Mr. Dave Devoto, City of Minneapolis He has worked with Ceres on City Contracts for the last 7 years and said that overall, Ceres does a good job. Mr. Devoto mentioned that 3 years ago the City was not satisfied with Ceres' stump removal and clean -up efforts, but did relate the problem to Ceres' subcontractor that year. Also mentioned was Ceres' lack of a suitable dump site in the past. The dump site should be identified in the pre - construction conference. Ceres continues to do work for the City of Minneapolis and Mr. Devoto doesn't currently have any problems with them. ► Mr. Jim Vaughan, City of St. Louis Park Ceres has held their contracts for the last three years, and again for 1990. It appears to Mr. Vaughan that Ceres has "plenty of equipment" and does a good job following up on complaints. Overall, he said that Ceres does a good job and is very easy to work with. Based on these references and that Ceres has previously worked in Brooklyn Center, I recommend award of the 1990 Tree Removal Contract (1990 -B) to Ceres Tree Company for the amount of $ 99,330.00. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR 1990 TREE REMOVAL PROJECT NO. 1990 -13, CONTRACT 1990 -B WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1990 -13, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 5th day of April, 1990. Said bids were as follows: Contractor Amount Ceres Tree Company $ 99,330.00 North Wood Company $122,462.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Ceres Tree Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder; and WHEREAS, the second bidder, North Wood Company, has requested the return of the money order submitted as a deposit with their bid. 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, in the amount of $99,330.00, with Ceres Tree Company, St. Paul, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1990 -13 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 the deppoit of the second bidder immediately. 3. With regard to "Section 15.00 - AWARD OF CONTRACT TO OTHER BIDDERS ", the City will waive the option of holding the proposals of all bidders for the purpose of awarding a secondary contract in the event the primary contractor fails to meet the requirements of the contract. RESOLUTION NO. 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 4i9 Agenda Item Number -/ V REQUEST FOR COIJN�IL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR REPLACEMENT OF POST LIGHTS IN FRONT OF CIVIC CENTER (1990 BUDGET 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 Proposals have been received for the furnishing and installation of 10 new • "post" lights to replace the existing lights behind the sidewalks which are adjacent to the driveway /drop -off area of the plaza in front of the Civic Center. The reason for this replacement is that the old lights are frequently out -of- service because of their poor design and because the old aluminum wire service lines fail frequently, causing high maintenance costs while providing unsatisfactory service. It is recommended that the low bid of Collins Electric Co. in the total amount of $7335 be accepted. It is noted that $7850 was included in the 1990 budget to cover this item. City Council Action Required Adoption of the attached resolution. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR REPLACEMENT OF POST LIGHTS IN FRONT OF CIVIC CENTER (1990 BUDGET ITEM) WHEREAS, the 1990 budget for the Government Buildings Division includes an appropriation of $7850 for the installation of new post lights in front of the Community Center; and WHEREAS, the City has received the following proposals to install said lights: Contractor Amount Collins Electric Co. $7335.00 Killmer Electric Co. Inc. $7900.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposal of Collins Electric Co. in the amount of $7335 is hereby accepted. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a contract with said firm in that amount for the completion of the work. 2. All costs therefore shall be charged to the Government Buildings Division 19 of the General Fund, Object No. 4520. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/9/90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1988 -18 - RECONSTRUCTION OF WEST RIVER ROAD FROM 66TH AVENUE NORTH TO 73RD AVENUE NORTH *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP 4RECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS #�r * * * *�r, * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: jC�✓`'> rtr! No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached In accordance with an agreement with the City, the Minnesota Department of • Transportation ( MNDOT) has agreed that if the City of Brooklyn Center improves West River Road (old T.H. 252) between 66th and 73rd Avenues North, MNDOT will reimburse the City for a portion of those costs. The original agreement anticipated MNDOT participation in the total amount of $500,000. Two discussion meetings regarding proposed improvements to West River Road were conducted with neighborhood residents to obtain their views regarding the type of improvements needed. Then, on August 28, 1989 the City Council conducted a public hearing regarding the proposed improvements, and then ordered the project to be constructed, authorizing the consulting firm of Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) to prepare construction plans and specifications for this work. Since the public hearing, this office has maintained communications with property owners along West River Road, to obtain their input regarding trail location, roadway design, landscape treatment, the undergrounding of power lines and CATV lines, etc. Most recently, all residents were invited to attend two "open- house" sessions to review final plans for the project. Seven persons attended those meetings and all appeared to be well- satisfied with the plans. And, 9 of 10 easements required for the construction have been obtained with full cooperation by the property owners. Plans and specifications have now been completed by SEH, and have been submitted to MNDOT for their approval, along with our request that MNDOT prepare a final agreement regarding cost - sharing on the project. It is anticipated that MNDOT's plan approval and cooperative agreement will be received approximately mid -May. Based on current discussions, it appears that ti MNDOT's total participation in project costs will be somewhat higher than • originally estimated - possibly about $600,000. Based on the currently - proposed plans and specifications, the estimated contract cost, including the proposed agreement with NSP to "underground" their power lines (see next item on agenda), and including landscape plantings (this will be handled as a separate construction contract), is $1,357.160. This compares to a preliminary estimate (July, 1989) of $1,146,654. Two major items caused this increase, i.e.: • the decision to reconstruct the reverse curve at the south end of the project - i.e. - the West River Road connection to 66th Avenue; and • increased costs for retaining wall and noise wall construction. Upon receipt of bids and the final agreement from MNDOT, a complete cost and funding summary will be submitted to the Council. City Council Action Required A resolution approving the plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids is submitted for consideration by the City Council. • • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1988 -18 - RECONSTRUCTION OF WEST RIVER ROAD FROM 66TH AVENUE NORTH TO 73RD AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 89 -166, adopted on August 28, 1989, Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Inc., consulting engineers, have prepared plans and specifications for the reconstruction of West River Road between 66th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North, Improvement Project 1988 -18. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Such plans and specifications are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper an advertisement for bids in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the City of Brooklyn Center for five percent of the total amount of such bid. 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 4/9/90 Agenda Item Number 9F REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY TO REMOVE OVERHEAD POWER LINES ON WEST RIVER ROAD BETWEEN 66TH AVENUE NORTH AND 73RD AVENUE NORTH, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1988 -18 *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAP DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ********************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: ic.,ar No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ® In conjunction with the West River Road improvement project we have negotiated a proposed agreement with NSP to remove the existing overhead power lines from West River Road and place new lines underground. As proposed, all existing poles and lines would be removed from within the West River Road right -of -way. A few new poles would need to be installed near the front property lines of adjacent properties which now receive their service from power lines located along their side yard lines. However, most of these will be screened by nearby trees. No property owners will be required to change their existing service lines, but a few have indicated they may wish to consider doing so (that is their option). Existing street lights will be replaced with new street lights mounted on fiberglass poles (similar to those used at the Centerbrook Golf Course), with underground service lines. NSP has proposed to do all this work with a reimbursement price of $56,500. It is our opinion that this is a very reasonable price, and we recommend acceptance of that proposal. • Note Other utilities which exist along West River Road, and our agreements with them, are summarized as follows: Utility Existing Conditions Proposed Agreement U. S. West Existing lines are buried Adjustments will be made by U.S. West without charge to the City King Video Existing lines are overhead, Overhead CATV lines will be (CATV) on NSP -owned poles removed, and new undergound lines will be installed without charge to the City Minnegasco Existing mains and services All relocations and readjust - in place, but many must be ments will be completed relocated to accommodate without charge to the City grade changes, etc. City Council Action Required Adoption of the attached resolution. 9 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY TO REMOVE OVERHEAD POWER LINES ON WEST RIVER ROAD BETWEEN 66TH AVENUE NORTH TO 73RD AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that the existing electric power lines on West River Road, between 66th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North, should be removed and be replaced with underground lines in conjunction with the proposed reconstruction of West River Road - Improvement Project No. 1988 -18; and WHEREAS, the Northern States Power Company has proposed to do said work at a cost of $56,500. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to enter into agreement with the Northern States Power Company to complete said work at a cost of $56,500. 2. The costs for this work shall be charged to the Municipal State Aid Street Fund, Account No. 2600. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/9/90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) 11,000 GVW CAB /CHASSIS, DUMP BODY, HYDRAULICS AND PLOW DEPT. APPROVAL: O n no—i Administrative Aide Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: k 'f t 6 ✓ No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached An appropriation was approved in the 1990 Parks Maintenance budget for the purchase of a dump • truck with plow. Two sets of quotes were taken for this vehicle. One set was for the 11,000 GVW cab /chassis and the second set for the dump body, hydraulics and plow. The total cost of the vehicle will exceed the appropriation by $880. The Superintendent of Public Works has informed me that there is a surplus in another capital outlay account which will cover this additional cost. I recommend approval of the attached resolution. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 9 RESOLUTION NO. / RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) 11,000 CVW CAB /CHASSIS DUMP BODY HYDRAULICS AND PLOW WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1990 Parks Maintenance budget for the purchase of a dump truck with plow; and WHEREAS, quotations for the cab /chassis were received as follows: COMPANY QUOTE Boyer Ford Trucks $12,759 WHEREAS, quotations for the dump body, hydraulics and plow were received as follows: COMPANY QUOTE Crysteel $11,621 WHEREAS, $23,500 was originally appropriated for this purchase; and WHEREAS, the total cost of the cab /chassis with dump body, hydraulics and plow exceeds the appropriation by $880; and WHEREAS, after the purchase of benches, waste receptacles, and a sign post driver from Account No. 01- 4552 - 419 -69, there is a surplus of $970. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1. The purchase of one 11,000 GVW cab /chassis from Boyer Ford Trucks in the amount of $12,759 is hereby approved. 2. The purchase of dump body, hydraulics and plow from Crysteel in the amount of $11,621 is hereby approved. 3. $880 be transferred from Account No. 01- 4552 - 419 -69 to Account No. 01- 4553- 419 -69. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 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 9, 1990, City Council meeting is hereby declared surplus and P property is hereb authorized for public sale Y P at the annual City auction to y be held on April 28 1990. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an OKI Discovery switch phone system and all attachments is also declared surplus property, and the City Manager is hereby directed to dispose of said property. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly g g y 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. Case # Description - - -- -------------------------------------------------- 86 -01000 ORANGE 20' BIKE 101 87 -02420 SLIVER BMX 102 87 -05111 RED RALEIGH /10 SPEED 103 10 87 -13004 DIAMOND BACK BMX BIKE S= F4030293 104 87-13041 SILVER BMX 105 _88 -09189 FRONT WHEEL 106 88 -09217 SILVER BMX 107 88 -11875 BLACK BMX 108 88 -16657 SILVER BMX 109 88 -16671 RED FUJI BOYS /10 SPEED 110 89 -01383 RED MURRAY BOYS /20" 111 89 -05526 BLACK MURRAY BUYS /S =M08- 009878 112 89 -06595 CREAM HUFFY 10 SPEED /S= 11A026253 113 RED COLUMBIA 10 SPEED /S =1 160 0902 114 89 -06605 BLACK 10 SPEED /26" - 115 89 -06791 RED HUFFY 10 SPEED /S =80759 HUFFY 26805 116 89 -06996 BROWN NISHIKI 10 SPEED /S= 6101948 117 89 -07269 GREEN FREE SPIRIT 10 SPEED /S =502 474140N 153533 118 89 -07834 BLUE AMF 10 SPEED /S =PO 140122 119 89 -08032 YELLOW FREE SPIRIT 10 SPEED /S= 63802909 120 89 -08091 BLUE MAGNA /S= 7TC61483 121 89 -08653 BLACK BMX 122 89 -09203 GREEN COLUMBIA FOR TWO /S= TM10193 123 89 -09205 BLACK MURRAY 10 SPEED /S= M05006474 124 89 -09405 RED /BLACK HUFFY /S =HC 7808324 125 89 -09760 WHITE HUFFY /S =HC 1316527 126 89 -09838 BLACK /WHITE HUFFY 12 SPEEO/S= C8052526925 127 89 -09952 RED SCHWINN 10 SPEED /S= 6063197 128 0 8 9 -09962 BLUE /GREY HARD DIRT STYLE /S =H 87110205 129 9 -10045 RED RANDOR 10 SPEED /S =LY 8307050043 130 89 -10408 WHITE 10 SPEED /S =A 851216378 131 89 -10426 RED HEDSTROM /TODDLERS BIKE 132 89 -10532 YELLOW MENARDS BMX/S= F5011134 133 89 -10695 CHROME HUFFY ? /S= HCOG17119 134 89 -10993 KENT GIRLS /26" 135 89 -11199 BLACK ROSS 10 SPEED /S= 0479565 108 136 89 -11252 MAROON MURRAY 10 SPEED /S= 7020034627 OR C26470 -38 137 89 -11677 BLUE SEKAI 10 SPEED /S =Y 79- 0101047 138 89 -11907 GREEN WARDS 10 SPEED /S =81450 139 89 -12096 WHITE HUFFY BMX /S= 80436HUFFYK 3686 140 89 -12098 RED SCHWINN 10 SPEED /S= H0522121 141 89 -12186 BLUE FREE SPIRIT 10 SPEED 142 89 -12190 WHITE /GREY HUFFY 12 SPEED /S =HC 672121 143 89 -12212 PURPLE AMF 144 89 -12224 SILVER MIYATA 10 SPEED /S= NE71816 145 89 -12231 RED HUFFY DIRT BIKE /S= HC6051621 146 89 -12233 BLACK /WHITE BMX 147 89 -12680 SILVER MOUNTAIN BIKE/S =MO1009472/D1457836 148 PINK TURBO BMX /S= 71D15108 149 89 -13087 BLUE FREE SPIRITS= 502479961 150 89 -13101 RED SCHWINN 10 SPEED 151 89 -13185 GREEN SCHWINN /S= FF76047 152 89 -13320 YELLOW HUFFY /S= HP6258200 153 Case # Description 89 -13333 SILVER FREE SPIRIT 154 89 -13409 RED RANDOR 10 SPEED 155 89 -13567 BLUE HUFFY 10 SPEED /S= HPG187132 156 10 9 -13722 YELLOW OXFORD 10 SPEED /S= KO006347 157 9-13816 158 89 -14227 PINK /GREY HUFFY 10 SPEED /S =HC 1633702 159 89 -14339 BLUE COLUMBIA 10 SPEED /S "2 083 00:8 160 89 -14398 BROWN PILOT 10 SPEED /S =T 169140 161 89 -14500 BROWN HUFFY 3 SPEED /S= HC1323416 162 89 -14721 RED /BLACK /WHITE MURRAY BMX /S_ 804 281 763 163 89 -14726 BLACK /GREY MAGNA BMX /S= 8iK130161 164 89 -14750 RED /WHITE /BLUE SEARS 10 SPEE0/`; =b02--- 45595622E26 165 89 -15079 WHITE HUFFY BMX /S =HC 59n9188 166 89 -15225 LAVENDAR /WHITE MURRAY BMX 167 89 -15247 CHROME MURRAY BOYS /S =P b22o /ob 168 89 -15304 PINK MURRAY 3 SPEED /S =P 1782610 169 89 -15308 BLUE GALAXY BOYS /S =M7122067 170 89 -15380 BLACK HUFFY BOYS/S= HC5769973 171 89 -15490 PURPLE HUFFY 12 SPEED/S-81168 HUFFY 36998 172 RED HUFFY BOYS /S =82817HUFFY 23307 173 RED FIRENZE 15 SPEED /S = =P 504 001109 174 89 -15749 BLACK HUFFY 10 SPEED /S =HC 4115528 175 89 -16085 BLUE FREE SPIRIT 10 SPEEO/S= 50247183OK1521226 176 89 -16110 BLUE HUFFY 15 SPEED /S =HC 6704180 177 89 -16336 RED SOUEVEIGN 10 SPEED /S= 718- 473511 80500755 178 89 -16362 RUSTED ROADMASTER 3 SPEED 179 89 -16443 SILVER HUFFY 10 SPEED /S= C70758 C 2686 180 89 -16492 GREY GALAXY 10 SPEED /MOUNTAIN 181 4110 16516 BROWN HUFFY /S= HC0406758 182 16517 BLUE MURRAY 10 SPEED /S =C- 03027586 183 89 -16812 BRN /TAN HUFFY 10 SPEED /S= HC3674757 184 89 -16876 RED WESKIKI 10 SPEED 185 89 -16957 BLACK SCHWINN 10 SPEED /S =EQ 502427 186 89 -17083 ORANGE ROADMASTER BOYS/S= C86120679 187 89 -17261 MAROON MURRAY 10 SPEED/M036474 4IJ3297938 188 89 -17645 SILVER MIYATA 12 SPEED /S= 177109 189 89 -17781 PINK MURRAY 10 SPEED /S= P1514S57 190 89 -17894 BLUE KIA 10 SPEED /S =A 62J8669 191 89 -18098 RED VENTURA 12 SPEED /S=HC4878109 192 89 -18101 BROWN ESQUIRE 10 SPEED /S= P070321 193 89- 18102 BLUE ROSS GIRLS /S =R 72075395 194 89 -18108 BLUE SCHWINN 10 SPEED /S= 985D ? ?? 195 89 -18540 WHITE /PINK HUFFY GIRLS /S =HC6667384 196 89 -18587 WHITE MURRAY BOYS 197 89 -18653 WHITE /RED /BLUE HUFFY /S= C72703 H025 198 89 -18662 BLUE HUFFY GIRLS /S =HC 1830496 199 SILVER HUFFY BMX /S =HC 4853937 334 89 -18772 BLUE SCHWINN BMX/S= 4314833 335 89 -18813 WHITE KIA 10 SPEED /S= KC131201 336 GREY ROADMASTER 10 SPEED /S= JC076774 337 89 -19059 PURPLE HUFFY GIRLS /S =HC 6049434 338 89 -19229 YELLOW KIA GIRLS /S= A5007539 339 89 -19426 YELLOW HOLIDAY GIRLS /S =HC 0068410 340 0 Case 4 Description 89 -19713 BLUE MURRAY BO'(S/S= MO3005434 341 89 -20335 BLUE RANDOR BMX /S= C704©o58 342 0 9 9 -20655 YELLOW SCliWINN 10 SPEED/S=JH 78,29z 343 —20765 BLUE BMX 344 —22971 SILVER 10 SPEE0/S =HC93176b5 345 88 -09189 Free Spirit 20" 346 89 -07991 GREY HUFFY BMX 347 89 -13972 GREY 10 SPEED /S =4 037 3336 348 89 -14054 BROWN JC PENNEY BLUE /S =HC 5909665 349 89 -15094 WHITE HUFFY 10 SPEED /S =HC 2118064 350 89 -18976 RED /WHITE SCHWINN 10 SPEED /S= CO364004 351 89 -21855 GREEN K -MART 3 SPEED 352 AUCTION LIST FOR APRIL 1990 AUCTION # ITEMS CASE # 201 Buck knife in sheath 79 -02282 202 Bowling ball w /bag 81 -03190 203 Rabbit fur coat 84 -18612 204 Seiko quarts clock /5 pens 85 -01806 205 Am /Fm Walkman w /headphones, 3 tapes 85 -09946 206 Casio watch quarts watch (men's) 85 -13404 207 Radio Tool kit w /flashlight 85 -13441 208 2 rolls of electrical tape 85 -14403 209 Clarion Am /Fm car stereo 85 -14403 210 4 children's sweaters /tops 85 -15050 211 Craftsman 6" lock blade knife 86 -06597 212 5mm pellet gun w /case 86 -11334 213 2 men's sweaters 86 -15852 214 Sony auto Am /Fm CD player 86 -19549 215 Glenfield .22 cal rifle w /case 87 -04265 216 Sears penske timing light auto 87 -05663 analyzer 217 HQ VHS video recorder 87 -05663 218 Black case w/26 cassette tapes 87 -05663 219 12 gauge Western field shotgun w /case 87 -14083 220 Bianchi leather pistol holder 87 -14083 221 Fishing rod and real 87 -14766 222 Sergio Velente quarts watch (men's) 87 -16751 223 Alpine Am /Fm car stereo 87 -17873 224 Coustic Am /Fm car stereo 87 -17873 225 Alpine Am /Fm car stereo 87 -17873 226 Alpine Am /Fm car stereo 87 -17873 227 Alpine power booster 87 -17873 228 Alpine Am /Fm car stereo 87 -17873 229 6 vehicle hood ornaments 87 -20172 230 Pair of Boss stone washed jeans 88 -00091 231 Black leather wallet 88 -00574 232 Timex quarts watch (men's) 88 -00574 233 Timex quarts watch (men's) 88 -00574 234 Pair star fish pierced earrings 88 -01098 235 Faber /Castell drafting set 88 -01098 236 Polaroid one step land camera w /film 88 -01098 237 Polaroid one step land camera w /flash 88 -01098 bar 238 Kessler 16 ga bolt shotgun 11=223 FR 88 -11450 239 Cassette tape, jacket pin (eagle) 88 -02083 240 MA pocket stereo w /headphones 88 -02568 241 2 rings /engagement Sc wedding in case 88 -08085 242 Casio pocket color television 88 -09174 Auction List Page 2 243 Tree brand folding knife 88 -10126 244 Buck 6" lock blade knife 88 -12673 245 Calculator 88 -13300 246 Kershaw lock blade knife 88 -16316 247 Remington micro screen elec shaver 88 -17508 248 Kodak tele disc camera 88 -17508 249 2 Sony video cassette tapes 88 -17508 250 Franzus travel lite steam iron 88 -17508 251 Christian Dior sweater 88 -17508 252 3 pair of socks 88 -17633 253 Casio quick dialer calculator 88 -17819 254 White gold wedding band 88 -17819 255 Casio quick dialer calculator 88 -17819 256 Casio quick dialer calculator 88 -17819 257 Red Wing boots, size 9 1/2 D 88 -18140 258 1 quart Total motor oil 88 -18140 259 Black leather jacket 88 -18432 260 12 men's wallets 88 -18594 261 Magnetic money clip, mini flashlight 88 -18594 262 Several types of hood ornaments 88 -18594 263 Women's blue handbag 88 -22879 264 3 leg works pantyhose 88 -22879 265 Women's black cloth handbag 88 -22879 266 1 pair lace gloves 88 -22879 267 Bag misc costume jewelry 88 -22879 268 Brown cassette tape case 89 -02675 269 Hydraulic jack w /handle 89 -03053 270 Single handle tub faucet 89 -03146 89 -03100 271 Fan /light dimmer switch control 89- 03146 89 -03100 272 1 pair men's size 10 roller skates 89 -03436 273 Rambo knife 89 -07001 274 Cassette tape 89 -07001 275 Toshiba Am /Fm audio cassette recorder 89 -07489 276 Toshiba VCR 14 =M2100 89 -07489 277 Emerson VCR if= VCP661 89 -07489 278 Samsung HT 13" color tv 89 -07489 279 RCA color trac 13" color tv 39 -07489 280 GE 13" -olor tv 89 -07489 281 RCA color trac 19" color tv 89 -07489 Auction List Page 3 282 Craftsman push lawn mower 3.5 HP 89 -07597 13= 131921330 283 Pioneer M= KE4010 GR cassette player 89 -13385 284 TDK black cassette case 89 -13855 285 13 misc cassette tapes 89 -13855 -286 6S secjct c1culle .' (se- e—list L_- _ --__ -) -28� i5:7 Nintendo game eetrtridej— 89 ±4296 .( s first LEer ti ='_a_ ) 288 Senco nail gun 89 -14645 289 Black & Decker drill 89 -14645 290 Set J/B gauges 89 -14645 291 1 torch tip 89 -14645 292 CM hoist 89 -14645 293 Pair Pioneer auto speakers M =TSX6 89 -15228 294 Sears M35 auto focus camera 89 -15963 295 Stanley multi code garage door opener 89 -15963 296 2 Unic RV- 69TR40 car stereo speaker 89 -15963 297 Gold neck chain 89 -16024 298 Kraco equalizer #903805 89 -16098 299 JVC car cassette #09496355 89 -16098 300 JVC car cassette #11340169 89 -16098 301 In dash stereo /brand unknown 89 -16098 302 Realistic car cassette #52606461 89 -16098 303 2 Surveyor speaker covers 89 -16098 304 Braun rechargeable shaver 89 -17866 305 Norelco 7/0 RL razor 89 -17866 306 Bushnell binoculars 89 -17866 307 Norelco replacement heads 89 -17866 308 Norelco lift & cut replacement '.heads 89 -17866 309 Key chain 89 -17866 310 Key light 89 -17866 311 Fog free windshield wipers 89 -17866 312 1 #8 golf club iron /Northwestern 89 -18556 313 Braun automatic coffee grinder 89 -18665 314 2 Braun multi product hand blender 89 -18665 315 7 Micro machines 89 -18665 316 Package Playtex infant nipples 89 -18665 317 Package Playtex disposable tottles 89 -18665 318 Union boy denim jeans /size 3 89 -18665 • 329 2 Utica King size flat sheets 89 -18665 320 2 Utica Queen fitted sheets 89- 18665 321 Epissage shower massager 89 -18665 Auction List Page 4 322 Conair geometric styler 89 -18665 323 2 Spring Maid king fitted sheets 89 -18665 324 Package pillow cases 89 -18665 325 1 Vidal Sasoon 89 -18665 326 1 Windmere waving iron 89 -18665 327 1 pair Thinsulate gloves /turquoise 89 -18665 328 2 L.A.C.A. watch & video game 89 -19657 329 Silver necklace 89 -19657 330 Gold necklace 89 -19657 331 Silver ring w /white stone 89 -19657 332 Silver ring w /blue stone 89 -19657 333 1 pair Colt 45 revolver grips Unknown 346* Pioneer M= KPA250 Am /Fm cassette 87 -20123 353 ** Super Team Games,Pac- Man,Golf 89 -14236 Gradus,Anticipation 354 The Adventure of Link,Platoon, Simons Quest,Tecmo Bowl,Blaster Master 355 Joust,Gyruss,Star Soldier,Karate Champ Robo Warrior 356 Jeopardy,Robo Warrior,1943 Battle of Midway,Gotcha,Ikari Warriors 357 Double Dribble,Jeopardy,Contra Ikari Warriors,Major League Baseball 358 Gotcha,Wheel of Fortune,Life Force Defender II,Xenophobe 359 Magmax,Defender II,Life Force, Star Soldier,Friday the 13th 360 Metal Gear,Double Dribble,Blade of Steel Galage,Millipede 361 Metal Gear,Ikari Warriors,Contra Millipede,Anticipation 362 Quarterback,Defender,Life Force T &C Surf Designs,Xenophobe 363 Super Team Games,Joust,othello Road Warrior,Gyruss 364 Ikari Warriors,Pac- Man,Contra, Major League Basebali,Robo Warrior 365 Millipede,Super Team Games,Anticipation T &C Surf Designs,Ikari Warriors 366 Star Soldier,T &C Surf Designs,Xenophobe Life Force,Defender II * Out of sequence ** 353 beginning of Nintendo /packets of 5 Auction List Page 5 367 Gyruss,T &C Surf Designs,Road Warrior Joust,Mac -max 368 Gotcha,Contra,T &C Surf Designs Simons Quest,Xenophobe 369 Star Soldier,T &C Surf Designs,Pac -Man Wizard & Warriors,Super Team Gmaes 370 Gotcha,Pac- Man,Ikari Warriors 1943 Battle of 1- fidway,i9izards & Warriors 371 Galaga,Super Team Games,Anticipaction Millipede,Metal Gear 372 Star Soldier,Joust,Skate or Die,Gyruss Karate Champ 373 Bases Loaded,Section Z,Jackal Wizards & Warriors,Hogans Alley 374 Othello,Joust,Gyruss,Star Soldier Mac -max 375 Ikari Warriors,Othello,Gyruss,liac -Man Contra 376 Mac- man,Othello,Gyruss, Road Warrior Pac -man 377 Gyruss,Contra,Road Warrior,Mac -max Adventures of Link 378 Star Soldier,Gun Smoke,Othello,Mac -max Friday the 13th 379 Mac- man,Star Soldier,Gun Smoke, Friday the 13th,Othello 380 1943 Battle of Midway,Joust,Jackal Karate Champ,Ikari Warriors 381 Joust,Mac- max,Friday the 13th,Gyruss Othello 382 Gyruss,Life Force,Star Soldier Mac -man, Road Warrior 383 Mac- max,Super Team Games,Contra Gyruss,Road Warrior 384 ** Contra,Major League Baseball Ikari Warriors /Only 3 in package 385 * ** Rescue Mission,After Burner 89 -14236 Rambo part II,Thunder Blade,Rocky 386 Shinobi,Spy vs Spy,Great Basketball Thunder B1ade,Rampage 387 Buck belt,Rambo part II,Thunder Blade After Burner,Resuce 1 1fission 388 Cyborg Hunter,Alien Syndrome Rescue cfission,Shinobi,Gangster Town '* 384 end of Nintendo /packets of 5 * ** 385 beginning of Sega /packets of 5 Auction List Page 6 389 Shinobi,Thunder B1ade,After Burner Rambo part II,Rescue Mission 390 Wonder Boy,Alien Syndrome,Reggie Jackson Baseball,Cyborg Hunter,Chop Lifter 391 Rambo III,Chop Lifter,Great Basketball Thunder B1ade,After Burner 392 Black Belt,Thunder B1ade,After Burner Chop Lifter,Rescue Mission 393 Lord of the Sword,After Burner Marksman Shooting,Rambo part II,Out Run 394 R- Type,Black Belt,Monopoly,Thunder Blade Spy vs Spy 395 Double Dragon,Rocky,Great Football Ghost Busters,Shinobi 396 R- Type,Monopoly,Thunder B1ade,After Burner Ghost Busters 397 Rampage,Spy vs Spy,Rambo III,Great Basketball,Thunder Blade 398 * ** Spy vs Spy /one only * ** 398 ending of Sega /packets of 5 NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION FIXED ASSET NO. Glass Shelving 4 Boston Lead Pointer Abrasive Refill (2) 452 3M Background Music Cartridges (3) 453 Vertical Organizer - desktop 454 Simplicy Snow Blower 0133 -ser. 455 Weedeater - gas 60915098 456 Weedeater - gas 226 457 Weedeater - gas 227 458 Steel Fence Caging - 20' x 20' x 6 459 Centrifugal Pump & Motor - vertical mount 7.5hp 460 Centrifugal Pump & Motor - vertical mount 7.5hp 461 Pump - 1750 R.P.M., 230V - 450 G.P.M 462 Pump - 1750 R.P.M., 230V - 450 G.P.M. 463 Electric Motor - Fairbanks Morse - 20hp 464 Electric Motor - Fairbanks Morse - 20hp 465 Electroc Motor - Fairbanks Morse - 20hp 466 Electroc Motor - U.S. Brand - 75hp 467 Centrifugal Pump & Motor - 1 1/2" 468 Centrifugal Pump & Motor - 1 1/2" 469 Centrifugal Pump 470 Postage Scale 471 Polaroid 420 Camera FA306 472 Hunt /Boston Pencil Sharpener 473 IBM Typewriter elements (6) 474 Doro 311 Telephone Answering System FA2153 • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/9/90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: ALL AMERICA CITY APPLICATION PROCESS *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title ************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The Chamber of Commerce and other civic organizations are sponsoring another try at the All America City award for Brooklyn Center. During the last application process, Brooklyn Center authorized an expenditure of up to $1,000 to assist the committee in preparing the preliminary application for this award. If we are successful in making it into the list of finalists, additional expenses will be incurred. During the last application process in 1985, community organizations and business sponsorships covered a great deal of the final presentation costs. The 1990 All America City Committee is requesting the City Council authorize $1,000 for the initial application in the same manner they did for the 1985 application. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends favorable consideration of the attached resolution transferring $1,000 from Contingency to the City Manager's Contractual Services Account for the purpose of deferring expenses for the application process for the All America City award for Brooklyn Center. i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General Fund Budget and further provides g p vides that the contingency appropriation may be transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the 1990 All America City Committee has requested the City Council to authorize an expenditure of $1,000 for the initial application process; and WHEREAS, the City Council does agree that an expenditure of $1,000 for the 1990 All America City application is appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend the 1990 General Fund Budget as follows: Increase the Appropriations for the following line items 01- 4310 - 039 -13 - Professional Services $1,000 Decrease the Appropriations for the following line items 01- 4995 - 440 -80 - Contingency $1,000 Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA MARCH 15, 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 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, and Planner Gary Shallcross. It was noted that Commissioner Johnson had stated that he would be unable to attend and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 1 1990 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the March 1, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion was passed. APPLICATION NO. 90002 (DAVID ROOP) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for special use permit approval to operate a custom woodworking home occupation involving a non - resident employee in the basement of the dwelling and in a portion of the detached garage at 7219 Grimes Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90002 attached). The Secretary also expressed concern about noise coming from the dust collection system and the possibility of the hours going as late as 10:00 p.m. with power equipment operating. The Secretary also pointed out that commercial vehicles over 21 feet in length, over 8 feet in height or over 9,000 pound gross vehicle weight are not permitted to be parked or stored in residential areas under the City's Nuisance Ordinance. He stated that the applicant should clarify what size vehi cle(s) he will have in association with the home occupation. The Secretary stated that condition number 2 regarding compliance with applicable codes ordinances and regulations pP ordinances, and would ertain to noise light fight glare, etc. that may affect surrounding n in properties. g p p rties. The Secretary suggested a ninth condition relating to the parking of vehicles, that it would not include vehicles prohibited by section 19 - 101 of the Nuisance Ordinance. He concluded by stating that the Planning Commission's action should be based on a finding that the home occupation is in 3 -15 -90 1 keeping with the City's ordinance regarding home occupations and would not have an adverse affect on surrounding properties. Commissioner Sander asked whether there was a ratio in the ordinance limiting the area to be used for a home occupation in either a home or a garage. The Secretary answered that there was no ratio except the language in the definition of a home occupation limiting home occupations to being incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises. He stated that there are a variety of home occupations in the city and that it would be impossible to set an absolute limit on the amount of square footage devoted to a given home occupation. He stated that there are differences in how often a home occupation is conducted and what level of annoyance would be associated with any given home occupation. Commissioner Sander asked whether a garage can be as big as the house. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, but added that the maximum area of any one accessory building is 1,000 square feet and no accessory building can exceed the ground coverage of the principal building. Commissioner Bernards asked what standards would be applied by the state and also whether O.S.H.A. standards would be required. The Secretary answered that he assumed O.S.H.A. standards would have to be met. He added that he did not think that the state would check on an operation as small as this. Commissioner Holmes noted the possibility of storage of lacquers of varnishes and asked whether businesses with paints and such materials are subject to any special regulations. The Planner answered that the Fire Department controls such businesses and would do a yearly inspection on the storage of materials and also on the dust collection system. Commissioner Holmes asked whether there would be a special garbage pick up for this home occupation. The Secretary responded that he did not think so or at least that there should not be. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Roop responded that, regarding windows being open, he would install an air conditioning system in the garage so that it would be unnecessary to open windows for ventilation purposes. He added that there would be no commercial vehicles besides a standard sized pick up truck. As far as the dust collection system, he stated that it is a vacuum system that generates about as much noise as a typical furnace. He concluded by stating that O.S.H.A. requirements only apply when there are a certain number of employees and that his operation would not have that many. Chairperson Malecki inquired as to the license required by the state. Mr. Roop responded that it was not a license as such, but 3 -15 -90 2 a registration in order to have a tax number. Commissioner Bernards asked whether storage of materials and equipment would be conducted wholly in an enclosed building. Mr. Roop responded in the affirmative. Chairperson Malecki asked how the materials would be delivered to the site. Mr. Roop answered that he would pick up material himself a o and bring it to his residence. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki regarding the use of varnish, Mr. Roop stated that he preferred to do jobs that did not require finishing. The Secretary asked Mr. Roop what kinds of equipment would be present in the home occupation. Mr. Roop and his son, Paul, answered that there would be a table saw, laner, band nd saw, and possibly a sander. The Secretary asked how large a band saw it would be. Paul Roop answered that it would be a 20" saw. Commissioner Bernards asked Mr. Roop whether he had talked to his neighbors about the home occupation. Mr. Roop responded in the affirmative and stated that they do not have any problem with the proposed operation. Chairperson Malecki stated that she thought that 10:00 p.m. was kind of late to be running this power equipment. Mr. Roop stated that he would be willing to limit the home occupation to 9:30 p.m. if that was desired. Commissioner Mann expressed concern about the possibility of electrical disturbance from the use of power equipment affecting neighboring properties. Mr. Roop answered that it should not be a problem as long as 220 current is used in the garage. He added that he would be willing to take care of any problem associated with electrical disturbance. Chairperson Malecki asked whether there would be a special garbage pick up. Mr. Roop responded in the negative, stating hat he would ld 7 ' ust use the normal garbage arba e pick up. The Secretary pointed out that the City Council is considering an ordinance amendment regarding vehicle arkin and storage of P g g material outside. He stated that he would suggest an additional condition that all storage e g be within an enclosed building. Mr. Roop stated that he would have no problem with that. PUBLIC HEARING (APPLICATION NO 90002) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and noted that there was no one else present beside the applicant. 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. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Holmes stated that his main concern with the home occupation was the possible noise emissions and the safety issue of 3 -15 -90 3 r J children getting in and getting hurt by the equipment. Commissioner Bernards pointed out that if Mr. Roop sought to do the home occupation on a full time basis that he would have to come back for an amendment to the special use permit. Mr. Roop pointed out that, if he wanted to go into the business full time when he retired, he would probably find a building somewhere else and not do it at home. There followed a brief discussion with the applicant regarding noise and hours of operation. Mr. Roop's son, Paul stated that they did not like noise either and would want to minimize it as much as possible. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90002 (DAVID ROOPI Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 90002, subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is granted only for a woodworking shop in the basement of the dwelling and in the back of the detached garage as indicated in the applicant's proposal. The home occupation may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The home occupation is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. Special use permit approval acknowledges employment on the premises of one (1) nonresident employee. 4. The hours of operation shall be from 6:00 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. 5. The addition to the garage shall be a separate room and shall be insulated and sheetrocked. Double glass windows shall also be installed. Windows shall be closed during the use of power equipment to minimize noise emanating to adjacent properties. 6. A dust collection system shall be installed in the garage room. The Fire Department shall inspect the installation of the dust collection system and shall inspect the operation on at least an annual basis. 7. A 20 lb. fire extinguisher shall be installed in the work areas as required by the Fire Chief. 8. Any customer parking associated with the home occupation shall be off - street on improved space provided by the 3 -15 -90 4 applicant. 9. The home occupation shall not involve the arkin P g or storage of vehicles and equipment prohibited in residential zones under section 19 -101 of the nuisance ordinance. 10. All storage of materials or equipment associated with the home occupation shall be within an enclosed building. 11. No radio frequency interference to neighboring properties caused by the home occupation shall be permitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary noted that Mr. Donn Wiski was not present yet and encouraged the commission to wait awhile to see if he would arrive. The Planner noted that staff have put on the Planning Commission's March 29th agenda some items relating to Fina Oil and Chemical and the Atkins property at 66th and West River. The Secretary explained some aspects of the plan submitted to date. Commissioner Mann asked whether the roadway construction north of 66th had commenced. The Secretary answered that it had not as yet, but that it should begin this construction season. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the roadway re- alignment would depend on approval of the Fina plans. The Secretary answered in the negative and pointed out that a re- alignment of West River Road north of 66th was a separate project pursued as a result of a separate traffic study. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Mr. Donn Wiski arrived at 8:19 p.m. before most of the Commissioners had left. PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENES The Planning Commission reconvened under Chairperson Molly Malecki at 8:20 p.m. without Commissioner Bernards. DISCUSSION ITEM - GROUP HOME STUDY The Secretary then introduced for the Planning Commission the subject of the group home study done by Donn Wiski of Resolution Inc. He statedthat the staff needs direction from the Commission on how to amend the zoning ordinance. He referred again the Commission's attention and Mr. Wiski's attention to the article in the Zoning and Planning Law Report about the Fair Housing Act which affects the regulation of group homes. 3 -15 -90 5 Mr. Donn Wiski stated that the city could adopt a new definition of community based residential facilities and then decide what districts to allow them in. Under the heading of new definitions, Mr. Wiski stated that definitions could be based on occupancy types, being family and group occupancies. In turn group occupancies could be broken down into affiliated, unaffiliated, and institutional. He added that there should be new definitions of dwelling unit and living unit. He stated that beyond adopting new definitions, the commission may wish to recommend approval of a new institutional residential district, establish group occupancy conditions for permitted uses, and assign various residential uses to the various zoning districts. He recommended that 16 to 20 clients be an upper limit on group residential occupancies and that over 16 to 20 clients be assigned to an institutional residential district or a commercial district. Mr. Wiski then reviewed with the Commission a table from the study that set up various screenings of proposed group occupancies of unrelated individuals. The first screen was length of occupancy. The second screen was the level of support provided to the clients. And the third and fourth screens were affiliation and size. The Secretary stated that, using the scheme outlined by Mr. Wiski, the Bill Kelly house with 23 clients would have to go into an institutional district. Mr. Wiski responded in the affirmative and went through the various screens that would apply to that use. The Secretary stated that there may be some reasons to exceed a limit of 16, but that over 20 clients begins to a put facility into a non - family category. Mr. Wiski stated that there were higher costs under the safety codes for group occupancies over 20 persons. The Secretary stated that he felt that the special use permit process was not getting the City anywhere. He stated that the City cannot prove a property value impact or safety concerns regarding facilities for the mentally ill. He noted that a study on the impact on property values of residential facilities had shown no appreciable impact. The Secretary stated that the next step for the Commission was to fashion an ordinance outlining definitions for family and group occupancies and putting those occupancies into various districts with various restrictions. He stated that 17 to 20 clients probably would not raise many concerns. In response to a question by Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary explained that the group home staff would be in addition to the number of clients allowed at a facility. Mr. Wiski stated that there would usually be about 4 staff persons for a group home that involved 16 to 20 clients. He stated that there should probably be standard conditions applying to all permitted group homes. He added that the state has changed terms for residential facilities over the years and that the city's language should not be tied to state's language since state language changes over time. He stated that it was important to set 3 -15 -90 6 local definitions that would encompass state programs. Mr. Wiski stated that the City could adopt a provision requiring that a group home be licensed by the state and noted that Golden Valley has such a provision. Regarding spacing requirements, Mr. Wiski stated that, if a group occupancy is family like, there was no need for a spacing requirement. He stated that the state has required spacing in recent legislation and that the reason for this was that putting group occupancies together begins to develop an institutional environment. He stated that it was important for the city to allow equal access but not.overconcentration of group home facilities. Regarding whether to make group homes a permitted or special use, Mr. Wiski stated that the important thing was to have conditions relating to the use whether it was permitted or special. He stated that, whether a group home was part of a permitted or special use permit process, the community's level of consciousness has not been raised by the hearings. Mr. Wiski recommended that the City adopt a provision to allow group homes with perhaps up to 20 clients to be a permitted use in multi- family residential zoning districts with certain conditions. The Secretary stated that he did not feel the special use permit process solves anything. He stated that most of the concerns of the public are not zoning concerns which is what the commission is there to review. He noted that there were concerns about density, but mainly who is let into the facility, how many staff, what problems the people have, etcetera. He stated that these are questions related to the licensing of the facility by the state, yet the City was the one which had to address these questions through the special use permit process. He wondered aloud whether there was some way to make the licensing authority answer these questions by putting the onus back on the state to hold a public hearing. He stated that there was nothing that the city could do about these concerns. Commissioner Ainas noted that the city has required daycare facilities to be licensed in order to be permitted uses. He suggested doing the same sort of thing here. The Secretary agreed and noted the Golden Valley provision which requires a state license for a group residential facility. The Secretary stated that he did feel that all group facilities were family -like, but that some had become institutional by their size. Mr. Wiski stated that the licensing requirement is to help assure a quality of care. He stated that the quality of care is not really a zoning issue, but that quality of care is helped by local provisions requiring state licensing. Mr. Wiski pointed out that the last bill passed by the legislature regarding group homes took the special use permit option away from cities for facilities below a certain size. He also noted that neighborhood commercial zones became eligible 3 -15 -90 7 r for prisons. He suggested that the city set up a zone for that sort of use. He commented that suburbs want to be a safe environment, yet they are prevented from being exclusionary. The Secretary pointed out that overconcentration is defined under state law as over one half of one percent of a community's residents being lodged in residential facilities. He stated that in Brooklyn Center that this would amount to about 150 beds. He suggested perhaps including overconcentration and a spacing provision in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Wiski pointed out that it is difficult to have a not -to- exceed ordinance. He stated that such an ordinance would be on shaky legal grounds. He stated that an overconcentration policy should be a guide for land allocation put forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Regarding spacing, Mr. Wiski stated that, if the city allows family -like occupancies in multi- family districts, he thinks a spacing requirement will stand up for larger occupancies. The Secretary noted the problems with over concentration in the central cities and stated that Brooklyn Center would like to avoid such an overconcentration. Mr. Wiski noted that the facilities in the central city are located in large rooming houses concentrated in Minneapolis. He stated that the concentration of such facilities has actually changed the nature of a neighborhood. The Secretary pointed out that, as facilities are dispersed, there is an economic concern to provide housing for mentally ill and mentally retarded adults as economically as possible. He stated that Brooklyn Center has a lot of affordable multi- family buildings and that it was possible ror an over concentration to occur in Brooklyn Center unless there were some safeguards. He stated that first suburbs are concerned regarding the concept of taking their fair share of group homes, similar to the fair share for low income housing. He stated that these facilities are not being dispersed in accordance with stated policy. Mr. Wiski stated that there was a need for a transition for these facilities and that spacing is a part of that transition. Commissioner Ainas stated that, no matter how the City plans for these facilities, the neighbors will not accept them. He stated that it was important that the City show that they had done all that they can. Mr. Wiski stated that unpleasant things can be accepted if it is shown that the process was fair. He stated that one of the concerns with the Bill Kelly House was the information being provided by the applicant which lead to fears on the part of the neighborhood. Commissioner Ainas noted that he voted in favor of the Bill Kelly House and that he got a number of calls from the people in the neighborhood. He noted that one neighbor threatened to call the police every night in an effort to prove that there was a problem with the group home. Mr. Wiski acknowledged that all people fear change. 3 -15 -90 8 Commissioner Mann stated that she felt that the City needs a separate zone for larger facilities. Commissioner Ainas stated that he did not feel that state law would allow such a distinction. The Secretary pointed out that state law only requires local governments to allow up to 16 clients as a permitted use in multi - family districts. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt that larger group homes cannot be put into industrial zones just to get rid of them. Mr. Wiski stated that the state allows 6 or fewer clients in a single - family home and 7 to 16 in multi - family zones. He noted that the only conditions that can apply to group homes in multi - family zones are conditions to protect the residents, not the neighborhood. He stated that community based residential facilities can be accepted in commercial or industrial zones. The Secretary noted that an institutional zone could be established for larger facilities, including hospitals and facilities like Maranatha Nursing Home with over 20 clients. He stated that it might be necessary to rezone the Maranatha Nursing Home to an institutional zoning district. Mr. Wiski asked the commission how it felt about that scenario. Commissioner Ainas stated that he would go along with an institutional zone if it is legal. But he pointed out, that the trend to de- institutionalization was precisely to put group home residents in residential areas. The Secretary concluded that the facility would have to be small enough to qualify for a multi - family zone. Commissioner Mann asked Mr. Wiski whether he felt the number of clients in a group home would tend to increase over time. Mr. Wiski responded in the negative. He stated that the trend in the industry is downward. He stated that program providers would push for larger facilities for economic reasons, but that there was generally a better program by reducing size. He stated that this will lead to a budget crunch down the road. In response to a uestion from Chairperson q rson Malecki the Secretary Y stated that the city may want to rezone the Maranatha Nursing Home, but that it was unnecessary to rezone vacant land at this time. He stated that the city could respond to a proposal for an institutional use. He stated the proposal would be to rezone a large apartment building and that the city would have to deal with that at that time. Mr. Wiski added that the city could simply leave the Maranatha Nursing Home as a non - conforming use and exclude it from the R1 zone. Chairperson Malecki noted that the Maranatha Nursing Home is in a residential area. The Secretary acknowledged this and stated that the City would have to look at school buildings in the future which may be vacated and reused for some non - residential purpose. He noted that schools are special uses in the Rl zone and that they tend to be located in residential neighborhoods. He stated that some schools would no longer be needed and that the reuse of the buildings would probably be either commercial or institutional of some kind. 3 -15 -90 9 i Mr. Wiski asked the Commission where they would put an institutional district. Chairperson Malecki stated that she could not think of a place for it off hand. The Secretary stated that the Commission would have to make recommendations to the City Council regarding changes and definitions regarding an institutional district, spacing, etc. The Commission first discussed the number of clients and their respective zoning districts. Chairperson Malecki asked what would be allowed in the R1 zone. The Secretary responded that 6 or fewer clients would be allowed in the R1 zone and that 7 or more would be allowed in the R3 zone or above. Chairperson Malecki asked the Commission whether they agreed with the limit of 20 clients in a multi - family zone. The Commission responded in the affirmative. She also asked whether the City should adopt an institutional zone. The Commission again responded in the affirmative. The Planner noted that the study recommended a 3 to 10 acre size for an institutional zone and that presently the City regulates nursing homes on the basis of 50 beds per acre. He pointed out that the minimum size acknowledged in an institutional zone would, therefore, be 150 beds. He asked what the City would do with a facility of 24 beds. Mr. Wiski stated that such a facility could be located in a commercial zoning district and that larger facilities would be allowed in the institutional zones. The Secretary asked the commission about the special use permit issue. Commissioner Mann recommended getting away from public hearings. Chairperson Malecki agreed and stated that there was nothing to be gained by them. The Planner noted that the Planning Commission and Council would still have public hearings with a rezoning request to an institutional district or a commercial district for larger facilities. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, Mr. Wiski stated that a moderate size facility would probably have be located in a commercial zone. The Planner stated that he was concerned about rezoning a neighborhood parcel to commercial to accommodate a moderate size facility. Mr. Wiski responded that if neighborhood parcels were zoned multi- family the limit would just have to be 20 clients in that zone. Chairperson Malecki noted the proposal to limit the institutional zone to 3 to 10 acre parcels. The Planner commented that Maranatha was probably between 2 and 3 acres. He asked how the City would relate such a facility to the institutional zone being proposed. The Secretary stated that it would be necessary to fine tune the ordinance as the city dealt with each proposal on a case by case basis. There followed a general discussion of possible locations, buffers, and transition areas. 3 -15 -90 10 Chairperson Malecki asked the Commission if they favored requiring facilities to be licensed. The Commission responded in the affirmative. There followed a brief discussion of the definition of "family ". The Secretary raised that the study recommends allowing 6 non - related persons maintaining a common household to be considered a family. The Planner noted the possibility for parking concerns which would not generally be the case with 6 clients being cared for by staff. The Secretary explained that the City does require off street parking and that this would be an indirect way of controlling parking in residential zones. Mr. Wiski recommended not allowing unaffiliated groups in the single - family zone. He stated that unrelated individuals must maintain a common household. In response to a question from Commissioner Sander, the Secretary stated that the staff would bring back an ordinance amendment regarding spacing, special use permits, etc., but he was not sure when staff could produce this. Commissioner Mann inquired as t qu o the issue of dispersing facilities p g between the various neighborhoods. The Secretary recommended that such dispersal al be a policy p p lacy contained in the Comprehensive Plan as opposed to an ordinance requirement. The Secretary added that the Commission may want to put a separation requirement in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Wiski stated that it was difficult to sort out density from occupancy in the zoning ordinance. The Secretary commented that there are space requirements for occupancy in the City's Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Chairman 3 -15 -90 11 I Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90002 Applicant: David Roop Location: 7219 Grimes Avenue North Request: Special Occupation q Use Permit Home Occu P / P The applicant requests special use permit approval to conduct a custom woodworking home occupation in an enlarged garage at 7219 Grimes Avenue North. The existing 24' x 24' garage would be expanded in depth by 17.5' for a total depth of 41.5' with the additional garage area and part of the basement in the dwelling being used for the home occupation. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north, west and south by single- family homes, and on the east by Grimes Avenue North. There are single - family homes across Grimes. The proposed home occupation is a special home occupation because it involves activity in the garage. It is also a special home occupation because it would involve part -time employment at the premises of the applicant's son, who is a nonresident. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he explains the nature and scope of the proposed home occupation. He notes that the home occupation would utilize the 17.5' x 24' (420 sq. ft.) garage addition and a 13' x 27' (351 sq. ft.) area in the basement of the dwelling. He states that the garage area will be insulated, sheetrocked, and supplied with double glass windows to eliminate noise from the operation. Mr. Roop states that the woodworking operation is a secondary job for himself and his son and that hours of operation would be 6:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. 2 to 3 evenings per week and 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Mr. Roop points out that the driveway, at 10' x 90 is large enough to accommodate him and his son and an occasional customer. Mr. Roop also states that his son who lives at 5025 Drew Avenue North will be the only other employee in the business. He adds that he will devote more time to the business after he retires from his principal job in 3 - 6 years. As to safety measures, Mr. Roop states that normal safety measures will be applied (he does not elaborate). In addition, an internal dust collection system will be installed in the garage. No dust will be exhausted from the garage. Mr. Roop notes that a 2.5 sq. ft. sign will be placed in the yard (a sign permit is required for such signage). Finally, Mr. Roop indicates that the business is licensed with the state as a father /son partnership under the name "Roop's Custom Woodworking ". The Commission is referred to sections 35 -900 (definitions) and 35- 406 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to special home occupations. Special home occupations are to be "clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the Dwelling Unit, the accessory structures, and the Lot upon which it is constructed...". The proposed home occupation is fairly extensive in terms of total 3 -15 -90 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90002 square footage devoted to it (771 sq. ft. total in the dwellin g and the garage). Nevertheless, in terms of floor area, it is a secondary use of both the garage (420 sq. ft. of 996 sq. ft.) and of the dwelling (351 sq. ft. of a dwelling with a ground coverage of 1558 sq. ft.) . Two concerns, in addition to the area devoted to the home occupation, are the possibilities for noise disturbance and general safety concerns. The applicant proposes to insulate, sheetrock, and use double glass windows in the garage addition. This should mitigate noise significantly, but the g g re may Y be a desire in the summer months to open p windows to the garage (the workshop will be in a separate room, not open to the overhead door). Noise could thus become a regular irritation for neighbors unless the work area is closed off during use of power equipment. This concern should be discussed with the applicant and during the public hearing. The dust collection systems should enhance the safety of the operation. However, an appropriate sized fire extinguisher should also be provided in areas used for the home occupation. A yearly inspection by the Fire Department to monitor compliance with the Fire Code should also be required. The hours of operation are not excessive as proposed, but could expand greatly when Mr. Roop retires from his primary job in 3 to 6 ears. The Commission may y wish to restrict hours to evening hours now and re- evaluate the home occupation when Mr. Roop retires. In general, we feel that the home occupation should be free to operate any weekday evening rather than restricting the Roops to certain evenings at this time. Altogether, it appears that the proposed home occupation would operate within the limitations of the Zoning Ordinance. Approval should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is granted only for a woodworking shop in the basement of the dwelling and in the back of the detached garage as indicated in the applicant's ro osa p p 1. The home occupation may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The home occupation is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. Special use permit approval acknowledges employment on the premises of one (1) nonresident employee. 4. The hours of operation shall be from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. 3 -15 -90 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90002 5. The addition to the garage shall be a separate room and shall be insulated and sheetrocked. Double glass windows shall also be installed. Windows shall be closed during the use of power equipment to minimize noise emanating to adjacent properties. 6. A dust collection system shall be a installed in the garage room. The Fire Department shall inspect the installation of the dust collection system and shall inspect the operation on at least an annual basis. 7. A 20 lb. fire extinguisher shall be installed in the work areas as required by the Fire Chief. 8. Any customer parking associated with the home occupation shall be off - street on improved space provided by the applicant. 3 -15 -90 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA MARCH 29, 1990 REGULAR SESSION CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann, and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. It was noted that Commissioner Johnson was out of town and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 15 1990 Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the March 15, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 0 APPLICATION NOS 90003 AND 90004 (E AND H Properties) and APPLICATION NO 89012 (Fina Oil and Chemical Company) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first three items of business: a request by E and H Properties to rezone from R5 to C2 and C1 the land at the southwest quadrant of 66th Avenue North and Willow Lane; a request for preliminary plat approval to resubdivide the four parcels of land south of 66th Avenue North and east of Highway 252 owned by E and H Properties into two parcels, one adjacent to the Highway 252 frontage road and one adjacent to Willow Lane; and a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a service station/ convenience store /car wash at the southeast corner of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 90003, 90004 and 89012 attached). During his review of the rezoning application, the Secretary noted that the applicant's architect has submitted a concept plan for an office development on the easterly parcel. He also reviewed with the Commission the recommended alternative from the Short-Elliott- Hendrickson Land Use Study. The Secretary stated that the City is trying to obtain control of the frontage road right -of -way adjacent to Highway 252, but that staff are not sure how long it will take for that process to be completed. Regarding the site plan application, the Secretary recommended adding a delineator north of the row of parking immediately west of the car wash exit lane. He 3 -29 -90 -1- also recommended adding more landscaping in the area where the driveway turns into the proposed C1 site in order to block headlights from shining into the residential area to the east. The Secretary also stated that staff had received comments from the City Engineer regarding drainage and utilities and that those comments would be passed on to the applicant. The Secretary reviewed a number of transparencies of site plans, building elevations, a retrofit plan, screening elevations, etc. during his review of the three applications. The Secretary finally recommended an additional condition regarding a cross access easement between the proposed service station site and the vacant parcel to the east. Commissioner Sander pointed out that there were a number of things on the plans that do not meet City requirements. She asked whether the applicant didn't have time to correct the plans. The Planner reviewed the process of plan submittal with Commissioner Sander. He noted that there had been a meeting with the applicant about a week and a half previous and that revised plans had been prepared by Friday of the previous week. He explained that a report had been written and distributed to the Commission and that there was not time between the time the report was written and the meeting to revise plans again. The Secretary added that, if the applicant does not agree to revise the plans in accordance with the recommended conditions, the Commission certainly does not have to approve the plans. Commissioner Sander then brought up some questions regarding the car wash. She noted that there is a car wash in Brooklyn Park that is not allowed to operate between 10:00 p.m. and & 7:00 a.m. She noted that the noise really comes when the doors are opened during the drying process. The Secretary answered that there are State standards for noise levels adjacent to residential areas. He added that the Sanitarian is presently checking on a noise complaint regarding another car wash in the community and that corrective action may have to be taken. Commissioner Sander recommended restricting the hours. Commissioner Sander also noted that the driving lane between the two rows of parking at the north end of the site appears to be inadequate. The Planner acknowledged that this was insufficient at present, but that, if the northerly stall were replaced with a traffic delineator that was flared properly, there should be a 24' driving lane as a result. Commissioner Sander also asked what the time element would be for vacating the frontage road by MN /DOT. The Secretary answered that the City has no firm commitment from MN /DOT to complete the turn back of the right -of -way. He noted that the City does maintain the road and has made the request formally to the State to turn back the right -of -way. Commissioner Sander asked, if the frontage road were vacated, could the station be shifted more to the north and west, perhaps allowing for more pumps, etc. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He noted that another concern with the vacation of the frontage road was the 3 -29 -90 -2- 0 i access to the Brookdale Motel. He stated that the City has not approached the owner of the Brookdale Motel because it does not have any land yet to negotiate over. He stated, however, that the owner of the motel had been to public meetings about the land use study of this area and had indicated an interest in the vacation of the frontage road. Commissioner Holmes tried to visualize how the service station would function. He expressed some concern regarding the likelihood of u turns in 66th and Willow Lane and the likelihood of traffic moving onto residential streets. He stated that he preferred the scenario contained in the Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Land Use Study with the roadway and landscape buffer. The Secretary acknowledged that, with the plan proposed by the applicant, there may be some traffic that will mistakenly go up West River Road rather than exiting out onto Highway 252. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the grade at the exit drive slopes to the east. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicants whether they had anything to add. Mr. Howard Atkins, the owner of the property in question, stated that it had been a year since he first submitted plans for the rezoning and development of the service station. He stated that he and Fina and the City had listened to the concerns of the neighborhood during that time. He stated that he felt that the plans addressed those concerns and that delay would not serve any purpose at this point. Chairperson Malecki asked whether Fina agreed to revise the plans in accordance with Condition No. 15 of the staff report. Mr. Pat Wilcox, an attorney for Fina, then addressed the Commission. He stated that he recognized that there had been neighborhood opposition to the proposed service station. He pointed out that the process has basically run its course, that the City Council accepted the recommendations of the Land Use Study, ended the moratorium, and chose not to downzone Mr. Atkins property. Mr. Wilcox stated that the site of the proposed Fina station was in a difficult situation with a highway on the west and residences to the east. With regard to the special use standards, Mr. Wilcox stated that gas and other products sold by Fina are demanded by the public and that there is a benefit to the general public who come to the service station. He also pointed out that an aerial photograph of this area in 1965 showed that there were four gas stations at this intersection at that time. He stated that some development will go on to the parcel, that it will not remain vacant forever. He stated that the plan proposed is a viable compromise between the interests of Fina and those of the neighborhood. Regarding the Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Land Use Study, Mr. Wilcox stated that he was pessimistic about the timing of the turnback of 3 -29 -90 -3- the frontage road right -of -way. He cited an example of a similar turnback in another city which he represents that has taken over two years. He added that, when MN /DOT does dispose of the land, it may not simply give the land to the City, but may charge a high price for it. If it does, he went on, the City will have no money to turn around and buy and for the roadway and the buffer. He Y Y added that the Brookdale Motel may not even go along with the vacation of the right-of-way in front of its property. He concluded, therefore, that there was no way f knowing when or if, Y g the City would get control of the land and the money to finance the roadway and buffer. Mr. Wilcox went on to point out that the City Council did not extend the moratorium on development in this area and thereby indicated an acceptance of some development going forward. He stated that it was not fair to ask Fina to wait further to exercise its option on the land. Regarding the issue of screening, Mr. Wilcox stated that Fina would work with staff to provide an adequate screening treatment along the east side of the property. Regarding traffic, Mr. Wilcox stated that the SEH study has not concluded that the proposed development will cause major problems in the public streets. He added that any development will generate some traffic on the public streets. Mr. Wilcox concluded by thanking the Planning Commission and the neighbors for their patience in pursuing the process of the Land Use Study and review of the applications. He asked for action on the proposal at this evening's meeting. Mr. Sam McGee, an architect for Fina, then addressed the Commission. He stated that there were a few items still unresolved between the staff and Fina regarding the development plans. He stated that generally, Fina has no problem with the conditions of approval. He added, however, that there would be a problem with subparts d and e and possibly f of Condition No. 15. Regarding subpart d, Mr. McGee stated that he felt that a wood fence would be an adequate screen and easier to maintain than masonry. He expressed a willingness to add additional plantings on the east side of the fence. Regarding subpart a (a requirement for an 8' wide sidewalk on the north and west sides of the building) , Mr. McGee stated that he was willing to commit to a 6' wide sidewalk, but that it was necessary to maintain driving lanes for the gas pumps on the remainder of the land between the sidewalk and the greenstrip. He stated that Fina does not market many goods from the sidewalk in front of the building and that a 6' wide sidewalk would be more than adequate to provide room for pedestrians. Regarding subpart f (requiring a change in the lighting plan for less light intensity), Mr. McGee stated that there were errors in the lighting plan and g g p that he felt that the limit of 10 foot candles at the property line could be met by relocating the lights rather than b reducing the wattages es of the fixtures. g g 3 -29 -90 -4- Commissioner Sander asked whether the car wash would come with a dryer. Mr. McGee responded in the affirmative, noting that there are two types of dryers. Commissioner Sander asked Mr. McGee if Fina was willing to limit the hours of operation of the car wash. Mr. McGee answered that, if Fina was able to comply with the noise limits, then it should be able to operate its car wash 24 hours a day. Commissioner Sander stated that the noise from the car wash results when the doors open and shut. She stated that she felt a condition should be added to restrict the hours of operation. Mr. McGee answered that he could not commit for Fina an agreement with such a condition. Commissioner Sander stated that she felt that putting the gas station into this location without the roadway and berm would make the properties on the east side of Willow Lane worth less. Mr. McGee answered that he felt the landscape treatment along the east side of the property would mitigate the effects of the service station on those residences. Commissioner Sander stated that the screening would not really help. Mr. McGee disagreed and stated that the fence and proposed landscaping would mitigate both the visual and noise affects of the proposed service station. Commissioner Sander acknowledged that the corner would be developed in some way, but stated that there was a need for the berm and landscaping proposed in the Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Land Use Study. Mr. McGee pointed out the proposed C1 zoning of the parcel to the east which could result ultimately in a buffer development. Commissioner Sander stated that the office development would not help the houses on the river. She stated that the roadway and buffer would be the best treatment. Mr. McGee pointed out that the design of the service station does not foreclose that possibility. Chairperson Malecki asked Mr. McGee about the requirement for a masonry trash enclosure. Mr. McGee stated that he had no problem with that. Chairperson Malecki pointed out the fact that the proposed sign exceeds that which is allowed by the Sign Ordinance. Mr. McGee answered that Fina would modify its standard sign to live within the Sign Ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos 90003 90004 and 89012 Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing on the rezoning, the plat and the special use permit for the service station. She asked whether anyone present wished to comment regarding the proposals. Mr. Philip Dahlen, of 6518 Willow Lane, stated that it was his understanding that zoning is not to be changed unless there was an error made in the original zoning or unless conditions change. He stated that he felt neither was the case. He told the Commission that he hoped the matter would go to the City Council with a negative recommendation. Mr. Dahlen pointed out the concern of people that walk to the bus stop and the danger that the traffic from the service station would pose to pedestrians in the area. He also expressed concern about ice buildup from the car wash. He 3 -29 -90 -5- stated that shutting the car wash down after the ice buildup has already occurred will not solve anything. He added that there are already traffic problems in this area and that the proposed service station will add more traffic. He also stated that the neighbors in the area are not opposed to development of the property. He pointed out that the neighbors did not object to the office development proposed by Mr. Atkins a few years ago. He concluded by saying that he felt that the service station was inappropriate for the neighborhood. Mr. Rick Jewitt, of 6552 Willow Lane, stated that he did not like an attorney from Fina telling the neighbors that lived in the area and paid taxes what will happen in the future. He noted the existing traffic problems and stated that the Short- Elliott- Hendrickson study had said that the level of service on 66th Avenue North would go to the worst category if the station were built. He asked how eo le would et out of the station w' he traffic P P g with t problems that there are on 66th. He stated that there are problems with trucks now turning around in people's driveways on Willow Lane and that it will only get worse with the gas station. He noted that water restrictions affect people watering their lawns and wondered whether the car wash would have to shut down during watering bans. He stated that the proposal has changed since it was originally proposed a year ago and he did not feel the neighborhood was getting straight information from the developers. He concluded by stating that the neighbors in the area are living with previous bad developments and he added that the neighbors do not feel that there should be more bad developments in this area. Mrs. Karen Schleppenbach, of 6600 Willow Lane, asked what benefit there would be to another gas station when the Superamerica already exists across the road. Regarding the proposed 6' high fence, she stated that it would not help. She pointed out that the gas station is at a higher elevation, like the Superamerica station, which is very visible across West River Road. She stated that the lights from Superamerica already shine at the residences along Willow Lane and that the proposed service station would add more light. She concluded by stating that her main concern was over the children in the area living with the danger of increased traffic in the streets. Mr. Pat Murphy, of 6524 Willow Lane, briefly discussed the timing of the light at 66th and Highway 252. He stated that it changes every minute and 45 seconds and that in that time three cars will come to the light. He stated that with the service station there would be more cars which will back up to Willow Lane. He stated that the 6' high fence would not be adequate. He pointed out that there are fences along the freeway that are 15' high with ivy growing on them. He stated that such a fence might be acceptable in this case. P se. He also asked whether there was space for the proposed bike path on the office ro ert . He stated that he P P Y did not think any consideration had been given to this. 3 -29 -90 -6- Chairperson Malecki asked the Secretary about the location of the bike path. The Secretary showed a transparency of the new design of the intersection of 66th Avenue North and West River Road. He also showed a transparency of the proposed plat. He stated that his understanding was that the bike path would go along the west side of Willow Lane within - the existing right-of-way. Mr. Greg Cameron, of 6620 Willow Lane, asked a question regarding the concept plan for the office. He wondered how the elevations of the office relate to the gas station. Mr. Hal Pierce, an architect for Mr. Atkins, showed a transparency of the elevation differential between the service station site and the office site and the residence to the east. He stated that there is approximately a 10' drop from the gas station to the residences on the east side of Willow Lane. He stated that the office building could be as high as 35' and would provide some screening of the service station development. Mr. Sam McGee of Fina stated that the service station building would screen the canopy and that the lights in the canopy are recessed. He stated that the residents alon g Willow Lane will not see illumination from the canopy. PP Mrs. Schle enbach asked the applicants whether the would like to see a service station Y built next to their houses. Mr. Jim Neuberger, of 6546 Willow Lane, stated that the residents do not favor the proposed service station. He stated that the residents have something to lose from the proposed development. He reminded the Commission that they represented the citizens of Brooklyn Center which included the neighbors. He stated that the neighbors would see lights and traffic, and hear noise from the car wash. He stated that, for the good of the public, the gas station should be denied. He stated that the gas station would not be a benefit to anyone who lives in the area. He noted the changes in the intersection of 66th Avenue North and West River Road. He wondered whether these changes were just being made to help the gas station. He stated that the applicants should be allowed to build a normal gas station, but not a super gas station such as proposed. Mr. Sam McGee commented regarding the realignment of the zoning line. He pointed out that Fina submitted a plan last year which placed the proposed service station within the existing C2 boundary. He stated that such a plan required that the canopy be north of the service station which would be more visible to the residents. He stated that the proposed rezoning is the lesser of two evils which allows for mitigation of the effects of the service station. Mr. Rick Jewitt asked whether anyone had thought about the idea of placing a service station so close to a scenic waterway. He expressed concern regarding the possibility of a spill of gasoline flowing into the Mississippi River. Mr. Neuberger pointed out that . the applicants would be unable to build the same station in the C2 zone as it exists. 3 -29 -90 -7- Commissioner Sander asked Mr. McGee if he could hear the animosity from the neighbors and whether Fina would ever consider buying the land to the east and giving it to the City in order to create the buffer recommended in the Land Use Study. Mr. McGee answered that such a requirement would kill the deal between Fina and Mr. Atkins. He stated that Mr. Atkins would not give the land away and pointed out that Mr. Atkins is a taxpayer just like the residents. The Secretary showed a transparency of the old plan that would put the service station within the existing C2 zoning district. It showed the canopy north of the building. Mr. Rick Jewitt asked whether the City has traffic numbers on the proposed service station. He asked what would happen to the teardrop intersection of 66th and West River Road. He predicted that the intersection would be backed up with traffic coming out of the service station. The Secretary answered that one of the points of the Land Use Study was that, regardless of what development takes place on the Atkins property, it won't destroy the functioning of the intersection of 66th and Highway 252. He stated that it was true that the proposed development would cause occasional problems, but that it would not cause the total breakdown of the intersection. Mr. Jewitt expressed concern regarding kids waiting for the bus at the intersection. The Secretary acknowledged that there would be more traffic as a result of a service station development, but added that the information the City has is that the service station development will not cause a breakdown in the functioning of the intersection. The consultant had told the City that it could not deny the development proposal on the basis of traffic. 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 and Holmes. Voting against: Commissioner Mann. The motion passed. Commissioner Mann stated that, after reviewing the Short- Elliott- Hendrickson study, she felt that the area should be downzoned to C1. Commissioner Holmes noted that he had grown up in south Minneapolis near an area with four corner gas stations. He stated that he had worked with those gas stations as a resident and believed that Fina would also work with the neighbors in the area to resolve problems. He added that Fina would be the first gas station for cars traveling north on Highway 252. He stated that he expected the station to be very busy if it is built. He expressed concern regarding water from the car wash in the winter. He added that he felt that the traffic for the service station had been underestimated. He also stated that he felt that the people in the area, while they may oppose it now, would use the station. Commissioner Holmes stated that he was concerned regarding traffic movements. He saw no problem with ingress into the site, but that 3-29-90 29 90 - - 8 egress from the site could be a big problem. He stated that the buffering plan and the Land Use Study was a good direction to go, but stated that he could not see the teardrop median as the answer to the traffic movement problem. He stated that he had no problem with the proposed rezoning, but did have problems with the proposed plans. He concluded by stating that he felt there could be a hazard problem in the area. Commissioner Ainas agreed that the egress from the site leaves much to be desired, but that this would be true with almost any development of this site. Regarding screening, Commissioner Ainas stated that the purpose of screening is not to screen the building in its entirety, but to eliminate the view of the automobile traffic. He noted that the morning rush hour traffic would be more likely to use the Superamerica station and that the evening rush hour traffic would be more likely to use the Fina station. He noted that there had been some objection to providing a masonry wall. He stated that the issue was immaterial to him and that staff could work it out with the applicant. He acknowledged that a service station is never a good neighbor, that it is the type of land use that no one wants in their backyard. In conclusion, he stated that there were not enough negative items regarding the proposal to deny it. Chairperson Malecki asked Commissioner Ainas whether he had problems with the Standards for Special Use Permit. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt the noise ordinance would control noise problems and added that water restrictions affect car washes as well as lawn watering. Commissioner Bernards stated that he felt it was time to move the matter on. He stated that the Commission has to weigh the right of the property owner and the rights of the neighbors. He stated that he felt that he had thought the proposal was a reasonable compromise until the last neighbor spoke about overbuilding the site. He stated that if the rezoning results in overbuilding, he is against the rezoning. Commissioner Mann stated that she could not agree with the proposed plan. Chairperson Malecki stated that her feeling was that the proposal was too much for the area, that it was overbuilding the site. She stated that she did not feel that the neighbors were unreasonable. MOTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1 AND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NOS. 90003 90004 AND 89012 Motion by Commissioner Ainas to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 90 -1 recommending approval of Application No. 90003 (rezoning) and also, to recommend approval of Application No. 90004 (preliminary plat) and Application No. 89012 (site and building plan and special use permit) , subject to the conditions contained 3 -29 -90 -9- in the staff report with items 15 d and e of Application No. 89012 to be resolved in discussions between the applicant and staff. The motion was seconded b Commissioner Bernards for purposes of Y P P discussion. Voting in favor: Commissioner Ainas. Voting against: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Mann and Holmes. The motion failed. There followed a discussion as to the possibility of reconsidering the rezoning application. The Secretary explained that a motion in favor of the rezoning would have to be made by a member of the prevailing side (one of those Commissioners who had voted against the previous motion). MOTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1 (APPLICATION NO. 90003 BY E AND H PROPERTIE Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 90 -1 regarding recommended disposition of Application No. 90003. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas and Holmes. Voting against: Commissioners Sander and Mann. The motion passed. The Planner and the Secretary then pointed out that the rezoning approval would need approval of the plat in order to have a straightforward legal description of the proposed zoning districts. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90004 (E AND H Properties) Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 90004, 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. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas and Holmes. Voting against: Commissioners Sander and Mann. The motion passed. Chairperson Malecki asked whether there was any desire to reconsider Application No. 89012. Hearing none, she declared that the original action denying Application No. 89012 stands. The Secretary asked whether there was any language to explain the reasons for denial. Commissioner Sander stated that the Land Use Study had recommended a roadway and buffer to be located east of the service station. She stated that the lack of such a roadway and buffer was the reason she was opposed to the application. Commissioner Bernards stated that he f overbuilt the site. felt the proposal ov P P 3 -29 -90 -10- APPLICATION NO. 90005 (Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for variance approval for a package of signs to be used at the Earle Brown Heritage Center at 6105 Earle Brown Drive. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90005 attached). Commissioner Bernards asked whether the City would be setting any precedent that we would be unable to live with in the future. The Secretary stated that the historic site is unique. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 90005 Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and noted that there was no one present to speak regarding the application. She called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90005 (Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority) Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 90005, in light of the following findings: 1. The Earle Brown Farm site is a unique historic resource for the community and merits special consideration in lieu of the City Council's action on Application No. 81041 (condition #5). 2. The proposed signery conveys necessary visual communication and is not excessive or distasteful as it relates to the historic character of the Earle Brown Farm site. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief review of upcoming business, there was a motion by Commissioner Bernards, seconded by Commissioner Sander to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:57 p.m. 3 -29 -90 -1 Chairperson 1.- Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 90003 SUBMITTED BY E AND H PROPERTIES WHEREAS, Application No. 90003 submitted by E and H Properties proposes rezoning from R5 (Multiple Family) to partially C2 (Commerce) and partially Cl (Service /Office) the land at the southwest quadrant of 66th Avenue North and Willow Lane; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on March 29, 1990 when testimony regarding the request was taken; and WHEREAS, the property in question and other property in the vicinity of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North was studied extensively by the City in conjunction with the consulting firm of Short - Elliott- Hendrickson and the result of the study indicated a need for some rezoning to C2 of the property in question; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning has been reviewed by the Planning Commission in light of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, the Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Land Use Study, and the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 90003, submitted by E and H Properties, be approved in consideration of the following: 1. The Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial zoning of the land in question from Highway 252 east to Willow Lane. 2. The Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Land Use Study recommends commercial zoning from Highway 252 to a new roadway and landscape buffer, thus necessitating some rezoning of land to C2. 3. The proposed C1 zoning on the easterly portion of the property is an acceptable buffer zoning either from a short -term or long -term perspective. 4. The proposed zoning scheme is consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses and with Highway 252 to the west. 5. All permitted uses in the proposed zoning district can be contemplated for development of the subject property. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1 6. The subject property will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts as witnessed by the concept plan for office development submitted by the applicant. 7. Access to 66th Avenue North by both the C2 and C1 properties will be across commercial land and will be designed appropriately to line up with the median opening in 66th Avenue North. 8. The developer of the C2 site has agreed to provide an adequate screening treatment of comparable effect to the landscaped buffer recommended in the Short Elliott - Hendrickson Land Use Study. 9. In light of the above, it is felt that the proposal is consistent with the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance and is, therefore, in the best interests of the community. Date Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly g g Y seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. I Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90003 Applicant: Howard Atkins Location: 66th Avenue North and Willow Lane Request: Rezoning The applicant requests approval of a two -part rezoning application for land lying south of 66th Avenue North and west of Willow Lane. The land in question is presently zoned R5 and is bounded by 66th Avenue North on the north, by Willow Lane on the east, by an 18 unit apartment complex on the south, and presently by vacant C2 zoned land and the Atkins Mechanical site on the west. The two parts of the proposed rezoning are: 1) to rezone from R5 to C2 a sliver of land lying immediately east of the present C2 district (similar to what was requested approximately a year ago under Application No. 89006) ; and 2) to rezone the balance of the vacant R5 property over to Willow Lane to C1 (service /office). The purpose of the rezoning, as it was a year ago, is to square out the C2 district for development as a Fina service station /convenience store /car wash and to provide an access to 66th Avenue North across commercial property. (The access proposed by Fina will either become part of a public street or will ultimately serve an office development on the proposed C1 parcel.) Another possible outcome of the proposed rezoning would be the eventual creation of an acceptable buffer development, in the form of an office, between the proposed service station and the residential neighborhood across Willow Lane. An alternate buffer would be a roadway and high berm as recommended in the Short - Elliott - Hendrickson Land Use Study of this area. The City is still investigating that option, but, in the event it does not come about, the property owner is proposing the rezoning of the easterly parcel to C1 in order to provide a buffer development that is more acceptable to the neighborhood than an apartment development. Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings All rezoning applications are to be evaluated in light of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 (attached). The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he briefly addresses these guidelines. A recitation of the applicant's arguments and staff comments are provided: (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Atkins: "Present zoning line between C2 and proposed C1 is irregular. Straightening out the C2 zone line will make development of the site more efficient and allow the proposed building to screen on -site activities." 3 -29 -90 -1- Application No. 90003 continued i 0 Staff: Efficient site design is generally a public benefit. However, there is always more than one way to design a site and, as will be pointed out in review of the proposed Fina site plan, staff feel there is the possibility of moving the station to another location on the site with the possible vacation of the frontage road adjacent to Highway 252 and the installation of a roadway south of 66th Avenue North and tying in to Willow Lane as recommended in the SEH Land Use Study. Nevertheless, even with such a roadway, there would be some zoning of land from R5 to C2 since any land between the Fina site and the potential roadway to the east would be unbuildable by itself. As to screening on -site activities, the proposed site plan places the gas pumps west of the building and thus uses the building to screen the pumps and associated activity from the residential neighborhood to the east. To accomplish this reorientation requires that the station and the C2 district boundary move slightly eastward. We believe this is a positive change to the plan. However, in the event that there is no roadway east of the station, the moving of the zoning line will leave less land for an office development on the proposed C1 parcel to the east. This is a concern relating to the proposed C1 property that should be addressed by the property owner in a concept plan for that parcel before action is taken on the rezoning. (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Atkins: 11 C1 zoning of parcel closest to residential neighbors will provide a buffer to C2 use.' Staff: We agree. However, it is likely that the C1 development of the easterly parcel will be some years in coming. The SEH study recommended a roadway and a high berm to buffer the residential neighborhood from the service station. Absent such a buffer and absent an imminent office development, it is recommended that a condition of the rezoning and development plans be a high quality screening treatment along the east side of the service station site, providing screening comparable to the high berm recommended by the SEH study. 3 -29 -90 -2- Application No. 90003 continued (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Atkins: "Yes. Proposed use is a service station which is permitted in a C2 zone." Staff: With the proposed C1 district serving as a buffer, most any commercial use would be permitted on the C2 parcel. Also, the C1 zoning on the easterly parcel will allow for a joint access that will line up with the median opening in 66th Avenue North. Commercial access would not be allowed across the easterly parcel if it were zoned R5. The rezoning of the easterly parcel to C1, or alternately the development of a roadway and berm, is, therefore, a necessary aspect of the service station development proposal. (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Atkins: "There have been no zoning classification changes since the subject property was originally zoned. The Comprehensive Plan has recommended that the entire site should be Commercial - Retail. The upgrading of Highway 252 has made this an even more viable commercial site." Staff: We agree. However, the existing residential neighborhood to the east remains and the challenge for development in this area is to be compatible with both the heavy traffic on Highway 252 and with the nearby residential area. The proposed C1 zoning for the easterly parcel, or a roadway and buffer, are probably the most reasonable compromises that can be achieved in this difficult situation. (e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Atkins: "The City has indicated a desire to rezone the R5 parcel to C1." Staff: This is correct. We do not believe it would be in the best interests of the neighborhood or the community for the R5 zoning to remain or for the C2 district to extend eastward to Willow Lane. The Cl zoning acts as an appropriate buffer between the C2 and R1 districts. As 3 -29 -90 -3- Application No. 90003 continued to the minor expansion of the C2 zone, we see no significant problems with it so long as the remaining land to the east is viable for a separate development which can eventually serve to act as a buffer between two conflicting land uses (service station and single- family residential). (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? Atkins: "The subject property will comply fully with development restrictions for the C2 zoning district." Staff: This is possible only if the access to 66th Avenue North is across commercial land or a public roadway as recommended in the SEH study. Commercial access across R5 zoned land is prohibited. If lot width is calculated along 66th Avenue North rather than along Willow Lane, the width of the proposed C1 lot is substandard at approximately 100 The minimum lot width for a C1 lot is 150 The width of the proposed C1 lot along Willow Lane exceeds the 150' minimum. While the 150' width requirement can probably be applied to either frontage, the narrowness or shallowness of the easterly parcel is a concern. For there to be a buffer use east of the service station, the parcel must be of sufficient size to support a viable development. The applicant should submit a concept plan demonstrating that the C1 parcel can in fact support such a development before favorable action on this rezoning application. (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Atkins: "The subject property is suited for uses permitted in the present zoning district; however, straightening out the zoning line will promote better development of both sites." Staff: The applicant addresses chiefly the change from R5 to C2 of a relatively small area of land. However, the zoning change for the majority of the area is from R5 to C1. It is our perception that there is more than enough multi- family housing not only in this local neighborhood, but in the larger Northeast Neighborhood of the City as well. 3 -29 -90 -4- Application No. 90003 continued Also, since any commercial development on the westerly parcel will likely require a cross - access arrangement with the easterly parcel in order to properly access onto 66th Avenue North at the median opening, it is inappropriate to maintain a residential zoning of the easterly parcel since such a zoning would preclude a rational access for the commercial site to the west. (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? Atkins: "The rezoning will result in a slight increase in the C2 zoning district. We are merely attempting to straighten out the present zoning line. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the entire site to be Commercial - Retail." Staff: This is correct. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the recommendation of the Land Use Revision Map (Figure 15, Table 14) of the City's Comprehensive Plan. More recently, the City commissioned a land use study by Short - Elliott- Hendrickson which recommended, as the preferred alternative, the installation of a roadway and buffer between the service station site and Willow Lane. It also recommended the vacation of the frontage road immediately east of Highway 252 and the shifting of the service station somewhat west. In any case, the installation of the roadway and berm would be located such that the easterly boundary of the service station site and thus of the C2 district would be east of its present location and some rezoning would, therefore, be necessary. As to lack of developable land in the C1 and C2 zoning districts, there is getting to be a lack of developable land in almost all zoning districts in the City. There are only a few vacant C1 parcels in the City. The same could be said of R5 zoned parcels. In terms of land supply, therefore, this application is basically a wash. As to the best interests of the community, we feel that the proposed rezoning scheme is perhaps a second best solution in this area. Again, the area was studied extensively by Short - Elliott- Hendrickson and the preferred alternative recommended by that study was a land trade that would involve vacating the existing frontage road adjacent to Highway 252 and installing a new roadway south of the median opening in 66th Avenue 3 -29 -90 -5- Application No. 90003 continued North and a construction of a berm between that roadway and Willow Lane. It would also involve eliminating the direct connection between 66th Avenue North and Willow Lane. We still believe that such a scenario is in the best interests of the community. However, it will take time for the City to obtain marketable title to the frontage road right -of -way land and to negotiate acquisition of the land needed for the buffer /landscape and roadway area in order to be in a position to carry out such a land trade. The applicant and Fina Oil, meanwhile, are pessimistic that the City can obtain title to the. land from MN /DOT in a short period of time. Having waited a year, they are impatient to develop the property and have put forward a development plan which does not assume a land trade and a new roadway. Rather, it assumes there will be continued private ownership of the land east of the service station. The rezoning to C1 is a compromise proposal which would eventually place an acceptable buffer use between the service station and the residential neighborhood. We agree that the C1 zoning is a preferable zoning designation for the easterly parcel. However, the office use may not take place for some years. In the meantime, we believe that the service station must provide a screening treatment that is as effective as the berm and plantings recommended in the SEH study. The proposed screening treatment will be reviewed in more detail in the information sheet on the site and building plan application for the service station. In conclusion, we feel that the roadway and berm recommended in the SEH study are really in the best interests of the community, but the applicant and Fina are not willing to wait for that recommendation to be effectuated and certainly have the right to pursue the rezoning and plan they propose. In the interim, the property owner requests a rezoning which will allow the station to function and will leave open the option of an acceptable buffer use in the future and also leaves open the option of a roadway and buffer area. We believe that with adequate screening of the service station, the proposed zoning scheme is acceptable, though not preferable. (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Atkins: "Straightening out the zone line as proposed will promote better development of both sites." 3 -29 -90 -6- Application No. 90003 continued Staff. The primary merit of the proposal beyond the interests of the owner is the C1 designation of the easterly parcel. This is clearly preferable to the current R5 designation, as witnessed by comments from the neighborhood at previous public meetings. The other aspect which must be reviewed in detail is the proposed screening treatment of the gas station. Such a screening treatment is required as a benefit to the public in exchange for the benefit to the private property owner of a rezoning of land. Process The matter of land use in the area of 66th Avenue North and Highway 252 has been considered at some length over the past year by the Planning Commission and the City Council in consultation with staff, with the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group, and with the assistance of the consulting firm of Short - Elliott- Hendrickson. We do not believe anything would be served by again referring this matter to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group. We do recommend, however, that the Commission be fully satisfied with the proposed development plan and the proposed screening treatment before it acts favorably on the rezoning application. The Commission has 60 days to act on the rezoning application. If the Commission wishes to act on all applications at this meeting, we will try to have a draft resolution ready for the Commission's consideration. Otherwise, the Commission can table the matter and direct staff to prepare a resolution specifying findings either pro or con. We recommend that the rezoning, site and building plan and special use permit, and preliminary plat applications be acted on together. 3 -29 -90 -7- • Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90004 Applicant: E and H Properties Location: 6550 West River Road Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to resubdivide into two parcels the four parcels of land at the southeast quadrant of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North. The property in question is zoned C2 approximately on the west half and R5 on the east half. The R5 portion of the property is the subject of a rezoning request (Application No. 90003) to C2 and C1. The proposed plat would subdivide the property along the proposed zoning line, creating a C2 parcel on the west and a Cl parcel on the east. The entire plat is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue North, on the east by Willow Lane, on the south by the Ketroser apartments and the Brookdale Motel, and on the west by the Highway 252 frontage road. The plat basically consists of two platted lots from the Olson's Island View Terrace Addition, one of which contains the Atkins Mechanical site, and two lots which make up Lot 15 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 310 between Highway 252 and Willow Lane. It also includes a strip of land which was formerly the south edge of the 66th Avenue North right -of -way. The proposed legal description for the plat is Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, E and H Properties Addition. Lot 1 is the slightly larger westerly parcel at 51,575 sq. ft. (1.18 acres) which is proposed to be zoned C2 as the site for the proposed Fina station. Lot 2 is somewhat smaller at 36,003 sq. ft. (.83 acres) and is proposed to be zoned Cl, the site for a future office development. The plat proposes 5' wide drainage and utility easements along all interior property lines. Adjacent to Willow Lane and the frontage road the easement is proposed at 10' in width in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance. Adjacent to 66th Avenue North, the drainage and utility easement expands from west to east and contains a 6 water main. Storm and sanitary sewer are available in Willow Lane. One concern with the proposed plat is the size of the proposed Lot 2. Cl parcels are to be a minimum of 150' in width. While the dimension along Willow Lane is approximately 300 the dimension east -west is much less, reaching a maximum along the southerly property line of 135.38 While the lot width could be calculated along Willow Lane, the shallow east -west dimension raises the concern that the C1 parcel may not be large enough for an office development. As we have suggested in the information sheet for Application No. 90003, the applicant should demonstrate with a conceptual plan that the C1 parcel is viable before the rezoning or the plat are approved. 3 -29 -90 -1- Application No. 90004 continued In other respects the plat appears to be in order. Approval should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final lat is subject review and a P b ect to re ie royal b J PP Y the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3 -29 -90 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89012 Applicant: Fina Oil and Chemical Company Location: 6550 West River Road Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a service station /convenience store /car wash at the southeast quadrant of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North. The ro ert in question is zoned C2 and at P R5 P Y q present (Application No. 90003 seeks the rezonin g of a sliver of land east of the present C2 zone to make the entire service station site C2) and is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue North, on the east by vacant R5 zoned land (the owner proposes C1 zoning) , on the south by the Brookdale Motel, and on the west by the Highway 252 frontage road. This application was considered by the Commission at its May 25, 1989 meeting and was tabled in lieu of the plans being incomplete and of the City Council's consideration of a moratorium on all non- service office development along Highway 252 and Willow Lane, from just north of 66th Avenue North south to the freeway. A moratorium was instituted and a land use study of the area was performed by Short - Elliott- Hendrickson. The Commission was fully involved in the process of the land use study and it is unnecessary to recite the entire history of this matter here. The inclusion of the land use study which was accepted by the City Council was for the zoning of the block between 65th and 66th to remain essentially the same, but with the installation of a roadway and landscape buffer in approximately the northeast quarter of the block (on land that is presently zoned R5). To bring about this recommended alternative, it was suggested by the study that the City acquire the land on which the present frontage road is located and that the City sell this land to abutting property owners in order to partially underwrite the cost of providing the new roadway and landscape berm. The City is proceeding in an effort to obtain title to the frontage road land; however, we cannot say with complete certainty when the City will gain marketable title to the land. The applicant is pessimistic as to the time frame involved in realizing the recommendation of the land use study and wishes to construct a station as soon as possible. They have, therefore, submitted a new set of plans and the landowner has submitted a new rezoning application and plat application which assume that the roadway will not be developed and the land will remain privately owned. With these facts in mind, a review of the proposal follows. Access /Parking The site plan proposes two accesses off the Highway 252 frontage road, about 90' apart. Both accesses are 30' wide. The southerly access leads to a driveway south of the buildin g which leads to a 3 -29 -90 -1- Application No. 89012 continued stacking lane for the ro osed car wash. An exit lane from the car P P wash extends north of the building approximately 75' and then merges into the driving lane from the main parking lot. This driving lane connects to a 24' wide access onto 66th Avenue North. The access onto 66th is actually on the neighboring lot to the east and lines up directly with the West River Road intersection with 66th Avenue North. (At a minimum, the north leg of this intersection is to be reconfigured with a large bubble expanding the median. See the SEH study for a graphic depiction of the new intersection). Parking provided on site comes to 28 spaces. (The northerly space in the row opposite the car wash exit lane should not be allowed, however, since it constricts the driving lane to the west to a width less than 24 The number of spaces required for the building at the retail parking formula is 28 spaces. No parking at the pumps has been credited. It should also be noted that the handicapped spaces north of the building do not meet code. Each handicapped space should be a minimum of 12' wide. The proposed plan provides two 9' wide stalls separated by a 4' wide ramp. There is room to correct this on the plan. As far as stacking for the car wash, the plan shows stacking for six cars, though four of these are compact cars. It is difficult to gauge the need for stacking for the car wash. We have had inquiries about the possibility of a car wash at another parcel in the area and the old Quick Six station had a car wash. If stacking exceeds six cars, the three parking spaces south of the building are likely to be blocked in. The plan labels these spaces "employee parking." There is additional stacking space in the driving lane along the south side of the site. Landscaping The landscape plan erroneously projects a point total of 147.5 points. In reality, the points total 100.5 points. Of note is the fact that no shade trees are proposed. The plan proposes five Profusion Crab trees in the large green area in the northwest corner of the site and four more in the southeast corner of the site. Four Crabs are also proposed in the island between the two accesses on the west side of the site. The accesses will be flanked by planting beds containing Dwarf Mingo Pine and Dragons Blood Sedum. The plan also proposes three planting islands near the building to delineate parking. Plantings would include Seargent Juniper, Wilton Carpet Juniper, and Technes Arborvitae. The principal concern with the landscape plan is the proposed screening treatment along the east property line. The plan proposes a 6' high wood fence, five (5) Black Hills Spruce, three (3) Amur Maple, two (2) Japanese Tree Lilac, and 13 Technes Arborvitae shrubs. On the east side of the fence, the plan 3 -29-90 -2- �L i Application No. 89012 continued proposes three clumps of Common Purple Lilac. Staff would recommend that shade trees be used instead of Black Hills Spruce to screen the building. We would also recommend that the Commission consider requiring a masonry wall to match the building rather than a wood fence. Finally, we would recommend that the wall either be carried down to the south property line or that Black Hills Spruce be used in place of Profusion Crab at the southeast corner of the site to screen the headlights of cars traveling eastward to use the car wash. As is discussed in the information sheet on the proposed rezoning, (Application No. 90003), the SEH land use study has recommended a land trade, a roadway and landscape buffer to mitigate the effects of the proposed service station on the single - family neighborhood to the east. In the absence of this scenario, we believe the burden is on the service station to provide comparable effective screening. We do not believe the proposed plan goes far enough in that direction. Grading, Drainage, Utilities The grading and utility plan proposes to convey runoff to the northeast and southeast corners of the site. A catch basin at the southeast corner of the site will be connected by a 15 storm sewer line to the storm sewer in Willow Lane. At the northeast corner of the site, the flow of drainage will actually cross over the property line to two catch basins in the access drive entering 66th Avenue North, and be conveyed by a 12" storm sewer line to City storm sewer in Willow Lane. No water or sanitary sewer services are indicated on the plan. A hydrant is proposed in the island between the two access drives off the Highway 252 frontage road. Three 1 water services are stubbed to the site from a water main in the frontage road. Building The proposed convenience store building is 50' x 50' and the attached car wash is 16' x 34 The proposed exterior treatment is stucco with a striped metal band along the top of the north, west, and south sides. The building is to be 16' high and the canopy over the gas pumps is to be about 21' 6 above grade. The striping treatment is continued on the canopy fascia. The sidewalk west of the building is only 4' wide, and north of the building only 5' wide. Since most stations store merchandise outside within 4' of the building, these walks will serve little use for pedestrians. It is recommended that they be widened to 8' and that the pumps and parking be shifted accordingly. The building setbacks exceed the minimum required from the north, south, and west property lines. However, the setback from the proposed east property line is the minimum of 10'. If the roadway recommended by the SEH study were installed, the setback from the east property line would have to be at least 25 The right -of -way he proposed east lot a p p for the new roadway would be somewhat east of t 3 -29 -90 -3- Application No. 89012 continued line, allowing for the necessary 25' setback should the roadway be installed. If this comes about, Fina will have to buy the additional land which will have to be rezoned to C2 and P latted into the Fina site. The proposed plan shows no signery on the canopy as this would constitute freestanding signery and exceed g g y the limits of the Sign Ordinance for this site. The plans do show a rendering of a freestanding sign; however, that sign is too large and too high for the size building proposed. The maximum size for this site is 128 sq. ft. and the maximum height is 24 The proposed sign is 147 sq. ft. and 30' high. No variance is acknowledged by approval of the site and building plans. Approval is always exclusive of signery which is subject to the Sign Ordinance. LightinglTrash The proposed plan calls for nine (9) 16' high pole lights around the site. Two are to be situated at each entrance, two in front of the car wash, and one at the southeast corner of the site. The luminaires are to be 400 watt Super Metal Halides, focused primarily downward. Only one of these lamps should shine eastward toward the residential neighborhood. The applicant should be directed to use a different luminaire by the car wash. The lighting plan indicates light intensity up to 30 foot candles across the property line near the access onto 66th and 16 foot candles in the frontage road. The wattage of the luminaires should be reduced to bring this level down to 10 foot candles in accordance with Section 35 -712 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) . Canopy lighting is to be recessed so that there should be no glare emanating outward from beneath the canopy, The dumpster and screen are proposed at the southeast corner of the building. The dumpster should be placed on a concrete pad. Materials for the trash enclosure have not been specified. We would recommend a masonry enclosure consistent with the building exterior treatment. Special Use Standards Service stations and car washes are special uses in the C2 zoning district. As such, they are subject to the standards contained in Section 35 -220.2 of the Zoning Ordinance attached . Standard a of that section is fairly eneral regarding promoting the general g g g P g g public welfare. Gas stations do pose potential hazards to public health and safety. However, so long as the station complies with all state and local regulations, these hazards should be minimized. The second standard regarding impact on other developed property in the neighborhood has been a concern of local residents. In this regard, the screening treatment along the east side of the proposed 3 -29 -90 -4- Application No. 89012 continued site is critical. We strongly recommend a quality screening treatment consisting of a masonry wall in combination with generous landscaping, including overstory trees. Standard (c) regarding normal and orderly development of surrounding property relates, in this case, primarily to the vacant C1 parcel (proposed zoning) to the east. The development of the service station takes up an amount of land which will make development of the easterly parcel somewhat difficult. We have requested a concept plan from the property owner to verify that an office development on the easterly parcel, is in fact, possible. We expect such a plan to be available for Thursday's meeting. The property owner's architect has also submitted a retrofit plan which assumes the building in the proposed location, but with the frontage road vacated and a new access road lying to the east. The retrofit P lan shows that the proposed location of the building and pumps is workable if a land trade does occur and the recommended roadway and buffer are installed. Standard (d) regarding the design of ingress, egress and parking to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets is always an important consideration with special uses. The placement of the pumps at the south end of the site will tend to provide a good amount of stacking space for cars entering and exiting 66th Avenue North. Some of this stacking may occur in the Highway 252 frontage road which is a marginal access public street. As indicated above, this area may not always be a public street. Another concern regarding the functioning of the public streets is the possibility of water draining off cars from the car wash and turning to ice both on site and in 66th Avenue North. We believe a necessary condition of approval of this application is to make the applicant responsible for any sanding or salting in the public street (66th) which is necessitated as a result of the functioning of the car wash. Absent such maintenance by Fina, the car wash should be shut down until the situation is rectified. Recommendation Altogether, we believe the application is close to being in order and approval can be contemplated, given at least the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is granted only for a gas station/ convenience store /car wash as specified on the proposed plans. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3 -29 -90 -5- Application No. 89012 continued 3. Building plans are sub to review and approval b t he g P J PP Y Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 5. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to issuance of permits. 6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. A masonry trash enclosure is required. 7. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 8. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 9. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 10. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 11. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantees. 12. The property owner shall enter in an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems prior to the issuance of permits. 13. The applicant shall be responsible for treating the effects of water draining off cars exiting the car wash, including sanding and salting the intersection of the easterly access drive with 66th Avenue North when necessary. If unsafe conditions exist in driveways or public streets, the operation of the car wash shall cease until proper maintenance of paved areas is accomplished. 14. The replat of the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to issuance of building permits. 3 -29 -90 -6- Application No. 89012 continued 15. The plans shall be revised prior to consideration by the City Council to indicate the following: (a) A minimum 24' wide driving lane between rows of parking stalls north of the proposed building. (b) Handicapped spaces shall each be a minimum of 12' in width and shall be properly signed. (c) The landscape plan shall be revised to indicate at least six (6) overstory (shade) trees immediately east of the building. The point table shall also be revised. (d) A masonry wall at least 6' in height rather than a wood fence, treated to match the building exterior. (e) The sidewalks north and west of the building shall be widened to at least 8' to accommodate pedestrians as well as storage of merchandise. (f) The lighting plan shall be revised to indicate no more than 250 watt luminaires on the 16' high light poles and not more than 10 foot candles of light intensity at the property lines. (g) The light fixture at the southeast corner of the site shall be re- oriented to shine toward the west rather than the south. 16. Traffic control signs shall be installed as required by the Director of Public Works. 17. Fire hydrants and fire lanes shall be provided as required by the Fire Chief. 3 -29 -90 -7- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90005 Applicant: Brooklyn Center EDA Location: 6105 Earle Brown Drive. etc. (Earle Brown Farm) Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests approval of a variance from the Sign Ordinance to erect a number of signs for the Earle Brown Heritage Center, some of which comply with the ordinance and some of which will not, without a variance. The property in question is currently zoned I -1 and is bounded on the north and east by Earle Brown Drive, on the south by the Earle Brown Commons senior housing development and on the west by Brookdale Corporate Center III and vacant I -1 zoned land. The proposed signs include the following: - A 6' x 16' (96 sq. ft.) freestanding identification sign for the Earle Brown Heritage Center to be placed east Hippodrome near the middle entrance off Earle Brown Drive. This sign will be placed partially in the right -of -way. Ultimately 10' of right -of -way will be vacated from each side of Earle Brown Drive. An interim variance is required to allow the sign within the right -of -way temporarily. - A 3' x 6 freestanding, off -site directional sign for the Earle Brown Heritage Center, the Inn of the Farm, and Earle Brown Commons to be located at the entrance to the Commons and Brookdale Corporate Center III off Summit Drive. The variance is for an off -site sign. Also, the sign slightly exceeds the limit of 16 sq. ft. for a directional sign. - Five 18" x 18" wall- mounted building identification signs. These require no variance. - One 18" x 36" Inn on the Farm identification sign hanging from the canopy over the drive -up in front of the inn. The variance here is because the sign hangs below the canopy face rather than on it. - One sign reading "Brooklyn Farm" on the entry gate to the Farm. The only variance here, if there is one, is for a second freestanding identification sign. The Farm is entitled to only one freestanding sign. This sign, if it is classified as an identification sign exceeds that limit. - Two signs of undetermined size on the water tower with the logo of the Earle Brown Heritage Center on each side. The variance here again is that these signs are additional freestanding identification signs. - The building information sign for the "D" Barn may also be a variance since it will amount to tenant identification signery on a multi- storey office building. However, the fact that it 3 -29 -90 -1- Application No. 90005 continued is a single sign of limited size may allow it to be considered some sort of collective identification sign. It should be stressed that the Earle Brown Heritage Center is registered as a historic site by the Minnesota Historical Society. In 1981, the City recognized this fact in its approval of application 81041. Part of that approval was an acknowledgment that variances would be justifiable in order to bring about the viable re -use of the Farm site. The signery proposed for the Heritage Center, while it would involve a number of technical variances, is not really excessive. The size of the signs is far below what would be allowed by the Sign Ordinance. The signs are also quite tasteful and in keeping with the historical character of the Farm site. While it is impossible to legislate good taste, the City can achieve quality signery through approval of a total sign package. In 1981, the City Council recognized the special status of the Earle Brown Farm in adopting condition No. 5 of its approval of application No. 81041 as follows: 11 5. That the City Council acknowledges through this site plan approval a special zoning status for the land within the Minnesota Historic Site (see Condition No. 4) whereby development and use of the existing Earle Brown Farm buildings shall be based on City Council approval only. The grounds required for variances from City ordinance requirements shall be City Council acceptance of a development plan and the preservation of the Earle Brown Farm structures." This condition was adopted some years before the City negotiated a purchase of the Earle Brown Farm. The motivation behind the condition was, therefore, not to save money, but to enhance the prospect or re -use of the Farm buildings and thereby preservation of the historic site. There is also precedent for granting variances for off -site directional signs provides those signs are at accesses which serve the site of the principal use named on the sign. There is also precedent for granting an interim variance based on the future location of right -of -way. The additional identification signery is not excessive and seems to be reasonable in the form in which it is proposed. The Brooklyn Farm sign over the gate entry way is really a historic artifact since it was on the original gate until recently reconstructed. The sign on the water tower is important because the water tower is considered a key focal point for the Farm by people traveling in the area. Approval of the variance package is recommended in lieu of the following: 1. The Earle Brown Farm site is a unique historic resource for the community and merits special consideration in 3 -29 -90 -2- i Application No. 90005 continued lieu of the City Council's action on application No. 81041 (condition #5). 2. The proposed signery conveys necessary visual communication and is not excessive or distasteful as it relates to the historic character of the Earle Brown Farm site. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. 3 -29 -90 -3- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4 -9-90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 90002 - David A. Roop DEPARTMENT ARB7 AL: �+ e_10� Ao!t�� �+� a- Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection ^ MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X Application No. 90002 is a request submitted by David Roop for special use permit approval to operate a custom woodworking home • occupation involving a non - resident employee in the basement of the dwelling and in a portion of the detached garage at 7219 Grimes Avenue North. The application was considered by the Planning Commission at its March 15, 1990 meeting. Minutes, information sheet and a map of the area from that meeting are attached. Recommendation Approval of the application was recommended by the Planning Commission subject to the 11 conditions stated on pages 4 and 5 of the minutes from the March 15 meeting. • MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA MARCH 15, 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 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, and Planner Gary Shallcross. It was noted that Commissioner Johnson had stated that he would be unable to attend and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 1 1990 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the March 1, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion was passed. / APPLICATION NO 90002 (DAVID ROOP) Following the Chairperson's explanation, P the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for special use permit approval to operate a custom woodworking home occupation involving a non - resident employee in the basement of the dwelling and in a portion of the detached garage at 7219 Grimes Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90002 attached). The Secretary also expressed concern about noise coming from the dust collection system and the possibility of the hours going as late as 10:00 p.m. with power equipment operating. The Secretary also pointed out that commercial vehicles over 21 feet in length, over 8 feet in height or over 9,000 pound gross vehicle weight are not permitted to be parked or stored in residential areas under the City's Nuisance Ordinance. He stated that the applicant should clarify what size vehicle(s) he will have in association with the home occupation. The Secretary stated that condition number 2 regarding compliance with applicable codes, ordinances,and regulations would pertain to noise, light glare, etc. that may affect surrounding properties. The Secretary suggested a ninth condition relating to the parking of vehicles, that it would not include vehicles prohibited by section 19 - 101 of the Nuisance Ordinance. He concluded by stating that the Planning Commission's action should be based on a finding that the home occupation is in 3 -15 -90 1 keeping with the City's ordinance regarding home occupations and would not have an adverse affect on surrounding properties. Commissioner Sander asked whether there was a ratio in the ordinance limiting the area to be used for a home occupation in either a home or a garage. The Secretary answered that there was no ratio except the language in the definition of a home occupation limiting home occupations to being incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises. He stated that there are a variety of home occupations in the city and that it would be impossible to set an absolute limit on the amount of square footage devoted to a given home occupation. He stated that there are differences in how often a home occupation is conducted and what level of annoyance would be associated with any given home occupation. Commissioner Sander asked whether a garage can be as big as the house. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, but added that the maximum area of any one accessory building is 1,000 square feet and no accessory building can exceed the ground coverage of the principal building. Commissioner Bernards asked what standards would be applied by the state and also whether O.S.H.A. standards would be required. The Secretary answered that he assumed O.S.H.A. standards would have to be met. He added that he did not think that the state would check on an operation as small as this. Commissioner Holmes noted the possibility of storage of lacquers of varnishes and asked whether businesses with paints and such materials are subject to any special regulations. The Planner answered that the Fire Department controls such businesses and would do a yearly inspection on the storage of materials and also on the dust collection system. Commissioner Holmes asked whether there would be a special garbage pick up for this home occupation. The Secretary responded that he did not think so or at least that there should not be. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Roop responded that, regarding windows being open, he would install an air conditioning system in the garage so that it would be unnecessary to open windows for ventilation purposes. He added that there would be no commercial vehicles besides a standard sized pick up truck. As far as the dust collection system, he stated that it is a vacuum system that generates about as much noise as a typical furnace. He concluded by stating that O.S.H.A. requirements only apply when there are a certain number of employees and that his operation would not have that many. Chairperson Malecki inquired as to the license required by the state. Mr. Roop responded that it was not a license as such, but 3 -15 -90 2 a registration in order to have a tax number. Commissioner Bernards asked whether storage of materials and equipment would be conducted wholly in an enclosed building. Mr. Roop responded in the affirmative. Chairperson Malecki asked how the materials would be delivered to the site. Mr. Roop answered that he would pick up material himself and bring it to his residence. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki regarding the use of varnish, Mr. Roop stated that he preferred to do jobs that did not require finishing. The Secretary asked Mr. Roop what kinds of equipment would be present in the home occupation. Mr. Roop and his son, Paul, answered that there would be a table saw, planer, band saw, and possibly a sander. The Secretary asked how large a band saw it would be. Paul Roop answered �� P d that it would be a 20 saw. Commissioner Bernards asked Mr. Roop whether he had talked to his neighbors about the home occupation. Mr. Roop responded in the affirmative and stated that they do not have any problem with the proposed operation. Chairperson Malecki stated that she thought that 10:00 p.m. was kind of late to be running this power equipment. Mr. Roop stated that he would be willing to limit the home occupation to 9:30 p.m. if that was desired. Commissioner Mann expressed concern about the possibility of electrical disturbance from the use of ower equipment P affecting neighboring properties. Mr. Roop answered that it should not be a problem as long as 220 current is used in the garage. He added that he would be willing to take care of any problem associated with electrical disturbance. Chairperson Malecki asked whether there would be a special garbage pick up. Mr. Roop responded in the negative, stating that he would just use the normal garbage pick up. The Secretary pointed out that the City Council is considering an ordinance amendment regarding vehicle parking and storage of material outside. He stated that he would suggest an additional condition that all storage be within an enclosed building. Mr. Roop stated that he would have no problem with that. PUBLIC HEARING (APPLICATION NO 90002) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and noted that there was no one else present beside the applicant. 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. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Holmes stated that his main concern with the home occupation was the possible noise emissions and the safety issue of 3 -15 -90 3 children getting in and getting hurt by the equipment. Commissioner Bernards pointed out that if Mr. Roop sought to do the home occupation on a full time basis that he would have to come back for an amendment to the special use permit. Mr. Roop pointed out that, if he wanted to go into the business full time when he retired, he would probably find a building somewhere else and not do it at home. There followed a brief discussion with the applicant regarding noise and hours of operation. Mr. Roop's son, Paul stated that they did not like noise either and would want to minimize it as much as possible. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 90002 DAVID ROOP Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 90002, subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is granted only for a woodworking shop in the basement of the dwelling and in the back of the detached garage as indicated in the applicant's proposal. The home occupation may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. P 2. The home occupation is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. Special use permit approval acknowledges employment on the premises of one (1) nonresident employee. 4. The hours of operation shall be from 6:00 p.m. - 9:30 P.M. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. 5. The addition to the garage shall be a separate room and shall be insulated n lated and sheetrocked. Double lass g windows shall also be installed. Windows shall be closed during the use of power equipment to minimize noise emanating to adjacent properties. 6. A dust collection system shall be installed in the garage room. The Fire Department shall inspect the installation of the dust collection system and shall inspect the operation on at least an annual basis. 7. A 20 lb. fire extinguisher shall be installed in the work areas as required by the Fire Chief. 8. Any customer parking associated with the home occupation shall be off-street on improved space P p provided by the 3 -15 -90 4 applicant. 9. The home occupation at' p ion shall not involve the a p rking or storage of vehicles and equipment prohibited in residential zones under section 19 -101 of the nuisance ordinance. 10. All storage of materials or equipment associated with the home occupation shall be within an enclosed building. 11. No radio frequency interference to neighboring properties caused by the home occupation shall be permitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary noted that Mr. Donn Wiski was not present yet and encouraged the commission to wait awhile to see if he would arrive. The Planner noted that staff have put on the Planning Commission's March 29th agenda some items relating to Fina Oil and Chemical and the Atkins ro ert a P t 6 P 6th and Y West River. The Secretary explained some aspects of the plan submitted to date. Commissioner Mann asked whether the roadway construction north of 66th had commenced. The Secretary answered that it had not as yet, but that it should begin this construction season. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the roadway re- alignment would depend on approval of the Fina plans. The Secretary answered in the negative and pointed out that a re alignment of West River Road north of 66th was a separate project pursued as a result of a separate traffic study. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Mr. Donn Wiski arrived at 8:19 p.m. before most of the Commissioners had left. PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENES The Planning Commission reconvened under Chairperson Molly Malecki at 8:20 p.m. without Commissioner Bernards. DISCUSSION ITEM - GROUP HOME STUDY The Secretary then introduced for the Planning Commission the subject o f the J group home study done by Donn Wiski of Resolution Inc. He statedthat the staff needs direction from the Commission on how to amend the zoning ordinance. He referred again the Commission's attention and Mr. Wiski's attention to the article in the Zoning and Planning Law Report about the Fair Housing Act which affects the regulation of group homes. 3 -15 -90 5 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90002 Applicant: David Roop Location: 7219 Grimes Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit /Home Occupation The applicant requests special use permit approval to conduct a custom woodworking home occupation in an enlarged garage at 7219 Grimes Avenue North. The existing 24' x 24' garage would be expanded in depth by 17.5' for a total depth of 41.5' with the additional garage area and part of the basement in the dwelling being used for the home occupation. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north, west and south by single - family homes, and on the east by Grimes Avenue North. There are single - family homes across Grimes. The proposed home occupation is a special home. occupation because it involves activity in the garage. It is also a special home occupation because it would involve part -time employment at the premises of the applicant's son, who is a nonresident. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he explains the nature and scope of the proposed home occupation. He notes that the home occupation would utilize the 17.5' x 24' (420 sq. ft.) garage addition and a 13' x 27' (351 sq. ft.) area in the basement of the dwelling. He states that the garage area will be insulated, sheetrocked, and supplied with double glass windows to eliminate noise from the operation. Mr. Roop states that the woodworking.operation is a secondary job for himself and his son and that hours of operation would be 6:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. 2 to 3 evenings per week and 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Mr. Roop points out that the driveway, at 10' x 90', is large enough to accommodate him and his son and an occasional customer. Mr. Roop also states that his son who lives at 5025 Drew Avenue North will be the only other employee in the business. He adds that he will devote more time to the business after he retires from his principal job in 3 - 6 years. As to safety measures, Mr. Roop states that normal safety measures will be applied (he does not elaborate). In addition, an internal dust collection system will be installed in the garage. No dust will be exhausted from the garage. Mr. Roop notes that a 2.5 sq. ft. sign will be placed in the yard (a sign permit is required for such signage). Finally, Mr. Roop indicates that the business is licensed with the state as a father /son partnership under the name "Roop's Custom Woodworking ". The Commission is referred to sections 35 -900 (definitions) and 35- 406 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to special home occupations. Special home occupations are to be "clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the Dwelling Unit, the accessory structures, and the Lot upon which it is constructed...". The proposed home occupation is fairly extensive in terms of total 3 -15 -90 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90002 square footage devoted to it (771 sq. ft. total in the dwellin and the garage). Nevertheless, in terms of floor area, it i s a secondary use of both the garage (420 sq. ft. of 996 sq. ft.) and of the dwelling (351 sq. ft. of a dwelling with a ground coverage of 1558 sq. ft.). Two concerns, in addition to the area devoted to the home occupation, are the possibilities for noise. disturbance and general safety concerns. The applicant proposes to insulate, sheetrock, and use double glass windows in the garage addition. This should mitigate noise significantly, but there may be a desire in the summer months to open windows to the garage (the workshop will be in a separate room, not open to the overhead door) . Noise could thus become a regular irritation for neighbors unless the work area is closed off during use of power equipment. This concern should be discussed with the applicant and during the public hearing. The dust collection systems should enhance the safety of the operation. However, an appropriate sized fire extinguisher should also be provided in areas used for the home occupation. A yearly inspection by the Fire Department to monitor compliance with the Fire Code should also be required. The hours of operation are not excessive as proposed, but could expand greatly when Mr. Roop retires from his primary job in 3 to 6 years. The Commission may wish to restrict hours to evening hours now and re- evaluate the home occupation when Mr. Roop retires. In general, we feel that the home occupation should be free to operate any weekday evening rather than restricting the Roops to certain evenings at this time. Altogether, it appears that the proposed home occupation would operate within the limitations of the Zoning Ordinance. Approval should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is granted only for a woodworking shop in the basement of the dwelling and in the back of the detached garage as indicated in the applicant's proposal. The home occupation may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The home occupation is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. Special use permit approval acknowledges employment on the premises of one (1) nonresident employee. 4. The hours of operation shall be from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. 3 -15 -90 Planning ommission g Information Sheet Application No. 90002 5. The addition to the garage shall be a separate room and shall be insulated and sheetrocked. Double glass windows shall also be installed. Windows shall be closed during the use of power equipment to minimize noise emanating to adjacent properties. 6. A dust collection system shall be a installed in the garage room. The Fire Department shall inspect the installation of the dust collection system and shall inspect the operation on at least an annual basis. 7. A 20 lb. fire extinguisher shall be installed in the work areas as required by the Fire Chief. 8. Any customer parking associated with the home occupation shall be off - street on improved space provided by the applicant. 3 -15 -90 i 1 1 ♦ y .' 11z1 1 L f = L u � 1 1 A h - o j i OLE00 'AVE. 0 53 00 C.) z m WE TO 'EU I y :s'I �h� 1 �•• "� s i m _ 1�` �-� �'� ` -*� i SCOTT AVE ' N. NI 111 111 1 l� ` ♦ ♦..� - 5200 m C 7 AVE S _ - - REGENT AVE. N 15100 CA r m REGENT x AVE. ? z - ,� � ♦` • _ 1 P� QUAIL AVE. N. In T r �! • 7 5000 UAIL AVE. ,- - ''� I,ly _; +� '+ PERRY AVE. N VE. E= = •�� �� 'ati 4900 P RRY � l � ,��;• ' r =zF ` !� k� ORCHARD AVE. k z y r N - - ---- - -- - -- - --- �-+yy ORCHARD S 8 0 �' � � Cq ER 4800 n r 'qN OOKLYN JR HIGH D F - �x . y p �1MY ' ,, NoBLE dJE — NOBLE AVE.N. 4 '4,4 , 1 1 0 4700 X t IJ 0 0 MAJOR AVE. N b o - - -- - - .�� �b o� 4600 — _ E / AVE. N. �l U 0 n v] rn ---- o w EEE -- m LEE AVE. N. C W z 4500 o� ," m to . KY E. - T N T Ate KYLE AVE. N. f 7 N 4400 UNE JU NE VE -- m p� JUNE AVE. N O.4 - 4300 1 - _. _ z - _ _ ` �♦ 0 m "IN ANA INDIAN AV — n z E N - m y INDIANA AVE. O 4200 _ b - -- i HALIFAX r AVE N. o HALIFAX AVE i I C) H 4100 / - GRIMES N z - - ll1 111 111 A V € € € -. $ a GRIMES AVE. 1 o GRIMES �• -� - O 4000 — FRANCE AVE. P 3800 EWING V N ° o EWING AVE. N E IN � W' T j r -`I o r- N O- 3700 m ORAVE. N a �-_ + DREW AVE. N 1� J -- 3600 PLOT PLAN o ,/ ol 1 y ; h a v 1 I ! 1 1 3� J I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4 -9 -90 Agenda Item Number/e C x7 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION I PlanninA Comnjss1on A li tion No 90003,subr1tit ed b E nd H • ITEM DESCRIPTION: Properties `rezoning ) �g Ha ng Commi ssi on App i cat on o. 90004 submitted by E and H Properties (preliminary plat). 3) Planning Commission Application No. 89012 submitted by Fina Oil and Chemical Company (site and building plan and special use permit approval). DEPARTMENT AP L: Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection r ,, MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X It is recommended that the City Council consider the above three Planning Commission Applications concurrently as they are all interrelated. These applications were considered by the Planning • Commission on March 29, 1990 and the Commission's consideration of these matters can be found on pages 1 through 10 of their March 29, 1990 minutes. Also, a detailed explanation of these applications can be found in the Planning Commission information sheets for each of the respective applications. Planning Commission Application No. 90003 is a two part rezoning request submitted by E and H Properties (Mr. Howard Atkins) to rezone from R5 (Multiple Family Residence) to C2 (Commerce) a sliver of land lying immediately east of the present C2 zoning district in this area. This portion of the rezoning request is similar to that requested approximately one year ago under Planning Commission Application No. 89006 which was subsequently withdrawn at the request of the applicant. The second portion of the rezoning request is to rezone the balance of the vacant land from R5 (Multiple Family Residence) to C1 (Service /Office). The purpose of the rezoning is to square out the C2 district for development as a Fina gasoline service station /convenience /car wash and to provide an access to 66th Avenue North across commercial property. Another possible outcome of the proposed rezoning would be the eventual creation of an acceptable buffer development, in the form of an office, between the proposed gasoline service station and the residential neighborhood lying to the east of Willow Lane. -1- SUMMARY EXPLANATION CONTINUED • Planning Commission No. 90004 is a request for preliminary plat approval to resubdivide the property owned by Mr. Howard Atkins along the proposed zoning lines comprehended by the rezoning proposal under Application No. 90003. The plat would create two parcels, a westerly one which would be zoned C2 (1.18 acres) to eventually be used for a Fina gasoline service station/ convenience store /car wash, and an easterly one which would be zoned C1 (.83 acres) and would be the site for a future office development. Application No. 89012 submitted by Fina Oil and Chemical Company is a request for site and building plan approval and a special use permit to construct and operate a gasoline service station /convenience /car wash on the westerly C2 zoned parcel (to be created through the re platting under Application No 4 g P g pp 9000 ). This application was originally submitted and considered by the Planning Commission in May, 1989 and tabled at that time because the plans were then incomplete and a moratorium regarding certain development in the area was under consideration, and was eventually adopted, by the City Council. A Land Use Study was performed for the City by Short - Elliott- Hendrickson (SEH) which recommended that the zoning of land in this particular area remain essentially the same, but, in order to allow more intense land uses on the C2 zoned property, • new roadway connection to Willow Lane be established along with • large landscape buffer area on the property to the east. To • accomplish this alternative, it was recommended that the City attempt to acquire the rights to the present T.H. 252 frontage road right -of -way for incorporation with the properties that abut this roadway, and acquire some property to the east for the development of the above mentioned roadway and landscape buffer area. The applicants are pessimistic about the timely manner in which all of these details can be worked out, or whether they can be worked out at all, and want to proceed to have their development plans reviewed and approved so that development can take place this construction season. They believe the manner in which they propose the development would not preclude the roadway and landscape buffer area coming in at a later time and they attempt to offset negative impacts of their development through their site design and screening plan. The City Council's attention is directed to the Planning Commission information sheets and the Planning Commission minutes for details involved in each of these applications and the reason and rationale for the Planning Commission's recommendation. The Planning Commission spent considerable time on March 29 reviewing the various aspects of the e proposals disc ussing with the applicants g PP the merits of their proposals and also, listening to the negative comments and objections for this development from persons living near the project. • -2- SUMMARY EXPLANATION CONTINUED The Planning Commission, following much discussion, considered a motion to approve Application No. 90003 (rezoning) , Application No. 90004 (preliminary plat) and Application No. 89012 (site and building plan /special use permit) subject to various conditions and considerations. This all encompassing motion was rejected on a vote of one in favor and five opposed. The Commission then considered the applications separately and adopted Planning Resolution No. 90 -1 (attached) recommending approval of the rezoning requested by E and H Properties under Planning Commission Application No. 90003 on a vote of four in favor and two opposed. They also recommended approval of Planning Commission Application No. 90004 (preliminary plat) subject to two conditions on a vote of four in favor and two opposed. They took no action to reconsider their rejection of Planning Commission Application No. 89012, therefore, that recommendation to deny this application stood. Comments in the minutes reflect the Commission's reasons for denial being that the plan did not incorporate the SEH recommended alternative for roadway and landscape buffer area to the east of the site and a strong belief that the proposal was overbuilt and apparently a detriment to surrounding property. Recommendation • I will be prepared to review the plans and each application in more detail, should the City Council wish, on Monday evening. If the Council concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation, I'd suggest that any denial of Application No. 89012 be based on noncompliance with the Standards for Special Use Permits contained in Section 35 -320 Subdivision 2a through 2e as well as not incorporating the roadway buffer plan. The City Council, following further discussion, should also direct the staff to prepare the necessary resolution outlining findings and the rationale for such a denial to be considered by the City Council at its next Council meeting. The City Council may also wish to reconsider the rezoning proposal, at least that part which recommends the expansion of the C2 property. On the other hand, if the City Council is inclined to approve the application, then a draft resolution regarding the disposition of Application No. 90003 should be considered by the City Council. Application No. 90004 (preliminary plat) should then be approved subject to the two conditions listed in the Planning Commission minutes. Finally, approval of Application No. 89012 should be subject to at least the 17 conditions recommended in the Planning Commission information sheet, and an 18th condition requiring a cross access agreement for the two properties and a definitive conclusion • regarding the questions raised in Condition No. 15d, a and f. -3- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA MARCH 29, 1990 REGULAR SESSION CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann, and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. It was noted that Commissioner Johnson was out of town and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 15 1990 Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the March 15, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS 90003 AND 90004 (E AND H Properties) and APPLICATION NO. 89012 (Fina Oil and Chemical Company) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first three items of business: a request by E and H Properties to rezone from R5 to C2 and C1 the land at the southwest quadrant of 66th Avenue North and Willow Lane; a request for preliminary plat approval to resubdivide the four parcels of land south of 66th Avenue North and east of Highway 252 owned by E and H Properties into two parcels, one adjacent to the Highway 252 frontage road and one adjacent to Willow Lane; and a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a service station /convenience store /car wash at the southeast corner of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 90003, 90004 and 89012 attached). During his review of the rezoning application, the Secretary noted that the applicant's architect has submitted a concept plan for an office development on the easterly parcel. He also reviewed with the Commission the recommended alternative from the Short- Elliott- Hendrickson Land Use Study. The Secretary stated that the City is trying to obtain control of the frontage road right -of -way adjacent to Highway 252, but that staff are not sure how long it will take for that process to be completed. Regarding the site plan application, the Secretary recommended adding a delineator north of the row of parking immediately west of the car wash exit lane. He 3 -29 -90 -1- i also recommended adding more landscaping in the area where the driveway turns into the proposed C1 site in order to block headlights from shining into the residential area to the east. The Secretary also stated that staff had received comments from the City Engineer regarding drainage and utilities and that those comments would be passed on to the applicant. The Secretary reviewed a number of transparencies of site plans, building elevations, a retrofit plan, screening elevations, etc. during his review of the three applications. The Secretary finally recommended an additional condition regarding a cross access easement between the proposed service station site and the vacant parcel to the east. Commissioner Sander pointed out that there were a number of things on the plans that do not meet City requirements. She asked whether the applicant didn't have time to correct the plans. The Planner reviewed the process of plan submittal with Commissioner Sander. He noted that there had been a meeting with the applicant about a week and a half previous and that revised plans had been prepared by Friday of the previous week. He explained that a report had been written and distributed to the Commission and that there was not time between the time the report was written and the meeting to revise plans again. The Secretary added that, if the applicant does not agree to revise the plans in accordance with the recommended conditions, the Commission certainly does not have to approve the plans. Commissioner Sander then brought up some questions regarding the car wash. She noted that there is a car wash in Brooklyn Park that is not allowed to operate between 10:00 p.m. and & 7:00 a.m. She noted that the noise really comes when the doors are opened during the drying process. The Secretary answered that there are State standards for noise levels adjacent to residential areas. He added that the Sanitarian is presently checking on a noise complaint regarding another car wash in the community and that corrective action may have to be taken. Commissioner Sander recommended restricting the hours. Commissioner Sander also noted that the driving lane between the two rows of parking at the north end of the site appears to be inadequate. The Planner acknowledged that this was insufficient at present, but that, if the northerly stall were replaced with a traffic delineator that was flared properly, there should be a 24' driving lane as a result. Commissioner Sander also asked what the time element would be for vacating the frontage road by MN /DOT. The Secretary answered that the City has no firm commitment from MN /DOT to complete the turn back of the right -of -way. He noted that the City does maintain the road and has made the request formally to the State to turn back the right -of -way. Commissioner Sander asked, if the frontage road were vacated, could the station be shifted more to the north and west, perhaps allowing for more pumps, etc. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He noted that another concern with the vacation of the frontage road was the 3 -29 -90 -2- access to the Brookdale Motel. He stated that the City has not approached the owner of the Brookdale Motel because it does not have any land yet to negotiate over. He stated, however, that the owner of the motel had been to public meetings about the land use study of this area and had indicated an interest in the vacation of the frontage road. Commissioner Holmes tried to visualize how the service station would function. He expressed some concern regarding the likelihood of u turns in 66th and Willow Lane and the likelihood of traffic moving onto residential streets. He stated that he preferred the scenario contained in the Short - Elliott - Hendrickson Land Use Study with the roadway and landscape buffer. The Secretary acknowledged that, with the plan proposed by the applicant, there may be some traffic that will mistakenly go up West River Road rather than exiting out onto Highway 252. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the grade at the exit drive slopes to the east. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicants whether they had anything to add. Mr. Howard Atkins, the owner of the property in question, stated that it had been a year since he first submitted plans for the rezoning and development of the service station. He stated that he and Fina and the City had listened to the concerns of the neighborhood during that time. He stated that he felt that the plans addressed those concerns and that delay would not serve any purpose at this point. Chairperson Malecki asked whether Fina agreed to revise the plans in accordance with Condition No. 15 of the staff report. Mr. Pat Wilcox, an attorney for Fina, then addressed the Commission. He stated that he recognized that there had been neighborhood opposition to the proposed service station. He pointed out that the Process has basically run its course, that the City Council accepted the recommendations of the Land Use Study, ended the moratorium, and chose not to downzone Mr. Atkins property. Mr. Wilcox stated that the site of the proposed Fina station was in a difficult situation with a highway on the west and residences to the east. With regard to the special use standards, Mr. Wilcox stated that gas and other products sold by Fina are demanded by the public and that there is a benefit to the general public who come to the service station. He also pointed out that an aerial photograph of this area in 1965 showed that there were four gas stations at this intersection at that time. He stated that some development will go on to the parcel, that it will not remain vacant forever. He stated that the plan proposed is a viable compromise between the interests of Fina and those of the neighborhood. Regarding the Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Land Use Study, Mr. Wilcox stated that he was pessimistic about the timing of the turnback of 3 -29 -90 -3- the frontage road right -of -way. He cited an example of a similar turnback in another city which he represents that has taken over two years. He added that, when MN /DOT does dispose of the land, it may not simply give the land to the City, but may charge a high price for it. If it does, he went on, the City will have no money to turn around and buy land for the roadway and the buffer. He added that the Brookdale Motel may not even go along with the vacation of the right -of -way in front of its property. He concluded, therefore, that there was no way of knowing when, or if, the City would get control of the land and the money to finance the roadway and buffer. Mr. Wilcox went on to point out that the City Council did not extend the moratorium on development in this area and thereby indicated an acceptance of some development going forward. He stated that it was not fair to ask Fina to wait further to exercise its option on the land. Regarding the issue of screening, Mr. Wilcox stated that Fina would work with staff to provide an adequate screening treatment along the east side of the property. Regarding traffic, Mr. Wilcox stated that the SEH study has not concluded that the proposed development will cause major problems in the public streets. He added that any development will generate some traffic on the public streets. Mr. Wilcox concluded by thanking the Planning Commission and the neighbors for their patience in pursuing the process of the Land Use Study and review of the applications. He asked for action on the proposal at this evening's meeting. Mr. Sam McGee, an architect for Fina, then addressed the Commission. He stated that there were a few items still unresolved between the staff and Fina regarding the development plans. He stated that generally, Fina has no problem with the conditions of approval. He added, however, that there would be a problem with subparts d and e and possibly f of Condition No. 15. Regarding subpart d, Mr. McGee stated that he felt that a wood fence would be an adequate screen and easier to maintain than masonry. He expressed a willingness to add additional plantings on the east side of the fence. Regarding subpart e (a requirement for an 8' wide sidewalk on the north and west sides of the building) , Mr. McGee stated that he was willing to commit to a 6' wide sidewalk, but that it was necessary to maintain driving lanes for the gas pumps on the remainder of the land between the sidewalk and the greenstrip. He stated that Fina does not market many goods from the sidewalk in front of the building and that a 6' wide sidewalk would be more than adequate to provide room for pedestrians. Regarding subpart f (requiring a change in the lighting plan for less light intensity), Mr. McGee stated that there were errors in the lighting plan and that he felt that the limit of 10 foot candles at the property line could be met by relocating the lights rather than by reducing the wattages of the fixtures. 3 -29 -90 -4- Commissioner Sander asked whether the car wash would come with a dryer. Mr. McGee responded in the affirmative, noting that there are two types of dryers. Commissioner Sander asked Mr. McGee if Fina was willing to limit the hours of operation of the car wash. Mr. McGee answered that, if Fina was able to comply with the noise limits, then it should be able to operate its car wash 24 hours a day. Commissioner Sander stated that the noise from the car wash results when the doors open and shut. She stated that she felt a condition should be added to restrict the hours of operation. Mr. McGee answered that he could not commit for Fina an agreement with such a condition. Commissioner Sander stated that she felt that putting the gas station into this location without the roadway and berm would make the properties on the east side of Willow Lane worth less. Mr. McGee answered that he felt the landscape treatment along the east side of the property would mitigate the effects of the service station on those residences. Commissioner Sander stated that the screening would not really help. Mr. McGee disagreed and stated that the fence and proposed landscaping would mitigate both the visual and noise affects of the proposed service station. Commissioner Sander acknowledged that the corner would be developed in some way, but stated that there was a need for the berm and landscaping proposed in the Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Land Use Study. Mr. McGee pointed out the proposed C1 zoning of the parcel to the east which could result ultimately in a buffer development. Commissioner Sander stated that the office development would not help the houses on the river. She stated that the roadway and buffer would be the best treatment. Mr. McGee pointed out that the design of the service station does not foreclose that possibility. Chairperson Malecki asked Mr. McGee about the requirement for a masonry trash enc osure. Mr. McGee stated that he had no problem with that. Chairperson Malecki pointed out the fact that the proposed sign exceeds that which is allowed by the Sign Ordinance. Mr. McGee answered that Fina would modify its standard sign to live within the Sign Ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos 90003 90004 and 89012) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing on the rezoning, the plat and the special use permit for the service station. She asked whether anyone present wished to comment regarding the proposals. Mr. Philip Dahlen, of 6518 Willow Lane, stated that it was his understanding that zoning is not to be changed unless there was an error made in the original zoning or unless conditions change. He stated that he felt neither was the case. He told the Commission that he hoped the matter would go to the City Council with a negative recommendation. Mr. Dahlen pointed out the concern of people that walk to the bus stop and the danger that the traffic from the service station would pose to pedestrians in the area. He also expressed concern about ice buildup from the car wash. He 3 -29 -90 -5- stated that shutting the car wash down after the ice buildup has already occurred will not solve anything. He added that there are already traffic problems in this area and that the proposed service station will add more traffic. He also stated that the neighbors in the area are not opposed to development of the property. He pointed out that the neighbors did not object to the office development proposed by Mr. Atkins a few years ago. He concluded by saying that he felt that the service station was inappropriate for the neighborhood. Mr. Rick Jewitt, of 6552 Willow Lane, stated that he did not like an attorney from Fina telling the neighbors that lived in the area and paid taxes what will happen in the future. He noted the existing traffic problems and stated that the Short- Elliott- Hendrickson study had said that the level of service on 66th Avenue North would go to the worst category if the station were built. He asked how people would get out of the station with the traffic problems that there are on 66th. He stated that there are problems with trucks now turning around in people's driveways on Willow Lane and that it will only get worse with the gas station. He noted that water restrictions affect people watering their lawns and wondered whether the car wash would have to shut down during watering bans. He stated that the proposal has changed since it was originally proposed a year ago and he did not feel the neighborhood was getting straight information from the developers. He concluded by stating that the neighbors in the area are living with previous bad developments and he added that the neighbors do not feel that there should be more bad developments in this area. Mrs. Karen Schleppenbach, of 6600 Willow Lane, asked what benefit there would be to another gas station when the Superamerica already exists across the road. Regarding the proposed 6' high fence, she stated that it would not help. She pointed out that the gas station is at a higher elevation, like the Superamerica station, which is very visible across West River Road. She stated that the lights from Superamerica already shine at the residences along Willow Lane and that the proposed service station would add more light. She concluded by stating that her main concern was over the children in the area living with the danger of increased traffic in the streets. Mr. Pat Murphy, 6524 Willow w Lane briefly discussed cussed the timing g of the light at 66th and Highway 252. He stated that it changes every minute and 45 seconds and that in that time three cars will come to the light. He stated that with the service station there would be more cars which will back up to Willow Lane. He stated that the 6' high fence would not be adequate. He pointed out that there are fences along the freeway that are 15' high with ivy growing on them. He stated that such a fence might be acceptable in this case. He also asked whether there was space for the proposed bike path on the office property. He stated that he did not think any consideration had been given to this. 3 -29 -90 -6- Chairperson Malecki asked the Secretary about the location of the bike path. The Secretary showed a transparency of the new design of the intersection of 66th Avenue North and West River Road. He also showed a transparency of the proposed plat. He stated that his understanding was that the bike path would go along the west side of Willow Lane within the existing right -of -way. Mr. Greg Cameron, of 6620 Willow Lane, asked a question regarding the concept plan for the office. He wondered how the elevations of the office relate to the gas station. Mr. Hal Pierce, an architect for Mr. Atkins, showed a transparency of the elevation differential between the service station site and the office site and the residence to the east. He stated that there is approximately a 10' drop from the gas station to the residences on the east side of Willow Lane. He stated that the office building could be as high as 35' and would provide some screening of the service station development. Mr. Sam McGee of Fina stated that the service station building would screen the canopy and that the lights in the canopy are recessed. He stated that the residents along Willow Lane will not see illumination from the canopy. Mrs. Schleppenbach asked the applicants whether they would like ike to see a service station built next to their houses. Mr. Jim Neuberger, of 6546 Willow Lane, stated that the residents do not favor the proposed service station. He stated that the residents have something to lose from the proposed development. He reminded the Commission that they represented the citizens of Brooklyn Center which included the neighbors. He stated that the neighbors would see lights and traffic, and hear noise from the car wash. He stated that, for the good of the public, the gas station should be denied. He stated that the gas station would not be a benefit to anyone who lives in the area. He noted the changes in the intersection of 66th Avenue North and West River Road. He wondered whether these changes were just being made to help the gas station. He stated that the applicants should be allowed to build a normal gas station, but not a super gas station such as proposed. Mr. Sam McGee commented regarding the realignment of the zoning line. He pointed out that Fina submitted a plan last year which placed the proposed service station within the existing C2 boundary. He stated that such a plan required that the canopy be north of the service station which would be more visible to the residents. He stated that the proposed rezoning is the lesser of two evils which allows for mitigation of the effects of the service station. Mr. Rick Jewitt asked whether anyone had thought about the idea of placing a service station so close to a scenic waterway. He expressed concern regarding the possibility of a spill of gasoline flowing into the Mississippi River. Mr. Neuberger pointed out that the applicants would be unable to build the same station in the C2 zone as it exists. 3 -29 -90 -7- Commissioner Sander asked Mr. McGee if he could hear the animosity from the neighbors and whether Fina would ever consider buying the land to the east and giving it to the City in order to create the buffer recommended in the Land Use Study. Mr. McGee answered that such a requirement would kill the deal between Fina and Mr. Atkins. He stated that Mr. Atkins would not give the land away and pointed out that Mr. Atkins is a taxpayer just like the residents. The Secretary showed a transparency of the old plan that would put the service station within the existing C2 zoning district. It showed the canopy north of the building. Mr. Rick Jewitt asked whether the City has traffic numbers on the proposed service station. He asked what would happen to the teardrop intersection of 66th and West River Road. He predicted that the intersection would be backed up with traffic coming out of the service station. The Secretary answered that one of the points of the Land Use Study was that, regardless of what development takes place on the Atkins property, it won't destroy the functioning of the intersection of 66th and Highway 252. He stated that it was true that the proposed development would cause occasional problems, but that it would not cause the total breakdown of the intersection. Mr. Jewitt expressed concern regarding kids waiting for the bus at the intersection. The Secretary acknowledged that there would be more traffic as a result of a service station development, but added that the information the City has is that the service station development will not cause a breakdown in the functioning of the intersection. The consultant had told the City that it could not deny the development proposal on the basis of traffic. 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 and Holmes. Voting against: Commissioner Mann. The motion passed. Commissioner Mann stated that, after reviewing the Short- Elliott- Hendrickson study, she felt that the area should be downzoned to C1. Commissioner Holmes noted that he had grown up in south Minneapolis near an area with four corner gas stations. He stated that he had worked with those gas stations as a resident and believed that Fina would also work with the neighbors in the area to resolve problems. He added that Fina would be the first gas station for cars traveling north on Highway 252. He stated that he expected the station to be very busy if it is built. He expressed concern regarding water from the car wash in the winter. He added that he felt that the traffic for the service station had been underestimated. He also stated that he felt that the people in the area, while they may oppose it now, would use the station. Commissioner Holmes stated that he was concerned regarding traffic movements. He saw no problem with ingress into the site, but that 3 -29 -90 -8- egress from the site could be a big problem. He stated that the buffering plan and the Land Use Study was a good direction to go, but stated that he could not see the teardrop median as the answer to the traffic movement problem. He stated that he had no problem with the proposed rezoning, but did have problems with the proposed plans. He concluded by stating that he felt there could be a hazard problem in the area. Commissioner Ainas agreed that the egress from the site leaves much to be desired, but that this would be true with almost any development of this site. Regarding screening, Commissioner Ainas stated that the purpose of screening is not to screen the building in its entirety, but to eliminate the view of the automobile traffic. He noted that the morning rush hour traffic would be more likely to use the Superamerica station and that the evening rush hour traffic would be more likely to use the Fina station. He noted that there had been some objection to providing a masonry wall. He stated that the issue was immaterial to him and that staff could work it out with the applicant. He acknowledged that a service station is never a good neighbor, that it is the type of land use that no one wants in their backyard. In conclusion, he stated that there were not enough negative items regarding the proposal to deny it. Chairperson Malecki asked Commissioner Ainas whether he had problems with the Standards for Special Use Permit. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt the noise ordinance would control noise problems and added that water restrictions affect car washes as well as lawn watering. Commissioner Bernards stated that he felt it was time to move the matter on. He stated that the Commission has to weigh the right of the property owner and the rights of the neighbors. He stated that he felt that he had thought the proposal was a reasonable compromise until the last neighbor spoke about overbuilding the site. He stated that if the rezoning results in overbuilding, he is against the rezoning. Commissioner Mann stated that she could not agree with the proposed plan. Chairperson Malecki stated that her feeling was that the proposal was too much for the area, that it was overbuilding the site. She stated that she did not feel that the neighbors were unreasonable. MOTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1 AND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NOS. 90003 90004 AND 89012 Motion by Commissioner Ainas to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 90 -1 recommending approval of Application No. 90003 (rezoning) and also, to recommend approval of Application No. 90004 (preliminary plat) and Application No. 89012 (site and building plan and special use permit) , subject to the conditions contained 3 -29 -90 -9- in the staff report with items 15 d and e of Application No. 89012 to be resolved in discussions between the applicant and staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bernards for purposes of discussion. Voting in favor: Commissioner Ainas. Voting against: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Mann and Holmes. The motion failed. There followed a discussion as to the possibility of reconsidering the rezoning application. The Secretary explained that a motion in favor of the rezoning would have to be made by a member of the prevailing side (one of those Commissioners who had voted against the previous motion). MOTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1 (APPLICATION NO 90003 BY E AND H PROPERTIES) Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 90 -1 regarding recommended disposition of Application No. 90003. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas and Holmes. Voting against: Commissioners Sander and Mann. The motion passed. The Planner and the Secretary then pointed out that the rezoning approval would need approval of the plat in order to have a straightforward legal description of the proposed zoning districts. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90004 (E AND H Properties) Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 90004, subject to the followin g 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. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas and Holmes. Voting against: Commissioners Sander and Mann. The motion passed. Chairperson Malecki asked whether there was any desire to reconsider Application No. 89012. Hearin none she declared that Hearing , the original action denying Application Y g Pp on No. 89012 stands. The Secretary asked whether there was any language to explain the reasons for denial. Commissioner Sander stated that the Land Use Study had recommended a roadway and buffer to be located east of the service station. She stated that the lack of such a roadway and buffer was the reason she, was opposed to the application. Commissioner Bernards stated that he felt the proposal overbuilt the site. 3 -29 -90 -10- APPLICATION NO. 90005 (Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for variance approval for a package of signs to be used at the Earle Brown Heritage Center at 6105 Earle Brown Drive. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90005 attached). Commissioner Bernards asked whether the City would be setting any precedent that we would be unable to live with in the future. The Secretary stated that the historic site is unique. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 90005) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and noted that there was no one present to speak regarding the application. She called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90005 (Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority) Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 90005, in light of the following findings: 1. The Earle Brown Farm site is a unique historic resource for the community and merits special consideration in lieu of the City Council's action on Application No. 81041 (condition #5). 2. The proposed signery conveys necessary visual communication and is not excessive or distasteful as it relates to the historic character of the Earle Brown Farm site. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief review of upcoming business, there was a motion by Commissioner Bernards, seconded by Commissioner Sander to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:57 p.m. Chairperson 3 -29 -90 -11- Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 90003 SUBMITTED BY E AND H PROPERTIES WHEREAS, Application No. 90003 submitted by E and H Properties proposes rezoning from R5 (Multiple Family) to partially C2 (Commerce) and partially C1 (Service /Office) the land at the southwest quadrant of 66th Avenue North and Willow Lane; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on March 29, 1990 when testimony regarding the request was taken; and WHEREAS, the property in question and other property in the vicinity of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North was studied extensively by the City in conjunction with the consulting firm of Short - Elliott- Hendrickson and the result of the study indicated a need for some rezoning to C2 of the property in question; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning has been reviewed by the Planning Commission in light of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, the Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Land Use Study, and the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 90003, submitted by E and H Properties, be approved in consideration of the following: 1. The Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial zoning of the land in question from Highway 252 east to Willow Lane. 2. The Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Land Use Study recommends commercial zoning from Highway 252 to a new roadway and landscape buffer, thus necessitating some rezoning of land to C2. 3. The proposed C1 zoning on the easterly portion of the property is an acceptable buffer zoning either from a short -term or long -term perspective. 4. The proposed zoning scheme is consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses and with Highway 252 to the west. 5. All permitted uses in the proposed zoning district can be contemplated for development of the subject property. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1 6. The subject property will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts as witnessed by the concept plan for office development submitted by the applicant. 7. Access to 66th Avenue North by both the C2 and C1 properties will be across commercial land and will be designed appropriately to line up with the median opening in 66th Avenue North. 8. The developer of the C2 site has agreed to provide an adequate screening treatment of comparable effect to the landscaped buffer recommended in the Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Land Use Study. 9. In light of the above, it is felt that the proposal is consistent with the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance and is, therefore, in the best interests of the community. Date Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being aken thereon . g the following voted in favor thereof: eof. g h r and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. I Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90003 Applicant: Howard Atkins Location: 66th Avenue North and Willow Lane Request: Rezoning The applicant requests approval of a two -part rezoning application for land lying south of 66th Avenue North and west of Willow Lane. The land in question is presently zoned R5 and is bounded by 66th Avenue North on the north, by Willow Lane on the east, by an 18 unit apartment complex on the south, and presently by vacant C2 zoned land and the Atkins Mechanical site on the west. The two parts of the proposed rezoning are: 1) to rezone from R5 to C2 a sliver of land lying immediately east of the present C2 district (similar to what was requested approximately a year ago under Application No. 89006) ; and 2) to rezone the balance of the vacant R5 property over to Willow Lane to C1 (service /office). The purpose of the rezoning, as it was a year ago, is to square out the C2 district for development as a Fina service station /convenience store /car wash and to provide an access to 66th Avenue North across commercial property. (The access proposed by Fina will either become part of a public street or will ultimately serve an office development on the proposed C1 parcel.) Another possible outcome of the proposed rezoning would be the eventual creation of an acceptable buffer development, in the form of an office, between the proposed service station and the residential neighborhood across Willow Lane. An alternate buffer would be a roadway and high berm as recommended in the Short - Elliott - Hendrickson Land Use Study of this area. The City is still investigating that option, but, in the event it does not come about, the property owner is proposing the rezoning of the easterly parcel to C1 in order to provide a buffer development that is more acceptable to the neighborhood than an apartment development. Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings All rezoning applications are to be evaluated in light of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 (attached). The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he briefly addresses these guidelines. A recitation of the applicant's arguments and staff comments are provided: (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Atkins: "Present zoning line between C2 and proposed C1 is irregular. Straightening out the C2 zone line will make development of the site more efficient and allow the proposed building to screen on -site activities." 3 -29 -90 -1- Application No. 90 pp 003 continued Staff: Efficient site design is generally a public benefit. However, there is always more than one way to design a site and, as will be pointed out in review of the proposed Fina site plan, staff feel there is the possibility of moving the station to another location on the site with the possible vacation of the frontage road adjacent to Highway 252 and the installation of a roadway south of 66th Avenue North and tying in to Willow Lane as recommended in the SEH Land Use Study. Nevertheless, even with such a roadway, there would be some zoning of land from R5 to C2 since any land between the Fina site and the potential roadway to the east would be unbuildable by itself. As to screening on -site activities, the proposed site plan places the gas pumps west of the building and thus uses the building to screen the pumps and associated activity from the residential neighborhood to the east. To accomplish this reorientation requires that the station and the C2 district boundary move slightly eastward. We believe this is a positive change to the plan. However, in the eve that hat there is no roadway east of the station, the moving of the zoning line will 0 leave less land for an office development on the proposed Cl parcel to the east. This is a concern relating to the proposed C1 property that should be addressed by the property owner in a concept plan for that parcel before action is taken on the rezoning. (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Atkins: "Cl zoning of arcel closest to residential neighbors ei hbors g will provide a buffer to C2 use." Staff: We agree. However, it is likely that the C1 development of the easterly parcel will be some years in coming. The SEH study recommended a roadway and a high berm to buffer the residential neighborhood from the service station. Absent such a buffer and absent an imminent office development, it is recommended that a condition of the rezoning and development plans be a high quality screening treatment along the east side of the service station site, providing screening comparable to the high berm recommended by the SEH study. 3 -29 -90 -2- Application No. 90003 continued (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Atkins: "Yes. Proposed use is a service station which is permitted in a C2 zone." Staff: With the proposed C1 district serving as a buffer, most any commercial use would be permitted on the C2 parcel. Also, the C1 zoning on the easterly parcel will allow for a joint access that will line up with the median opening in 66th Avenue North. Commercial access would not be allowed across the easterly parcel if it were zoned R5. The rezoning of the easterly parcel to C1, or alternately the development of a roadway and berm, is, therefore, a necessary aspect of the service station development proposal. (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Atkins: "There have been no zoning classification changes since the subject property was originally zoned. The Comprehensive Plan has recommended that the entire site should be Commercial - Retail. The upgrading of Highway 252 has made this an even more viable commercial site." Staff: We agree. However, the existing residential neighborhood to the east remains and the challenge for development in this area is to be compatible with both the heavy traffic on Highway 252 and with the nearby residential area. The proposed C1 zoning for the easterly parcel, or a roadway and buffer, are probably the most reasonable compromises that can be achieved in this difficult situation. (e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Atkins: "The City has indicated a desire to rezone the R5 parcel to C1." Staff: This is correct. We do not believe it would be in the best interests of the neighborhood or the community for the R5 zoning to remain or for the C2 district to extend eastward to Willow Lane. The C1 zoning acts as an appropriate buffer between the C2 and R1 districts. As 3 -29 -90 -3- Application No. 90003 continued to the minor expansion of the C2 zone, we see no significant problems with it so long as the remaining land to the east is viable for a separate development which can eventually serve to act as a buffer between two conflicting land uses (service station and single - family residential) . (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? Atkins: "The subject property will comply fully with development restrictions for the C2 zoning district." Staff: This is possible only if the access to 66th Avenue North is across commercial land or a public roadway as recommended in the SEH study. Commercial access across R5 zoned land is prohibited. If lot width is calculated along 66th Avenue North rather than along Willow Lane, the width of the proposed C1 lot is substandard at approximately 100 The minimum lot width for a C1 lot is 150 The width of the proposed C1 lot along Willow Lane exceeds the 150' minimum. While the 150' width requirement can probably be applied to either frontage, the narrowness or shallowness of the easterly parcel is a concern. For there to be a buffer use east of the service station, the parcel must be of sufficient size to support a viable development. The applicant should submit a concept plan demonstrating that the C1 parcel can in fact support such a development before favorable action on this rezoning application. (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Atkins: "The subject property is suited for uses permitted in the present zoning district; however, straightening out the zoning line will promote better development of both sites." Staff: The applicant addresses chiefly the change from R5 to C2 of a relatively small area of. land. However, the zoning change for the majority of the area is from R5 to C1. It is our perception that there is more than enough multi - family housing not only in this local Y g y i t 1 nei g hborhood but in the larger Northeast Neighborhood of the City as well. 3 -29 -90 -4- Application No. 90003 continued Also, since any commercial development on the westerly parcel will likely require a cross - access arrangement with the easterly parcel in order to properly access onto 66th Avenue North at the median opening, it is inappropriate to maintain a residential zoning of the easterly parcel since such a zoning would preclude.a rational access for the commercial site to the west. (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? Atkins: "The rezoning will result in a slight increase in the C2 zoning district. We are merely attempting to straighten out the present zoning line. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the entire site to be Commercial - Retail." Staff: This is correct. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the recommendation of the Land Use Revision Map (Figure 15, Table 14) of the City's Comprehensive Plan. More recently, the City commissioned a land use study by Short - Elliott- Hendrickson which recommended, as the preferred alternative, the installation of a roadway and buffer between the service station site and Willow Lane. It also recommended the vacation of the frontage road immediately east of Highway 252 and the shifting of the service station somewhat west. In any case, the installation of the roadway and berm would be located such that the easterly boundary of the service station site and thus of the C2 district would be east of its present location and some rezoning would, therefore, be necessary. As to lack of developable land in the C1 and C2 zoning districts, there is getting to be a lack of developable land in almost all zoning districts in the City. There are only a few vacant C1 parcels in the City. The same could be said of R5 zoned parcels. In terms of land supply, therefore, this application is basically a wash. As to the best interests of the community, we feel that the proposed rezoning scheme is perhaps a second best solution in this area. Again, the area was studied extensively by Short - Elliott - Hendrickson and the preferred alternative recommended by that study was a land trade that would involve vacating the existing frontage road adjacent to Highway 252 and installing a new roadway south of the median opening in 66th Avenue 3 -29 -90 -5- Application No. 90003 continued North and a construction of a berm between that roadway and Willow Lane. It would also involve eliminating the direct connection between 66th Avenue North and Willow Lane. We still believe that such a scenario is in the best interests of the community. However, it will take time for the City to obtain marketable title to the frontage road right -of -way land and to negotiate acquisition of the land needed for the buffer /landscape and roadway area in order to be in a position to carry out such a land trade. The applicant and Fina Oil, meanwhile, are pessimistic that the City can obtain title to the land from MN /DOT in a short period of time. Having waited a year, they are impatient to develop the property and have put forward a development plan which does not assume a land trade and a new roadway. Rather, it assumes there will be continued private ownership of the land east of the service station. The rezoning to C1 is a compromise proposal which would eventually place an acceptable buffer use between the service station and the residential neighborhood. We agree that the C1 zoning is a preferable zoning designation for the easterly parcel. However, the office use may not take place for some years. In the meantime, we believe that the service station must provide a screening treatment that is as effective as the berm and plantings recommended in the SEH study. The proposed screening treatment will be reviewed in more detail in the information sheet on the site and building plan application for the service station. In conclusion, we feel that the roadway and berm recommended in the SEH study are really in the best interests of the community, but the applicant and Fina are not willing to wait for that recommendation to be effectuated and certainly have the right to pursue the rezoning and plan they propose. In the interim, the property owner requests a rezoning which will allow the station to function and will leave open the option of an acceptable buffer use in the future and also leaves open the option of a roadway and buffer area. We believe that with adequate screening of the service station, the proposed zoning scheme is acceptable, though not preferable. (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Atkins: "Straightening out the zone line as proposed will promote better development of both sites." 3 -29 -90 -6- Application No. 90003 continued Staff: The primary merit of the proposal beyond the interests of the owner is the C1 designation of the easterly parcel. This is clearly preferable to the current R5 designation, as witnessed by comments from the neighborhood at previous public meetings. The other aspect which must be reviewed in detail is the proposed screening treatment of the gas station. Such a screening treatment is required as a benefit to the public in exchange for the benefit to the private property owner of a rezoning of land. Process The matter of land use in the area of 66th Avenue North and Highway 252 has been considered at some length over the past year by the Planning Commission and the City Council in consultation with staff, with the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group, and with the assistance of the consulting firm of Short - Elliott- Hendrickson. We do not believe anything would be served by again referring this matter to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group. We do recommend, however, that the Commission be fully satisfied with the proposed development plan and the proposed screening treatment before it acts favorably on the rezoning application. The Commission has 60 days to act on the rezoning application. If the Commission wishes to act on all applications at this meeting, we will try to have a draft resolution ready for the Commission's consideration. Otherwise, the Commission can table the matter and direct staff to prepare a resolution specifying findings either pro or con. We recommend that the rezoning, site and building plan and special use permit, and preliminary plat applications be acted on together. 3 -29 -90 -7- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90004 Applicant: E and H Properties Location: 6550 West River Road Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to resubdivide into two parcels the four parcels of land at the southeast quadrant of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North. The property in question is zoned C2 approximately on the west half and R5 on the east half. The R5 portion of the property is the subject of a rezoning request (Application No. 90003) to C2 and C1. The proposed plat would subdivide the property along the proposed zoning line, creating a C2 parcel on the west and a C1 parcel on the east. The entire plat is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue North, on the east by Willow Lane, on the south by the Ketroser apartments and the Brookdale Motel, and on the west by the Highway 252 frontage road. The plat basically consists of two platted lots from the Olson's Island View Terrace Addition, one of which contains the Atkins Mechanical site, and two lots which make up Lot 15 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 310 between Highway 252 and Willow Lane. It also includes a strip of land which was formerly the south edge of the 66th Avenue North right -of -way. The proposed legal description for the plat is Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, E and H Properties Addition. Lot 1 is the slightly larger westerly parcel at 51,575 sq. ft. (1.18 acres) which is proposed to be zoned C2 as the site for the proposed Fina station. Lot 2 is somewhat smaller at 36,003 sq. ft. (.83 acres) and is proposed to be zoned C1, the site for a future office development. The plat proposes 5' wide drainage and utility easements along all interior property lines. Adjacent to Willow Lane and the frontage road the easement is proposed at 10' in width in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance. Adjacent to 66th Avenue North, the drainage and utility easement expands from west to east and contains a 6 water main. Storm and sanitary sewer are available in Willow Lane. One concern with the proposed plat is the size of the proposed Lot 2. C1 parcels are to be a minimum of 150' in width. While the dimension along Willow Lane is approximately 300 the dimension east -west is much less, reaching a maximum along the southerly property line of 135.38 While the lot width could be calculated along Willow Lane, the shallow east -west dimension raises the concern that the C1 parcel may not be large enough for an office development. As we have suggested in the information sheet for Application No. 90003, the applicant should demonstrate with a conceptual plan that the C1 parcel is viable before the rezoning or the plat are approved. 3 -29 -90 -1- Application No. 90004 continued In other respects the plat appears to be in order. Approval should be 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 -29 -90 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89012 Applicant: Fina Oil and Chemical Company Location: 6550 West River Road Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a service station /convenience store /car wash at the southeast quadrant of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North. The property in question is zoned C2 and R5 at present (Application No. 90003 seeks the rezoning of a sliver of land east of the present C2 zone to make the entire service station site C2) and is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue North, on the east by vacant R5 zoned land (the owner proposes C1 zoning) , on the south by the Brookdale Motel, and on the west by the Highway 252 frontage road. This application was considered by the Commission at its May 25, 1989 meeting and was tabled in lieu of the plans being incomplete and of the City Council's consideration of a moratorium on all non - service office development along Highway 252 and Willow Lane, from just north of 66th Avenue North south to the freeway. A moratorium was instituted and a land use study of the area was performed by Short - Elliott - Hendrickson. The Commission was fully involved in the process of the land use study and it is unnecessary to recite the entire history of this matter here. The inclusion of the land use study which was accepted by the City Council was for the zoning of the block between 65th and 66th to remain essentially the same, but with the installation of a roadway and landscape buffer in approximately the northeast quarter of the block (on land that is presently zoned R5). To bring about this recommended alternative, it was suggested by the study that the City acquire the land on which the present frontage road is located and that the City sell this land to abutting property owners in order to partially underwrite the cost of providing the new roadway and landscape berm. The City is proceeding in an effort to obtain title to the frontage road land; however, we cannot say with complete certainty when the City will gain marketable title to the land. The applicant is pessimistic as to the time frame involved in realizing the recommendation of the land use study and wishes to construct a station as soon as possible. They have, therefore, submitted a new set of plans and the landowner has submitted a new rezoning application and plat application which assume that the roadway will not be developed and the land will remain privately owned. With these facts in mind, a review of the proposal follows. Access /Parking The site plan proposes two accesses off the Highway 252 frontage road, about 90' apart. Both accesses are 30' wide. The southerly access leads to a driveway south of the building which leads to a 3 -29 -90 -1- Application No. 89012 continued stacking lane for the proposed car wash. An exit lane from the car wash extends north of the building approximately 75' and then merges into the driving lane from the main parking lot. This driving lane connects to a 24' wide access onto 66th Avenue North. The access onto 66th is actually on the neighboring lot to the east and lines up directly with the West River Road intersection with 66th Avenue North. (At a minimum, the north leg of this intersection is to be reconfigured with a large bubble expanding the median. See the SEH study for a graphic depiction of the new intersection). Parking provided on site comes to 28 spaces. (The northerly space in the row opposite the car wash exit lane should not be allowed, however, since it constricts the driving lane to the west to a width less than 24'.) The number of spaces required for the building at the retail parking formula is 28 spaces. No parking at the pumps has been credited. It should also be noted that the handicapped spaces north of the building do not meet code. Each handicapped space should be a minimum of 12' wide. The proposed plan provides two 9' wide stalls separated by a 4' wide ramp. There is room to correct this on the plan. As far as stacking for the car wash, the plan shows stacking for six cars, though four of these are compact cars. It is difficult to gauge the need for stacking for the car wash. We have had inquiries about the possibility of a car wash at another parcel in the area and the old Quick Six station had a car wash. If stacking exceeds six cars, the three parking spaces south of the building are likely to be blocked in. The plan labels these spaces "employee parking." There is additional stacking space in the driving lane along the south side of the site. Landscaping The landscape plan erroneously projects a point total of 147.5 points. In reality, the points total 100.5 points. Of note is the fact that no shade trees are proposed. The plan proposes five Profusion Crab trees in the large green area in the northwest corner of the site and four more in the southeast corner of the site. Four Crabs are also proposed in the island between the two accesses on the west side of the site. The accesses will be flanked by planting beds containing Dwarf Mingo Pine and Dragons Blood Sedum. The plan also proposes three planting islands near the building to delineate parking. Plantings would include Seargent Juniper, Wilton Carpet Juniper, and Technes Arborvitae. The principal concern with the landscape plan is the proposed screening treatment along the east property line. The plan proposes a 6' high wood fence, five (5) Black Hills Spruce, three (3) Amur Maple, two (2) Japanese Tree Lilac, and 13 Technes Arborvitae shrubs. On the east side of the fence, the plan 3 -29 -90 -2- Application No. 89012 continued proposes three clumps of Common Purple Lilac. Staff would recommend that shade trees be used instead of Black Hills Spruce to screen the building. We would also recommend that the Commission consider requiring a masonry wall to match the building rather than a wood fence. Finally, we would recommend that the wall either be carried down to the south property line or that Black Hills Spruce be used in place of Profusion Crab at the southeast corner of the site to screen the headlights of cars traveling eastward to use the car wash. As is discussed in the information sheet on the proposed rezoning, (Application No. 90003), the SEH land use study has recommended a land trade, a roadway and landscape buffer to mitigate the effects of the proposed service station on the single - family neighborhood to the east. In the absence of this scenario, we believe the burden is on the service station to provide comparable effective screening. We do not believe the proposed plan goes far enough in that direction. Grading, Drainage Utilities The grading and utility plan proposes to convey runoff to the northeast and southeast corners of the site. A catch basin at the southeast corner of the site will be connected by a 15 storm sewer line to the storm sewer in Willow Lane. At the northeast corner of the site, the flow of drainage will actually cross over the property line to two catch basins in the access drive entering 66th Avenue North, and be conveyed by a 12" storm sewer line to City storm sewer in Willow Lane. No water or sanitary sewer services are indicated on the plan. A hydrant is proposed in the island between the two access drives off the Highway 252 frontage road. Three 1 water services are stubbed to the site from a water main in the frontage road. Building The proposed convenience store building is 50' x 50' and the attached car wash is 16' x 34 The proposed exterior treatment is stucco with a striped metal band along the top of the north, west, and south sides. The building is to be 16' high and the canopy over the gas pumps is to be about 21' 6 above grade. The striping treatment is continued on the canopy fascia. The sidewalk west of the building is only 4' wide, and north of the building only 5' wide. Since most stations store merchandise outside within 4' of the building, these walks will serve little use for pedestrians. It is recommended that they be widened to 8' and that the pumps and parking be shifted accordingly. The building setbacks exceed the minimum required from the north, south, and west property lines. However, the setback from the proposed east property line is the minimum of 10 If the roadway recommended by the SEH study were installed, the setback from the east property line would have to be at least 25 The right -of -way for the new roadway would be somewhat east of the proposed east lot 3 -29 -90 -3- Application No. 89012 continued line, allowing for the necessary 25' setback should the roadway be installed. If this comes about, Fina will have to buy the additional land which will have to be rezoned to C2 and platted into the Fina site. The proposed plan shows no signery on the canopy as this would constitute freestanding signery and exceed the limits of the Sign Ordinance for this site. The plans do show a rendering of a freestanding sign; however, that sign is too large and too high for the size building proposed. The maximum size for this site is 128 sq. ft. and the maximum height is 24 The proposed sign is 147 sq. ft. and 30' high. No variance is acknowledged by approval of the site and building plans. Approval is always exclusive of signery which is subject to the Sign Ordinance. Lighting /Trash The proposed plan calls for nine (9) 16' high pole lights around the site. Two are to be situated at each entrance, two in front of the car wash, and one at the southeast corner of the site. The luminaires are to be 400 watt Super Metal Halides, focused primarily downward. Only one of these lamps should shine eastward toward the residential neighborhood. The applicant should be directed to use a different luminaire by the car wash. The lighting plan indicates light intensity up to 30 foot candles across the property line near the access onto 66th and 16 foot candles in the frontage road. The wattage of the luminaires should be reduced to bring this level down to 10 foot candles in accordance with Section 35 -712 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) . Canopy lighting is to be recessed so that there should be no glare emanating outward from beneath the canopy, The dumpster and screen are proposed at the southeast corner of the building. The dumpster should be placed on a concrete pad. Materials for the trash enclosure have not been specified. We would recommend a masonry enclosure consistent with the building exterior treatment. Special Use Standards Service stations and car washes are special uses in the C2 zoning district. As such, they are subject to the standards contained in Section 35 -220.2 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). Standard (a) of that section is fairly general regarding promoting the general public welfare. Gas stations do pose potential hazards to public health and safety. However, so long as the station complies with all state and local regulations, these hazards should be minimized. The second standard regarding impact on other developed property in the neighborhood has been a concern of local residents. In this regard, the screening treatment along he east side of the proposed g p posed 3 -29 -90 -4- Application No. 89012 continued site is critical. We strongly recommend a quality screening treatment consisting of a masonry wall in combination with generous landscaping, including overstory trees. Standard (c) regarding normal and orderly development of surrounding property relates, in this case, primarily to the vacant C1 parcel (proposed zoning) to the east. The development of the service station takes up an amount of land which will make development of the easterly parcel somewhat difficult. We have requested a concept plan from the property owner to verify that an office development on the easterly parcel, is in fact, possible. We expect such a plan to be available for Thursday's meeting. The property owner's architect has also submitted a retrofit plan which assumes the building in the proposed location, but with the frontage road vacated and a new access road lying to the east. The retrofit plan shows that the proposed location of the building and pumps is workable if a land trade does occur and the recommended roadway and buffer are installed. Standard (d) regarding the design of ingress, egress and parking to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets is always an important consideration with special uses. The placement of the pumps at the south end of the site will tend to provide a good amount of stacking space for cars entering and exiting 66th Avenue North. Some of this stacking may occur in the Highway 252 frontage road which is a marginal access public street. As indicated above, this area may not always be a public street. Another concern regarding the functioning of the public streets is the possibility of water draining off cars from the car wash and turning to ice both on site and in 66th Avenue North. We believe a necessary condition of approval of this application is to make the applicant responsible for any sanding or salting in the public street (66th) which is necessitated as a result of the functioning of the car wash. Absent such maintenance by Fina, the car wash should be shut down until the situation is rectified. Recommendation Altogether, we believe the application is close to being in order and approval can be contemplated, given at least the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is granted only for a gas station /convenience store /car wash as specified on the proposed plans. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3 -29 -90 -5- Application No. 89012 continued 3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 5. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to issuance of permits. 6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. A masonry trash enclosure is required. 7. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City it Ordinances. 8. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 9. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 10. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 11. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantees. 12. The property owner shall enter in an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance ce and Inspection of Utility and P Y Storm Drainage g Systems prior to the issuance of permits. 13. The applicant shall be responsible for treating the effects of water draining off cars exiting the car wash, including sanding and salting the intersection of the easterly access drive with 66th Avenue North when necessary. If unsafe conditions exist in driveways or public streets, the operation of the car wash shall cease until proper maintenance of paved areas is accomplished. 14. The replat of the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to issuance of building permits. 3 -29 -90 -6- Application No. 89012 continued 15. The plans shall be revised prior to consideration by the City Council to indicate the following: (a) A minimum 24' wide driving lane between rows of parking stalls north of the proposed building. (b) Handicapped spaces shall each be a minimum of 12' in width and shall be properly signed. (c) The landscape plan shall be revised to indicate at least six (6) overstory (shade) trees immediately east of the building. The point table shall also be revised. (d) A masonry wall at least 6' in height rather than a wood fence, treated to match the building exterior. (e) The sidewalks north and west of the building shall be widened to at least 8' to accommodate pedestrians as well as storage of merchandise. (f) The lighting plan shall be revised to indicate no more than 250 watt luminaires on the 16' high light poles and not more than 10 foot candles of light intensity at the property lines. (g) The light fixture at the southeast corner of the site shall be re- oriented to shine toward the west rather than the south. 16. Traffic control signs shall be installed as required by the Director of Public Works. 17. Fire hydrants and fire lanes shall be provided as required by the Fire Chief. 3 -29 -90 -7- Section 35 -208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the com- prehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaulation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77 -167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Policy It is the policy of the City that: a) zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and b rezoning P r ) g proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning," defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and against these guidlines which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. Guidelines (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? c ( ) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be comtemplated for development of the subject property? (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? (e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses P ermitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, con- figuration, a g topography or location. (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? ATKINS MECHANICAL, INC. MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS 6550 W. RIVER ROAD MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55430 (612) 566 -8960 March 7, 1990 City of Brooklyn Center Planning Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minn. 55430 Re: E & H Properties C2 /C1 Land Development 66th Ave. No. & Highway 252 Gentlemen: Guideline for Rezoning (a) Clear & Public need Present zoning line between C2 and Proposed Cl is irregular. Straightening out the C2 zone line will make develop- ment of the site more efficient and allow the proposed building to screen on -site activities. (b) C -1 Zoning of parcel closest to residential neighbors will provide a buffer to C2 use. (c) Yes: Proposed use is a service station which is permitted in a C2 zone. (d) There have been no zoning classification changes since the subject property was originally zoned. The Comprehensive Plan has re- commended that the entire site should be Commercial - Retail. The upgrading of Highway #252 has made this an even more viable commercial site. (e) The City has indicated a desire to rezone the R5 parcel to Cl. (f) The subject property will comply fully with development restric- tions for the C2 zoning district. - continued - City of BC Letter dated 3 -7 -90 Page 2 (g) The subject property is suited for uses permitted in the present zoning district; however straightening out the zoning line will promote better development of both sites. (h) The re- zoning will result in a slight increase in the C2 zoning district. We are merely attempting to straighten out the present zoning line. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the entire site to be Commercial- Retail. (i) Straightening out the zone line as proposed will promote better development of both sites. Respectfully submitted, E & H Properties Howard J�/ Atkins ' V HJA /sks ,ate V1 �^ -�, `� � � t/'�,_ •,�� �_ - " "t , �,_. �'G.... �. ° r t, 66th AVENUE r..ro. »cr Y rtI' I SITE SECTION 1 � F I I � I ~ n W W 2 S u W W IL V o IL LL IL 0 2 (iQ�; W pkt [ i FINA I I a f I MORTH �., E Ep — OFFICE I Ll ------------ V� 7 I 3 SUILDIND AREA: 0,000 •.1. PARRIND • 1 /200: 40 SPACES J SITE PLAN �-� ■ ■■ ■■■ __ MON ONE WE 'ANIP CITY son MAMVT ANA TE WW I ■ �� _ _ _ tom■ /., = : = • = : a /r� : ©■ MC! i 1 - ♦ ♦••• ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦• ♦• ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦•• ■ BROOKLYN CENTER-A;- MM HIGH SCHOOL ♦ IN : ►� WC _'• - ��' v TA N(OWNER) �,I- � /... iY� '1 _ PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "-_ MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT r I rI i I E AND H PROP • ERTIES ADDITION ? A)/ENUE I 9aux Ewerr ' 99.0. q10 HARD W - L•H 50 1 1 (OWNER) a „ r �,._:•_ _ _ _ OWNER/SUBDIVIDERS- 71 — °� 4 E AND H PROPERTIES .... I.v N ”, 1 w = -°:,"" +nom `w`J zr�l Y! I 1 19. I{ 4 � ADDRESS 9ME.• yy - West River Road 8 66th Ave N � f I'I;I L- by V WAND 5 llFTB ELSCNUrz JR ;V_1 1 ♦/ - I /' I/ / 1 • -IM 1 I (OWNER( 1 �.4 + l Fil I ' I w' ' ii. "Ix. au.iasi'° v, vlrn cw �{ ZON D C r` P� r 1 "� / `•`'*-' — .. so .... .,....,.,. / / { •` p �� .•� v� r �� l�, /'T.f �-1- I -� •r , r �n...9 n .r uu 1ru ... r. y�.. rusr.b Z , �I / ,� I , r l I 1 �i rr ,, u.. •r sus, x 4 r ... xst. 2 J AREA: 87,681.1 s.f. / ' /'" �cawc ,, aarv \ M1 1 �I ARMAS R LUSLIG � I G 51 '- s 1 : 14, JOw NER1 210 acres 3 II tzo4gD c -21 = I 1- w I( I W { Cf- I s I 1 1 \ \' •� �I, I �� 1 1 a_ N r - - •S, { r « p r PROJECT 1 I•IRWIN NET?�OS4R lONNENI � 1 ; SITE EDWIN W ELMER (OWNER( BROOKLYN CENTER I MERILA & ASSOCIATES, lNC. ,... 9c wxvs v sxs 35 -704 C. Hospitals: One space for every two beds lus one space for P P every two employees and one space for each staff doctor. d. Uses not covered by this list: Spaces as required for the most similar use as determined by the City Council. Section 35 -710. SURFACING, DRAINAGE AND CURBING. In all districts, other than R1 and R2, all open off - street driving and parking areas shall be improved with a minimum of two inches of hot mixed paver laid bituminous mat, or a comparable concrete slab, placed over a well compacted subgrade and gravel base. The base gravel shall conform to the Minnesota Highway Department specifications for Class 5 gravel. In other than R1 and R2 districts, drainage plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer; drainage shall be discouraged across sidewalks or driveways. The perimeters of all driving and parking areas shall be bounded by cast in place concrete curb and gutter which conforms with the Minnesota Highway Department Type "B- 612 ". Other shapes of concrete curb and gutter may be permitted providing the design provides an equal cross - sectional area and is approved in writing by the City Engineer. The concrete used for curbing shall conform to the current City specifications. Section 35 -711 PARKING LOT SCREENING. All open off - street parking areas having more than six parking spaces and all off - street loading and unloading spaces shall be effectively screened from any abutting residential lots by a solid wall or opaque fence six feet high, or by such other device as may be approved by the City Council. The screening device shall not extend within 10 feet of any street right -of -way. Such off - street parking and loading areas within any yards which abuts along a street which is residentially zoned on the side opposite shall be screened from street view by a screening device as approved by the City Council. See Section 35 -400 for limitation on the size of // such screening devices. Y Section 35 -712 LIGHTING. All exterior lighting shall be provided with lenses, reflectors, or shades, so as to concentrate illumination on the property of the owner or operator of said illumination devices. Rays of light shall not ass beyond p the property Y lines o P P f the he premises utilizing such illumination at an intensity neater than Y g three footcandl es measured at ro ert lines P P abut zoned Y tang residentially property, or P 1 P Y 0 fo dl abutting street right -of -way or nonresidential es .measured at property lines emanate from or be visible beyond the boundaries of the p illuminated o premises. "String lighting" as defined in Section 35 -900 is specifically prohibited. l t 35 -220 2. Standards for Special Use Permits A special use permit may be granted by Y the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: a. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. b. The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. C. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. d. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. e. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ordinance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted, the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connection therewith. 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. 35 -220 5. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the subject property within one year of the date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee in an amount as set forth by the City Council resolution. Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the subject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced within that time. In any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit related thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandonment. Section 35 -230. PLAN APPROVAL. It is declared to be the policy of the City to preserve and promote an attractive, stable residential and business environment for its citizens through encouraging well conceived, high quality developments. To this end, imaginative architectural concepts shall be employed in the design of buildings and in the development of respective sites. In this regard, every person, before commencing the construction or major alteration of a structure, except one and two family dwellings and buildings accessory thereto, shall make application for plan approval from the City Council. Plan approval may be required in conjunction with special use permit consideration. The following rules shall govern applications for plan approval. 1. Procedures a. A "Plan Approval" application shall be initiated by the owner of subject property or by his authorized agent. The applicant shall fill out and submit to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Plan Approval" application, copies of which are available at the municipal offices, together with a fee in an amount as set forth by City Council resolution. The application shall be filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission at least fourteen (14) days prior to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. b. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall refer the matter to the Planning Commission by placing the application upon the agenda of the Commission's next regular meeting; provided, however, that the Secretary may, with the approval of the Chairman of the Commission, place the application on the agenda for a special meeting of the Planning Commission. OL'FA X Ld A o - C �D Cc: _ m BRYAN BRYANT - - < - ALDRiC rn E l l _ 6' W - T '- 1 ( � CAMDEN i 3 o CAMDEN AVE. _�A- — — - - z 5 N ST. N' else Ka - . )A -- - + z WEST RIVER ;(- DR .' - _ WILLOW R� DER ti�k� _ , DURtJAM ISLAND r ! o z (CITY OF BROOKLYN PAF:. Z Z O) GO CAI n c Z S 2 < rn r m rn rn I ... T....... W «N iHO DATA , � 3• 66 TH. AVENUES •i. k I 16' POLE LI } N i Z "+ NO SCALE Q a W O 1° ` XgAY° QENER/�L,_d9IE0_ w < BITE DA TA..... V W W / ��'�• , n.. s miry. [• 0 >( E I � r - n .. -• W Z .l o l o D / r U N cc o w b r ° � °1 el I •r ll. ADD '4.E4. JOB NUMBER: "is LLI ISSUE DATE: RECESSED CA LIGHT 3 -12 -90 — - __ __— 9I I sa, ... •K ' ' NO SCALE • REVISIONS: .,r w "x rw I % PROPOSED SITE PLAN 4-2290 SCALE: 1'.20' -0' r , .,.• .. , yr .,.". � 1---- �l � _ � 5 , � o I t KEY: SITE PLAN/ 5 I I I PROPOSED ,�— _ •-... n.. __.. _.._ -- - - - -_v - - sS - - -� _ _ �—J d - 18-,. [0.l —T A-1 = -� OF 9 y At PLA T MATERIAL LIST: cF.• _� OTY KE MATERIAL SIZE ROOT NOTE HY�H 25• eG e.S•L I - rw ID7-' as °•s. S, I 66 TH. AVENUE " <` K• K 5= I c .,. I �! arm u vY °°' iX• ` ' .. er I Y 2'r •u.s • b � hU-.an .. v: a _ . < ,.° T�rw_P1s °Lg_p 3 a Q LLI W I / 'ITS �•Jt•'u +E i.lm;'r xi'•1 G • IG•'..' T ..•' A r .�G.T.`J'.... �' p Z __ y� f ]r'4c ,•vN h. �/ !. _ RN`.CE:.T it :1• 1_.!!ki44 '.. -C'w' v re m L�� 4t �.� < = Ir � / I ° II ° II ° � 'f' 4 1 FroECE✓ P^rbS tz' '����� r ;. JOB NUMBER vis lu uro IFEC,.. - _ i ' ISSUE DATE .v «• �•rc.� �.rn 'z• - g , rxrsn,w �n wrc 3 -12 -90 ___ 1 w PRitMi F.UvFI.'t'.V r° FtEVIStON& I tY H I Sy X :o' t.__ 2 9Uf Kar+e+ uUC. 1f• j or As x•�•X 3 -22 -90 O� LANDSCAPE PLAN f�i �r'l t•• wr n ^ SCALE: T.20' -O• 4-2 -90 T l! rjwj�n L, vir.• I I � � I S i � tEGMrEI'_•}ftt: viT':E 4' p � � CFVw'YL: Jw F �' :'� I a•*rn� mcuer � JL.•1 -I LK I -HEINS t i I URSER nc I - KEY; a SITE Pu►v o arm 'nwa vee ' h cuc•'- Ntw5 �x e'eL � LANDSCAPE � C1a•D'G1R- .JUN:. 's'k' �-^j - L�.r - - - - -� - - - - - - - - OF 9 I — 66 TH. AVENUE — - - -- -- .:, I Z - a CL Lu ? cc w ' 3 , .. .\ l:i'C Y � ; . f• :..�.� j PP �T,- 1 I I I I r` : i uind {l - S LL .o r.. `i ••. % �9 ° ) : r L III I I 7 Joe HUMBER: w n I; I 1 i ` '.•�^, -`_. �{ .. II._I .__ _ _ I-' Q.• , �' I I I , 1 - .__.__ -- IBBUE DATE: .. RENBIONB: it I _ , _t'7 ___ d — I I .o.•,..IKi' „� o- I ( II1I , 1 PROPOS .ALE: I. ED GRADING PLAN 'fib �'I •'.r I CS CCSS I Ilov 833.12 I I I I �J B20' 0' R. NELSON ENGINEERING ,�; , \ '1.1% I I I � I4(-0 71ni lent nl: IC.iirc. \I4 3.�J4 )6I 2)7MJ.T.VR1 I / . KEY: _ a GnaDwG Ptan i )_ OF 9 I t00I ACQt. �, - XYAC tCM[[M At W. CNKrY IAtpA _ BBBBB/ FINAMART } EAS ELEVATION � 11 E SOUTH EL EVATION a wus w.ro �oua w.r.r Q. O U J Q U 898888 BBBBB/ g B9BB/ CAR WASH BBBBB FINAMART 888898 - ] BBBBB FINAMART /88898 w 39 t r]' i.4 W.Wrt r 1 � • srwcrxwi 1 -. Q i _• ` Z W al �g WES -- T ELEVATIO NORTH ELEVATION K O U < E t]ors]t w.r.s ttoAU wn� C LL JOB NUMBER: r FINAMARF — ISSUE DATE: 3 -12 -90 (T REVISIONS: p 7 nut J _ S � 3 -22 -90 ¢ FREE:' -L .LLQ F ff- O O O . t ELEVATIONS 5 PRIMAR POLE SIGN _ EXTERIOR NO SCALE "' . A -6 OF 7 Q r } �e9eBB s'D o BBPiBB CAR WASH FINAMART 888888 �` r " -t - / $ ft U uj ( WEST ELEVATI U W scALE va•.r o' - -- — 0 x E z f J C �n F J ui o�x ! a=Z z s; LL �o JOB NUMBER: V16 ISSUE DATE - ° d ` p 3 -72 -90 o Iw a V 5 a > 4 �g p a 'O, p o d y o REVISION& y Le D a� 3, ��` ,� 6 � � � � a ;, >� ~!„�� vivo. � ✓�gtd° '� c a, ,s � �` � ° p .G%' �� �' ,o -_• w .' � TAG,, ° C�'?7 ' D �'� b � � y � o � rf� ' v ELEVATIONS PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION SCALE 1 /a•.Y -0• A-$ i OF 9 i i i I 66 TH. AVENUE -a I Z CL Q N J In ' U � 1 < �..... x w w / ,,..... , 2 W r Z J �? v ,. / I 0 Q F 8 Z x 0 I 0 E m Q O i e I Z < "< LL o: I ,ee.. ,,, 11 7 i o 0 JOB NUMBER: F wo e. o 1 1 ! � ISSUE DATE: 3 -12 -90 i.• REVI810H8: �� / co Exi�w� ° nose 3 -22 -90 P HOTOMETRIC 4 -2 -90 S CALE: 1'.20' -0' '. KEY: 817E PLAN/ P HOTOMETRIC OF 9 WALL TYPES Ol - 02 0,5 7/8 S y _ 05_ _ ^ 06 r -- 9 L ■ ,, YORK Rp_ _R 3/�' U Q ODR VALK -1N [OOLCR _ —_ - - _ S� 11' f - }. N.I.C. Z IbW § k ..o s F o - - -- - n Q 10 n z U �• 'q I R •^ p '. --© _ 13 1 4 15 Z W f i �8 A [DSjY TIM f• �'-= -��-•- I6- SALE$.._ 5 4 2 � - ni �._ �� E Q i of y ® -- - ■ / { � GENERAL NOTES Z 4 (DICE MERCHANDISER N.I.C. LL } ®S' ELECTRICAL RACEWAY REFER TO ELECTRICAL - CE_ I_ I JOB NUMBER: 6 I r ® ROYSTON CABINET'S NOT IN CONTRACT. V16 �p ICE 7 I (3) ELECTRICAL STUB UP REFER TO ELECTRICAL ISSUE DATE: T _ L � 0FA5T BRINK COUNTERS NOT N CONTRACT. 3 -12 -90 ® GONDOLA Not IN CONTRACT. REVISIONS: OWALL SIIELNIIG NOT N CONTRACT. 3 -22 -90 CAR WA (M ELECTRICAL PANELS REFER TO ELECTRICAL N L ®FLOOR MOUNTED MOP SINK REF" TO PLUMBING. NOTE: ®OPENING N WALL FOR MOUNTAIN FOUNTAIN. REFER TO 3/A -13. NVLNNO AND CAR WASH EXTERIOR DIMENSION[ MUST At EXACT DUE TO PRE - FABRICATED @IDNAOC NAND SINK REFER TO PLUMBING C ONi RAC (OR WILL PAY FOR ALL MODIFICATION@ DEEMED NE CE$BABY BY OWNER TO MEET SPECFI[D DIMENRIONS IF NOT W1THN M/ OF OWENSK)M ®HAND SINK BY ROYSTON. nNAL CONNECTION BY C.C. @NOWH ON PLAN@. 0 3'S' X 2 -0' FILLER [Y ROYSTON. LSEY: RE-- ..0 F.. FLOOR PLAN - DIMENSIO v v SCALE: 1/4' . i' -0' , ""� FLOOR PLAN/ ,Q -- DI l A -5 ■ OF 7 A � S . E 66th AVENUE � YY.___..... YY.�....��_�... ;ill - al •.� YrY.r. YY Y. Y.Y. YIYryY�. W��' C ,7 � � 1 �f 0 N ! W O = N 6 > W J 2 � U WS 0 ; F 1 H 1 " BERM FINA W C� 1 � t of ' NORTH E y O e6 . A NY4 .• . N.Y � � � V t .(.•�IYv'11 r 1 { 1 C� 1 ' � +M �y I MOTEL APARTMENT I C1 f� 6 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. NO. 90003 SUBMITTED BY E AND H PROPERTIES WHEREAS, Application No. 90003 submitted by E and H Properties proposes rezoning from R5 (Multiple Family) to partially C2 (Commerce) and partially C1 (Service /Office) the land at the southwest quadrant of 66th Avenue North and Willow Lane; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on March 29, 1990 when testimony regarding the request was taken; and WHEREAS, the property in question and other property in the vicinity of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North was studied extensively by the City in conjunction with the consulting firm of Short - Elliott - Hendrickson and the result of the study indicated a need for some rezoning to C2 of the property in question; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the proposal at its April 9, 1990 regular meeting when testimony regarding the rezoning request was taken; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council in light of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, the Short- Elliott- Hendrickson Land Use Study, and the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 90003 submitted by E and H Properties, is hereby approved in consideration of the following: 1. The Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial zoning of the land in question from Highway 252 east to Willow Lane. 2. The Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Land Use Study recommends commercial zoning from Highway 252 to a new roadway and landscape buffer, thus necessitating some rezoning of land to C2. 3. The proposed C1 zoning on the easterly portion of the property is an acceptable buffer zoning either from a short -term or long -term perspective. 4. The proposed zoning scheme is consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses and with Highway 252 to the west. RESOLUTION NO. 5. All permitted uses in the proposed zoning district can be contemplated for development of the subject property. 6. The subject property will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts as witnessed by the concept plan for office development submitted by the applicant. 7. Access to 66th Avenue North by both the C2 and C1 properties will be across commercial land and will be designed appropriately to line up with the median opening in 66th Avenue North. 8. The developer of the C2 site has agreed to provide an adequate screening treatment of comparable effect to the landscaped buffer recommended in the Short - Elliott - Hendrickson Land Use Study. 9. In light of the above, it is felt that the proposal is consistent with the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance and is, therefore, in the best interests of the community. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4 -9 - Agenda Item Number /O 16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 90005 - Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority y DEPARTMENT AL: Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection t MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X Application No. 90005 is a request submitted by the Brooklyn Center • Economic Development Authority for a variance from the Sign Ordinance to erect a number of signs for the Earle Brown Heritage Center, some of which comply with the ordinance and some which will not, without a variance. The property in question is currently zoned I -1 and is bounded on the north and east by Earle Brown Drive, on the south by the Earle Brown Commons senior housing development and on the west by Brookdale Corporate Center III and vacant I -1 zoned land. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its March 29, 1990 meeting. Minutes, information sheet, drawings and map of the area are attached for review. Recommendation Approval of the application was recommended by the Planning Commission subject to the three conditions listed in the March 29 minutes. • APPLICATION NO. 90005 (Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for variance approval for a package of signs to be used at the Earle Brown Heritage Center at 6105 Earle Brown Drive. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90005 attached). Commissioner Bernards asked whether the City would be setting any precedent that we would be unable to live with in the future. The Secretary stated that the historic site is unique. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 90005) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and noted that there was no one present to speak regarding the application. She called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90005 (Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority) Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 90005, in light of the following findings: 16 1. The Earle Brown Farm site is a unique historic resource for the community and merits special consideration in lieu of the City Council's action on Application No. 81 (condition #5). 2. The proposed signery conveys necessary visual communication and is not excessive or distasteful as it relates to the historic character of the Earle Brown Farm site. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief review of upcoming business, there was a motion by Commissioner Bernards, seconded by Commissioner Sander to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:57 p.m. 16 3 -29 -90 Chairperson -11- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90005 Applicant: Brooklyn Center EDA Location: 6105 Earle Brown Drive. etc. (Earle Brown Farm) Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests approval of a variance from the Sign Ordinance to erect a number of signs for the Earle Brown Heritage Center, some of which comply with the ordinance and some of which will not, without a variance. The property in question is currently zoned I -1 and is bounded on the north and east by Earle Brown Drive, on the south by the Earle Brown Commons senior housing development and on the west by Brookdale Corporate Center III and vacant I -1 zoned land. The proposed signs include the following: - A 6' x 16' (96 sq. ft.) freestanding identification sign for the Earle Brown Heritage Center to be placed east Hippodrome near the middle entrance off Earle Brown Drive. This sign will be placed partially in the right -of -way. Ultimately 10' of right -of -way will be vacated from each side of Earle Brown Drive. An interim variance is required to allow the sign within the right -of -way temporarily. - A 3' x 6 freestanding, off -site directional sign for the Earle Brown Heritage Center, the Inn of the Farm, and Earle Brown Commons to be located at the entrance to the Commons and Brookdale Corporate Center III off Summit Drive. The variance is for an off -site sign. Also, the sign slightly exceeds the limit of 16 sq. ft. for a directional sign. - Five 18" x 18" wall- mounted building identification signs. These require no variance. - One 18" x 36" Inn on the Farm identification sign hanging from the canopy over the drive -up in front of the inn. The variance here is because the sign hangs below the canopy face rather than on it. - One sign reading "Brooklyn Farm" on the entry gate to the Farm. The only variance here, if there is one, is for a second freestanding identification sign. The Farm is entitled to only one freestanding sign. This sign, if it is classified as an identification sign exceeds that limit. - Two signs of undetermined size on the water tower with the logo of the Earle Brown Heritage Center on each side. The variance here again is that these signs are additional freestanding identification signs. - The building information sign for the ''D" Barn may also be a variance since it will amount to tenant identification signery on a multi- storey office building. However, the fact that it 3 -29 -90 -1- Application No. 90005 continued is a single sign of limited size may allow it to be considered some sort of collective identification sign. It should be stressed that the Earle Brown Heritage Center is registered as a historic site by the Minnesota Historical Society. In 1981, the City recognized this fact in its approval of application 81041. Part of that approval was an acknowledgment that variances would be justifiable in order to bring about the viable re -use of the Farm site. The signery proposed for the Heritage Center, while it would involve a number of technical variances, is not really excessive. The size of the signs is far below what would be allowed by the Sign Ordinance. The signs are also quite tasteful and in keeping with the historical character of the Farm site. While it is impossible to legislate good taste, the City can achieve quality signery through approval of a total sign package. In 1981, the City Council recognized the special status of the Earle Brown Farm in adopting condition No. 5 of its approval of application No. 81041 as follows: 11 5. That the City Council acknowledges through this site plan approval a special zoning status for the land within the Minnesota Historic Site (see Condition No. 4) whereby development and use of the existing Earle Brown Farm buildings shall be based on City Council approval only. The grounds required for variances from City ordinance requirements shall be City Council acceptance of a development plan and the preservation of the Earle Brown Farm structures." This condition was adopted some years before the City negotiated a purchase of the Earle Brown Farm. The motivation behind the condition was, therefore, not to save money, but to enhance the prospect or re -use of the Farm buildings and thereby preservation of the historic site. There is also precedent for granting variances for off -site directional signs provides those signs are at accesses which serve the site of the principal use named on the sign. There is also precedent for granting an interim variance based on the future location of right -of -way. The additional identification signery is not excessive and seems to be reasonable in the form in which it is proposed. The Brooklyn Farm sign over the gate entry way is really a historic artifact since it was on the original gate until recently reconstructed. The sign on the water tower is important because the water tower is considered a key focal point for the Farm by people traveling in the area. Approval of the variance package is recommended in lieu of the following: 1. The Earle Brown Farm site is a unique historic resource for the community and merits special consideration in 3 -29 -90 _2_ Application No. 90005 continued lieu of the City Council's action on application No. 81041 (condition 45). 2. The proposed signery conveys necessary visual communication and is not excessive or distasteful as it relates to the historic character of the Earle Brown Farm site. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. 3 -29 -90 -3- EA - BB— R-OWWN DDR. J IIJJ U PARKING I I L UM E N TA L S HLrvopap,e T I; STABLE O O I HARH i BLA KSMITH 9H O t 'c ARN PAR ING 5 'D' BARN 3 C—L. p. —� F Ou..t Ho '� - � Hou.. i 7 2 I .u4 Bro. F". MI Oa..DO or►, . ��u.. I I � . 6F_.'. d S%. EAKFA3T NORTH -� rte• �?.I � I' I I - +K GoHG�PI -�D PHOTO GILL 15 REcsUl�p , VAh1F' , PAIH - r 6L- -(-< - H.A.P. ' 42 - 204. YoIH"f TowaRPS ^+ 5UIL121 1-16 3 , 4 t Hall` sPH�f? E IALUH.) PtD. �r;p FA69- ICATe-P ALUM. 1^ ,LUH . FAGF. W/ •063' ALL)PI. 1 i� �GtvR HS . PAI H T rAe-r K LD , Gn P6'rA4LiHG W( i wop PAIHTeD — 6L•AG f✓ ST �1 P>;S M 4 N itN D •090 ALUM. PAGE W/ R0UTW J�j ^ — eB ow Logo TYPE , To I u - O H I HATE uH ITf, TA N E \ PAIHT P ACT✓ i-I P CcLoI "T6.5. _n C TES 1 HAT R- E'i'�+IHes� IPES To 45.2 'LAP A ALIiM• EXT� V5101 - j FFA•H L, PAIH - T R-GP -N GoL.oR- - - >:6.5. WHI fa. &1328), �1 t PACES W/ VIHyL• LoPy• 2 %i' WIDE FLAT R>✓TAIHP , N Pi WHI-re, I`- � 3 " wipe DIvIpe�K- f-zko (2) PAIH1ep KED To MA PoLC. y — cove, co Lop # - r t . a (BARS TO BP- RCNOVABLE.)• ALUH. POLE GCX/ER, PAIHTrD N RED W PAIHTt P WHITt Vl:�IZTIGAL 519,'Pe-$ To HATOti P•e ?Alht;(L5. SID. 5TE.F-L PIPe .237 W � IIII __IZOV L�Lv. 5GI<vf( -L: By orm - lV - 3, (1) zo AT- f, clF-CL)I w�4 AfffoX. LOAp 7.bo AMPS. _ 3000 P.S.I. coHGKE.T6 BANG LIJhck ���,til t,U r .� , .. ,r ELGVATInH - 51(;iH TYPe, 1 15.1 1�2' = I-o• �l t 'E'.t ���, O Customer Scale Rerlslons This drawing is the propeny of Bt-OuH HEKITAgb OF. HOTLI7 -* Address Drswn By q� N Y NORDQUIST SIGN �� LI «1»rson COMPANY INC. LIF CestomarApp —,,d Da State Date S12 WEST LAME STREEI M INNEAP0L IS, MN 55408 6 11 8 15 7291 siss>s 3 -O" _ i' /2 T IA ALUM. G ��f tL woR K L11tI /� — W� .obi" ALUH, V- eTU�Hs ItI NRTEI� I'A /IG� w+�lT; nc�y�Ic G� 73245 FA I H�T FA,/, e P /cj RETvIZHS i BACK D CCLO S. _ The Inn I�AL--K- TO HAKE. A«e-S5 �' -- PAHE.1- FOR - = on the Farm m i _\v .D � Earle Brown cop To ILLUMIHA'(e wHIT>;. `m Commons FL• F,'-IN-TrV wHrTe it ill ° =III . Fa7tIH�s �F, Ali►- .. 111 — — —IZo v F,Le -c. sr�vjG6 By 01 1 11) 20 AMP. CIF-wIT ",5?.� try �I'P(�oX• LooO 2.0 a MP5. I ELEVATib - s � SIC:�H 'tYP� Za 45.3 I "n II_p� —D Customer Scala parhbna This Grawoyf,S the property of o EARLS tW-cwh HfeHT-�E cTP. MoTeD .I, Add mus Drawn ay ul YL N O R D Q U I S T SIGN uey ~aPa COMPANY INC. U k \A Svte G1F Cna0a11rar Approval Date 3 1 1 W E S T L A K E S T R E E T Data MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55408 6 1 7 8 2 3 7 7 9 1 I i �� Z 77� /L V 3 m Y r Z < a d _ - - - 3�1� ALM U• PL•4'j�, FLT A CU"f - bU'j a o a We SI(H FACE PAIN'( WHITE M .A. P. Ow - Z Z 3/4 m ` s 0 f-tP VIHYL GoPJ >~oR- BUILDIH(q ' ID�HTIFIG coLO�- � - (a.s. a � TH?-F-'ADED 5'fUD W/ 3/8 ALL)". a TUl�E SL>;��/E 5PAGE(?S h IOU► - { r pI j U o o WALL W/ sit✓IGo`1� ,4PH�SIV�. t- v X J S 5/F SIyH ryPF- 3 Jt 10 45 • X5 7 _ ` o 4 1. 3 p V a N Z N a 0. o u � < J 0 3 _ o V z - d z Z 0 n a I slpE ELEyp.TIcH z r4cH ELeVA s q5.5 45 b a 3 Id I. v° a i I .o •.� °�. s --- - 1" I K .IZSW ALUM- 5C;UAF -6 TU6e x r y o , �L ALUM. i'- ETV(Z PAINT WHI v) 4 The Inn on. the Farm P w SEE SeG ( / 4 ' 5 . 'f ry I TIOh•1 POP- �ETA1L5. _ �--� An Historic Bed 8 Breakfast r .090" aLVt l• PAGE E 561— W/ PTQ. Li FIH15H WHIT, M.A.P. "4Z - ZOZ. s ; T Q 9 S s LAyoVT - S/- SIG1 -+ -Yy S 4 KED VJH7L qF- APHIGS, COLCf- = � 4S X3 a; d m z v� a� N Z ~ n N m N Y x Z < W Q V Z z - BROOKLYN FARM fib—= p Clearance 10'-6" a IZS' ALUM. PAIaGL (PTA. Q�D� W/ wj�IT� RIrtZC - TIVG VINYL. MoUhT "o w J �yt; scR -cus. Ty PES-ryL� : � i 0 e 3 ec � Q T 3/16' ALUM. FL.A -T GUT- OUT LrzT7E.R -5, il S rnlHTrrD wNIT= , MouHT �LVSH To '� % � s � a 6xI5-TIH A m s o G � tom' w/ THR -EaD�D ;ram- a STUDS E SlLlccf{G AGH<;SIV�, TyVESTy( F;'tITIG�R- 6S . J ' vl I �l EL�Vp.TICN Y- u� 45•• H. T. 5. _ r qo 43 xs 4s to i CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4 -9- 90 Agenda Item Number V- 6 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances Declaring Certain Activities as a Public Nuisance and An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the DEPARTMENT AP VAL: I � A -A A- Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection * ************************************************,, q* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW / RECOMMENDATION: z` No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X On the City Council's April 9, 1990 agenda are two ordinance amendments which were last considered by the City Council on February 26, 1990 and are set for public hearing on Monday evening. • The first ordinance is an amendment to Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances declaring certain activities to be a public nuisance and proposes restrictions on the parking and storage of vehicles and equipment primarily in residential areas within the City. Attached are copies of previous Request for Council Consideration reports from February 26, 1990, February 12, 1990, September 2.5, 1989 and a copy of an article which appeared in the December, 1989 Brooklyn Center City Newsletter which should provide background information on the proposed ordinance amendment. Generally this proposed ordinance prohibits or requires the following things that are not currently prohibited or required by City Ordinances: 1. Prohibits parking or storage of any vehicle, material or equipment on any vacant property except as may be permitted by the Zoning or Sign Ordinance. 2. In residential areas the ordinance prohibits parking or storage of any vehicles, trailers and watercraft on normally grass areas in front yards or yards that abut a public street. -1- SUMMARY EXPLANATION CONTINUED • 3. Allows vehicles, trailers and watercraft to be parked only on authorized driveways or paved or graveled extensions of authorized driveways in front yards or yards abutting a public street. Would allow vehicles, trailers and watercraft to be parked or stored on unpaved, and unscreened, areas provided they are stored behind the building setback lines including rear yard areas. 4. Prohibits paved or graveled extensions of driveways in front yards abutting a public street from covering more than 50% of the particular yard area. 5. Prohibits materials, supplies, equipment, etc. to be stored outside in front yards or yards abutting a public street. 6. Requires the outside storage of materials, supplies, equipment, etc. in yards other than front yards and yards abutting a public street to be screened from public view by an opaque fence or wall at least 6' high or high enough to prevent these items from being seen from abutting property at ground level. • 7. Requires that vehicles, material, equipment, etc. which are allowed to be parked or stored in residential areas be owned by a person, or persons, residing on the property. The second ordinance amendment amends Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances regarding the height of fences, hedges and walls. This ordinance amendment would continue to restrict the height of opaque fences, hedges or walls that are located in front yards to 4' in height, but would no longer limit the height of fences to 4' in other yard areas along public streets. The ordinance would also further define a front yard to clarify that portion of a corner lot which would be a front yard, namely, the portion of the lot in which the house faces. Fences located along interior lot lines would be allowed to exceed 4' in height. However, no fence, hedge or wall would be allowed to obstruct sight lines for pedestrians or motor vehicle operators. Attached are diagrams showing the existing restrictions on fences in residential areas and also, how the proposed restrictions would affect fences in residential areas should the ordinance amendment be adopted. • -2- SUMMARY EXPLANATION CONTINUED • Also attached is a copy of a letter I received on April 4, 1990 expressing concerns regarding the parking and storage of recreational vehicles in front yards, regardless of whether or not the are parked on Y improved surfaces P p It should be noted that the proposed ordinance amendment would not prohibit the parking of the recreational vehicle noted in the letter. However, the restriction on the height of fencing would allow this person to erect a fence higher than 4' in height to, possibly, help screen the recreational vehicle. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council, following the public hearing, take action to adopt both of the ordinance amendments. i -3- ,. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2 -26 -90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the city Ordinances Declaring Certain Activities as a Public Nuisance; and an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding * * * # * *Ml. A 9�klj4t * * 0 * f '*e* V *e, .4 *,► (W *q e* *a *a * Walls******* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * # * * * * * * * * ** DEPARTMENT APPROV Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X On the City Council's February 26, 1990 agenda are two ordinances which are offered for a first reading that relate to a discussion the City Council held on February 12, 1990. The first ordinance is an amendment to Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances declaring certain activities to be a public nuisance. The ordinance proposes restrictions on the parking and storage of vehicles and equipment in residential areas within the City. It prohibits the parking or storing of vehicles, equipment, etc. on any vacant property within the City and also limits the parking and - storage of vehicles, boats, trailers, etc. in front yard areas and yard areas abutting public streets to authorized driveways or paved or graveled extensions of authorized driveways. The storage of equipment, supplies, materials, etc. which are stored in other yards may be done provided the area is screened from view by an opaque fence or wall at least six feet high. The ordinance requires that any vehicles, watercraft, equipment or other articles which are allowed to be stored outside in an approved manner must be owned by a person occupying the residentially used property. The ordinance further makes some common exceptions to the ordinance amendment including such things as playground equipment, allowable accessory structures, flagpoles, air conditioner condensers, etc. Attached for the City Council's review are copies of the February 12, 1990 Request for Council Consideration and the September 25, 1989 Request for Council Consideration which backgrounds the proposed ordinance amendment. Also enclosed is a copy of the article that appeared in the December, 1989 Brooklyn Center City Newsletter. SUMMARY EXPLANATION CONTINUED Page 2 February 26, 1990 The second ordinance amendment amends Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances regarding the height of fences, hedges and walls. At the February 12 City Council discussion regarding the above mentioned ordinance, it was pointed out that there were some inconsistencies regarding the current restrictions on the height of opaque fences, hedges and walls within the City. The City Council, after much discussion, requested the staff to draft an ordinance amendment that would allow modifications to the current ordinance to allow. opaque fences, hedges and walls to exceed four feet in height in certain yard areas that abut public streets. The proposed ordinance now would limit opaque fences, hedges or walls to four feet in front yard areas only. Fences, hedges and walls located in yard areas along public streets which are not considered the front and would be y allowed to exceed the minimum four feet in height. Also, the ordinance would allow fences along interior property lines to be higher than four feet. The ordinance goes on to state that no fence, hedge or wall shall be allowed which constitutes an unsafe sight obstruction for pedestrians or motor vehicle operators. The ordinance also defines, in Section 35 -900, a front yard. It clarifies that portion of a corner lot which would be a front yard, namely, the portion of the lot in which the house faces. We will be prepared to further review and discuss with the City Council the impact of this ordinance, particularly as it relates to corner lots within the City. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council take action to approve both ordinance amendments for first reading. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2 -12 -90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL, CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Discussion Item - An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 Ordinances Declaring Certain Activities as a Public Nuisance. p of the City D EPARTM 5,NTAPT OVAL: Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X Attached is a copy of a draft ordinance amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances declaring certain activities to be a public nuisance. The draft ordinance proposes restrictions on the parking and storage of vehicles and equipment in residential areas within the City. This particular idea has been discussed off and on by the City Council for almost two years, most recently on September 25, 1989. At that time, the Council directed the staff to put out information to the public to notify citizens that the City Council was considering such amendments to hopefully allow for citizen input regarding this proposal. An article appeared in the December, 1989 Brooklyn Center City Newsletter (copy attached) explaining the proposal and requesting citizen input. The Brooklyn Center Post News has also been contacted as well. Also attached is a copy of request for Council consideration form from September 25, 1989 explaining the proposed ordinance along with a copy of the then draft ordinance presented to the City Council at that time. Some slight modifications, along the lines suggested in the September 25 report, have been made in the revised draft now before the City Council. i SUMMARY EXPLANATION CONTINUED I have received a number of calls regarding the proposal. Some were requests for clarification. Most, however, had strong feelings regarding the proposal, both pro and con. Some people wanted stronger regulations and favored no parking at all of large recreation vehicles and boats in yards abutting public streets. Concerns about the deteriorating effect the parking and storage of vehicles and equipment had on the neighborhood were also expressed. Other persons believed the City would be going too far with these regulations and should not restrict people from using their own property, on which they pay taxes, in the manner they choose. One person even suggested that the regulations were for the purpose of forcing the working class citizen. who could not afford to store these vehicles anywhere else,out of Brooklyn Center. A few people that lived on corner lots brought up a problem that the City Council may wish to look at further if it is inclined at all to adopt these kinds of regulations. That problem is the impact the restrictions have on limiting the parking of vehicles in yards abutting streets. These people claim, rightfully so, that because they are on corner lots, they have no rear yard and are, therefore, limited in the area in which they can store otherwise authorized vehicles or equipment. Another problem that is raised, which I believe the City Council may wish to review further, is the current height limitation of fences and hedges in yards abutting public streets. The maximum height in these yards is now 4 It appears that this limitation should be loosened up in some cases, particularly certain areas in side yards that abut streets provided the higher fences do not create site line visibilty problems for vehicles. We will be prepared to discuss this further at Monday's meeting. We will also have various slides showing situations related to the proposed regulations. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council continue discussion and seek further public input on these proposed regulations which may lead to consideration of a first reading on the proposal and eventually a public hearing. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9 -25 -89 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Additional Nuisance Ordinances DEPARTMENT APP Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x ) On the September 25 City Council agenda is a discussion item regarding additional Nuisance Ordinances. Attached is a copy of a draft ordinance amending Chapter 19_ Which would attempt to regulate certain activity. This amendment goes back over a year ago when the City Council was considering Nuisance Ordinance amendments relating to the parking and storing of vehicles, equipment and material in residential areas. The last time the attached ordinance was reviewed by the City Council was on December 5, 1988 at which time the Council proceeded to adopt the ordinance regulating the parking and storage of commercial vehicles and equipment in residential areas. The City Council wanted to review further the other nuisance regulations before considering adopting them. It is these regulations that are before the City Council for discussion. First of all, Section 19 -103, Subdivision 13 of the proposed ordinance is intended to- prohibit the parking and storage of any vehicles or equipment on any vacant property in the City regardless of its zoning designation. The proposed Subdivision 14, which is perhaps the most controversial, regulates where vehicles or equipment may be parked or stored in residential areas. The idea in Subdivision 14a is that all vehicles, including cars, authorized trucks, recreation vehicles, trailers, boats, etc. when parked or stored in front yards or yards abutting a public street, must be on an authorized driveway or a paved or graveled extension of an authorized parking or driveway area. These paved or graveled driveway and parking areas may not exceed 50% of that yard area. Vehicles, trailers, boats, etc, may be parked in other yard areas (side or rear yards) without being on paved or graveled surfaces and without being screened from view (Note: The draft ordinance does not specifically provide for parking and storage in the side and rear yards and should be changed to make clear that this can be done. The City Council previously did not want to require screening when parking these vehicles and equipment in side or rear yards). rr ,k s Summary Explanation Page 2 - September 25, 1989 Subdivision 14b of the proposed ordinance deals with the storage of materials supplies, or authorized PP , equipment in residential areas. It rohi 'ts bi such storage e g in front yards, or yards abutting a public street, and requires screening by at least a 6' high opaque fence if these items are stored in any other yard areas. The proposed ordinance goes on in Subdivision 14c to require that any vehicle, equipment, etc. allowed to be parked or stored on occupied residential used property must be owned by the person who resides on that property. Subdivision 14d provides for some commonly accepted exceptions to the regulations. One suggestion that I would make is that the proposed ordinance should refer to "residentially used" ro ert r �� �� p p Y rather than "residentially z � y oned property so as to regulate all property being used for residential purposes and not legal nonconforming ses. For instance g residences sidences alon g Brooklyn Boulevard which are being used as residences, but are in commercial districts, would be subject to these regulations while a legal nonconforming commercial use in a residential zoning district, such as MalmborgIs Nursery and Garden Center, would not be affected by the regulations. It is recommended that the City Council thoroughly discuss these proposed nuisance regulations and give the staff direction as to how they wish to proceed with this proposal. _ t � t Y . T + s F. K. F tj ` ■t�•I . `,�, �y 3�,.aj'��`�' � '4, . , ' r J < . , r �.t���q; F� �yc- `,�,_,y��+ 'yar���.��.� a � '�� � •:n g � . - r i - a ' +•� �"iF � •'L ! �'S.� �� �i� ,q�M��i'" a�°s'C' .r '�' �K7" �� y ' 4 � ' „� ►' ;S61 dI1lA1F¢KA GiY `~ t:` +� ` - _ iN%, 4. E , � ! f . --. R CITY NEWSLETTER M NUMBER 65 DECEMBER, 1989 4 Homestead Pro Tax Cards Must Be Filed 1�y January 1 An application for the homestead card, or place it in an envelope if i~ property tax classification must be you prefer. submitted each Year. The 1990 s application cards will be mailed to If you have purchased your home Brooklvn Center home owners on during the past year and are MINNESOTA 1990 or about January 2 , 1990. applying for homestead for the first time, you must make the In 1990, Minnesota will host The Homestead Application card application in person at the As- the United States Olympic Fes - will be attached to your 1990 valu- sessor's Office at the Brooklyn tival -'90. In conjunction with ation notice. Please separate the Center City Hall, 6301 Shingle this event there will be a state card, complete with the signa- Creek Parkway. You will need to wide undertaking called Cele- tures and social security num- bring the deed which transfers brate Minnesota 1990. bers of the owners residing at the ownership and the social security The City of Brooklyn Center property, and return it to the numbers of all owners. Once this has become one of 400 Cele- Brooklyn Center Assessor's Of- has been done, a homestead card brate Minnesota 1990 com- fice no later than January 15. will be mailed to the property. Again, munities, and the 8th Annual the deadline for filing is January The form of the card has changed 15. Earle Brown Days festival will from previous years. The card and be dedicated to this event. The valuation notice will be part of a A property which is classified as dates for Earle Brown Days are three part booklet package which homestead pays a much lower tax June 15 -24. Additional details is opened by tearing off the edge than a non - homestead property of will be provided in the sum- strips. The card maybe returned by equal value. Some property owners mer newsletter. stamping and mailing as a post- may also qualify for refunds from the State of Minnesota. Call 296- 3781 for information and applica- Other Re�ulatl ®ns Considered confusion regarding the homestead • � �� ®���� �� credit" and the homestead tax clas- ®r Par] sification, but _you must still file a V ehicles and E qu i pment homestead card in order to receive L these benefits. In an effort to maintain the resi- storage of vehicles and equipment If you have any questions about dential character of the commu- in residential areas. the homestead process, your 1990 nity's neighborhoods, the Brooklyn valuation, or have not received your Center City Council is considering At the end of' 1988, the Council homestead card by Tuesday, Janu- the adoption of additional regula- adopted an ordinance which took ary 9, please call the Assessor's tions involving the parkin; and (Continued on Page 2) g (Continued on Page 2) s � e - 3�? , Storage... Mediation: How (Continued from Page 1) � This Free Service effect in June, 1989, prohibiting vehicles. trailers, boats. etc., when Works For You the parking and storage of con- parked or stored in front vards or siruction equipment, farm vehicles yards that abut a public street. Mediation is an extremely effee- and equipment, and certain sized must be parked or stored on an tiyewavof resolvingdisputes. Since commercial vehicles (longer than authorized driveway or a paved or the North Hennepin Mediation 21 feet, and higher than 8 feet, or graveled extension of an author - Project (NI hMP). founded in Brookl n with a gross weight of more than ized parking or driveway area. These Center, opened for business in 198 983, 9,000 pounds) in residential areas. paved areas cannot exceed 50 per- hundreds of persons have used This fall, the Council reviewed cent of that yard area. Vehicles, mediation as a means to settle a additional regulations which are trailers, boats, etc., may be parked dispute. Please call 561 -0033. expected to be on the Council in other yards, such as the rear or side vards, without being paved or It is especially helpful in situ - agenda in January, 1990, and ations where there will be an ono- resident input is requested. The graveled surfaces. ing relationship such as with fa proposed ordinance will not al- The third aspect of the regula- ily members, neighbors, business low the parking and storage of tions deal with the storage of mate- and consumers, and so on. any vehicles or equipment on rials, supplies, or other authorized any vacant property in the City, equipment. The proposed ordinance Mediation is nonthreatening. It regardless of its zoning designa- would prohibit the storage of such allows people to meet in a neutral tion. setting with impartial mediators to materials in front yards or yards abutting a public street. Storage of discuss the situation in a construc- Also, all vehicles including cars, tive way. The few rules that govern authorized trucks, recreational such material in anv other yard would require that the materials or the session have to do with com- mon courtesv and confidentiality. i { „ s supplies be screened from public view at ground level by at least a 6 Mediation is free. At the present NOR THWEST foot high opaque fence or wall. time, mediation services are avail- CO able to Brooklyn Center residents The proposed ordinance would at no cost to the users. Funds from ,, also require that any vehicle, equip- Hennepin County, municipalities � VpSJTON ment, material, or supplies which are allowed to be parked or stored including Brooklyn Center, foun- on occupied residential property dations, businesses and organiza Outreach Special must be owned by the person who tions are covering the costs. resides on that property. Mediation is quick. The goal of Each week, Northwest Commu- the NHMP is to have the parties nity Television presents "Outreach The ordinance provides for some into a mediation session within two Special ", a program in which pro- commonly accepted exceptions to weeks of the time NHMP receives ducer /host Joanna Foote show- these regulations and would not the initial call. cases a non - profit organization and apply to such things as playground its work. equipment, allowable accessory structures, flagpoles, airconditioner Homestead... Many of these organizations are condensers, laundry drying equip- (Continued from Page 1) found in the surrounding north- ment, arbors, trellises, properly west suburbs with the rest existing stacked firewood and the tempo in the larger Twin Cities metropoli- rary storage of building materials O at 561- 5440 or stop by City tan area. Recent past editions of for home improvement projects in Hall. "Outreach Special" have dealt with process. Due to the 1989 special legisla- topics such as runaways, pregnancy tive session, the 1990 tax state- loss, and disabilities, while featur- If you are interested in obtain- ments will be mailed later t vear. ing the different organizations and ing additional information regard- Hennepin County expects to mail persons involved. ing these proposed ordinances, them in late March, although the or would like to express your mailing deadline is April 15. ues- Interested residents should tune comments to the City Council, tions regarding the tax statements in to Channel 33, Sundays at 6 please contact the City Hall at can be directed to Hennepin County p.m. and Mondays at 8 p.m. 561 -5440. at 348 -3011. 2 n.. �s GARAGE la . v i io' M/NImuM Tgpl'CAL FR NT AND SIDE YARD SETgP,CrLS -- 'L -ErAL- YA;ZoS p CN °T To SGA LE� ty FENCES IN REAR YARD AREA -MAX. �<c�'�O HEIGHT SIX (6) FOOT�c �P O F It i f S + � i • i . • / 4 • + w :• FENCES, FRONT •� W � FcNCES IN FRONT J YARD ABUTTING YARD AREA AREA - iMAX. STREETS - MAX. HEIGH T f 'i�' : HEIGHT - FOUR (4) F00T FOUR (4) F00T { VA P 1 1 , i SITE TRIANGLE FF TYPICAL ALL FOUR (4) CORNERS iz 6R V'V � � -` � � ! ry 0 z—/ ci 0 0 0 lu- 17 3M J 0 2 -1 -- :t 7 q <z ` Q VA r. 1 110 - d d -- N Q cy 2 Iz LL LL <zf A Q v s o Zj ... . ...... vi Z z Z, lam' i � � - - - .. - fIf April 2, 1990 i.r. . ' Ron `Marren 6301 Shin :le Creek Parkway Brooklyn ^,enter, X-N 55430 Dear Mr. ' Marren. We are seriously considering selling our home of 34 years. Not because we want to, but because we are fed up. Fed up with ordinances that favor a minority group of people in Brooklyn Center. People that insist on parking recreational vehicles and other vehicles in their front yards. We have been good citizens, have constantly improved our home and pay our taxes without complaint. But our patience has worn thin! For twenty years we had the pleasure of looking at our neighbors travel trailer, parked in their front yard, adjacent to our driveway and used one month a year. Approximately six years ago they traded their travel trailer for a house trailer that is 22 feet long and 8 1/2 feet high. It completely blocks our view to the north. They also move this house trailer one month out of the year, usually March 15 to April 15. We consider this a permanent structure in spite of the wheels, wheels which our neighbors are nice enough to decorate with large plastic garbage bags! Of course under the Brooklyn Center ordinance, they are strictly within the law. They had their driveway black - topped so they could park there permanently. They know it irritates us and detracts from the appearance of our home and the neighborhood, but their reply is, "your rights end at your property line and ours end at our property line and we could care less how the front yard looks." I don't like living next door to a house trailer. If I wanted to live in a trailer park, I'd move to one. We owned a house trailer several years ago but we rented a lot for it in the summer and stored it at the Minnesota Fairgrounds in the winter. We did not inflict it on our neighbors. Page Two You council members do not live next door to trailers. I've taken the liberty of checking on a few of your homes. Mr. Cohen, you have a nice wide open corner, nice view, fenced back yard. Mrs. Scott, you have a trailer in your back yard, but with a nice view of the river. Mr. Pedlar, also on a corner, no trailers, nice pool. Mr. Paulsen, no recreational vehicles and an unobstructed view. Of course until this happens to you, you will not know how extremely frustrating this is or how helpless a citizen can feel. I've also driven around Brooklyn Center and taken note of the recreational vehicles covered with blue plastic, boats covered with blue plastic, utility trailers and campers. A minority of people have these to be sure, but is this how we want Brooklyn Centers front yards to look? I do not believe in the "Big Brother" concept in government, but I believe in equal rights or majority rights and I believe and know that the majority of people want Brooklyn Center to look neat, clean and uncluttered! 0 I read with interest the Sunday Tribune magazine article on the group home controversy staged in Brooklyn Center. John Derus remarks sum up how all ordinances should be passed on citizens and I quote, "Do I want this next to me? - -- No, I don't! Do I have the right to put it next to you when I don't want it next to me? No, I don't!" If I wanted to put up an 8 1/2 foot fence to screen my property, I could not because of a height ordinance on fences in front yards. Although there is a fence at 3500 - 62nd Avenue North that looks at least six feet high or higher and seems to be on the property line to the easement and across the front yard. Do these people have special privileges? I am hoping that you council members will have the courage to do something about these unfair ordinances. I would like to think you are working for all the citizens in Brooklyn Center, not just a select few. Please drive by our home and see for yourself if you would be as patient as we have been. Two years ago I wrote to Jerry Splinter about my concern. He did not bother to reply. Last year I called Mayor Nyquist. Evidently he contacted Mr. Splinter and asked him to call me. Page Three We had a short conversation, he promised to check out my concerns and call me - -- his exact word " ' s If I don't call ou back b Y Y the middle of Ma you call me." I cal Y Y led him about May 15th, 1989 and left my name and number. To date I have heard not a word. Patti Page assured me that you council members read your mail - -- I hope so! But can anyone beat city hall? I would appreciate hearing from each of you after your April 6 meeting as to how this can be resolved, as our options are to continue to improve our home or to sell. I thank you for reading this letter. Sincerely, 1, Mary A. Dennis 5842 Admiral Lane N Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 (612) 537 -6739 u f i This is the view we have for 330 days a year from our front and back doorsl Ada need to hear from you by }Iay 1, 1990 _ because if we are to ssll our home, it mi :ht just take quite a while because of our terrific view! -- Or will we t' own be allowed to put up a six (6) foot fence or will our nei :hbors be •• required to fenme7 we reel to hear from youtt No procrastonatinct //a 1 f � CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 9tb day of April , 1990 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Nuisance Ordinance by declaring certain actions as public nuisances. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES BY DECLARING CERTAIN ACTIONS AS PUBLIC NUISANCES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended as follows: Section 19 -103. PUBLIC NUISANCES FURTHER DEFINED. It is hereby declared to be a public nuisance to permit, maintain, or harbor any of the following: 13. The outside parking and /or storage on vacant property of useable or unusable vehicles trailers watercraft, snowmobiles,- recreational vehicles all - terrain vehicles construction vehicles and equipment or similar vehicles materials supplies, equipment ice fish houses skateboard ramps, play houses or other non - permanent structures except as may be permitted by the Zoning or Sign Ordinances 14. The outside parking and /or storage on occupied residentially used property of useable or nonusable vehicles, trailers watercraft snowmobiles recreational vehicles, all terrain vehicles and similar vehicles materials supplies equipment ice fish houses skateboard ramps or other non- permanent structures unless they comply with the following: ORDINANCE NO. a) Vehicles, trailers and watercraft may be parked or stored outside in any yard provided, however, if they are parked or stored in the front yard area, or a yard area abutting a public street, they must be parked or stored on an authorized parking or driveway area or a paved or graveled extension of an authorized parking or driveway area and be in compliance with Section 19 -1301 through 1305 of the City Ordinances. Authorized driveways and paved or graveled extensions thereof may not exceed 50% of the front yard or a yard area abutting a public street unless approved by the City Council as part of a plan approval for an apartment complex pursuant to Section 35 -230 of the City Ordinances. b1 Materials, supplies, equipment other than construction or farm equipment, may be stored or located in any yard other than a front yard or a Vard abutting a public street provided they are screened from _public view by an opaque fence or wall at least six feet high or high enough to prevent these items from being seen from abutting property at ground level. c) All vehicles watercraft and other articles allowed to be stored outside in an approved manner on occupied residentially used property must be owned by a person who resides on the Property. (Persons who are away at school or in the military service for periods of time, but still claim the property as their legal residence shall be considered residents on the property. d) The prohibitions of this section of the ordinance shall not apply to commonly accepted materials or equipment such as playground equipment, allowable accessory structures flagpoles, air conditioner condensers, laundry drying equipment arbors trellises properly stacked firewood and temporary storage of building materials for home improvement protects in process. ORDINANCE NO. Section 2. This ordinanc shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days r::llowing its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1990. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter) . CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 9th day of April , 1990 at 7 =3 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the height of fences, hedges and walls. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE HEIGHT OF FENCES HEDGES AND WALLS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35- 400.8a. 8. The following shall not be considered as encroachments on yard setback requirements. a. In any yards: Offstreet open parking spaces; terraces; awnings; canopies; steps not exceeding 10% of the area of the yard; chimneys; flagpoles; air conditioner condensers; o aque fences, hedges, or walls provided they shall not exceed four feet in height in front [,side or rear] yards [abutting streets] and provided they do not impede vision within the sight triangle described in Section 35- 560, or a clear view of the address of the Principal building Fences hedges or walls may exceed four feet in height alongside interior Property lines. No fence, hedge or wall shall be allowed which constitutes an unsafe sight obstruction for pedestrians or motor vehicle operators. Section 35 -900. _Yard, Front - A and extending along the full width Y g g of the front lot line between the side lot lines. Notwithstanding Provisions to the contrary on corner lots the front yard shall generally be the full width of the yard which the front of the house faces, lying between the side lot line and the opposite lot line abutting a public street ORDINANCE NO, Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1990. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter) . CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4 -9 -90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 Regarding Permitted Uses in the C1, C2, and I -1 Zoning Districts DEPARTMENT APPR L: Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _X ) On the April 9, 1990 City Council agenda is a public hearing and consideration of an ordinance amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding permitted and special uses in the C1, C2 and I -1 zoning districts. This ordinance amendment was offered to the City . Council for first reading on March 12, 1990 and was part of a package of information and recommendations regarding the rezoning of certain land in the Industrial Park zoning district to C2, General Commerce. This was part of Planning Commission Application No. 89003. Attached for the Council's consideration is a lengthy packet of material relating to these items. The general effect of this ordinance amendment would be to make changes in the I -1 zoning district particularly to make that district more of a zone for employment, where commerce would have a limited role. It is believed that this ordinance amendment would allow the inclusion in the I -1 zone of uses which are likely to be compatible with, complimentary to, and of comparable intensity to other uses permitted in the I -1 zoning district. Excluded from uses to be considered in the I -1 zone would be retail uses, (other than accessory uses), restaurants including fast food restaurants and restaurants offering live entertainment, equipment rental and leasing service uses, hospitals, gasoline service stations and motor vehicle repair, transient lodging, club rooms and lodges. To be added to the zoning district would _ be school bus garages and tennis clubs which would be added as special uses in the I -1 zoning district. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council, following the public • hearing, adopt the ordinance amendment. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 3 -12 -90 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 89003 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center DEPARTMENT APP Signature - title Director of 1 anni ng 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. 89003 is a request to rezone from I -1 (Industrial Park) to C2 (Commerce) certain lands lying both north and south of I -694 between Shingle Creek and T.H. 100 /Humboldt Avenue North. The land in question is both partially vacant and partially developed. It includes the sites for the Holiday Inn, La Casita restaurant, Econolodge motel, Budgetel motel, the Earle Brown Bowl, the Hardees restaurant and the vacant lands south of Freeway Boulevard and north of I -694. South of the freeway the rezoning appplication comprehends the property lying easterly of Shingle Creek Parkway and westerly of T.H. 100 and includes Brookdale Corporate Center I, II and III, the Earle Brown Farm and the Earle Brown Office Tower. Attached is a map highlighting the areas proposed to be rezoned under this City initiated rezoning application. This application was reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission over one year ago when the Commission recommended Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -1 relating to its recommendation regarding a change to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -2 recommending the approval of this rezoning application. Also, the Planning Commission had recommended an ordinance amendment which would have eliminated certain uses in the Industrial Park zone. The reason this application was not presented to the City Council was related to questions which were raised, primarily by the City Attorney, regarding whether or not the Zoning Ordinance amendment would be appropriate. The staff was also reviewing, at that time, a proposed PUD ordinance which would address some of the concerns expressed by the City Attorney. The rezoning application was, therefore, held off until after the PUD ordinance was considered and adopted by the City Council. it SUMMARY EXPLANATION (PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 89003) Page 2 The principal impetus to the proposed rezoning is a desire to make the I -1 zone more truly an industrial park zone primarily for office, warehouse, light manufacturing, some service uses and wholesale trade uses and to eliminate the potential development in the I -1 zone of certain commercial uses which are believed to be inappropriate in certain areas of the Industrial Park. Furthermore, the rezoning would recognize the commercial nature of some already existing development in the area which is appropriately located and would also set aside this area for future development of commercial uses of the type found in the area between Freeway Boulevard and the freeway. Along with this rezoning is a proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate certain commercial uses already allowed, generally through the issuance of a special use permit, in the I -1 zone. Concerns regarding the City's ability (or inability) to control development through the use of the special use permit technique have forced us to take another look at the question or appropriate uses in the industrial park zone. At one time, after the adoption of the 1968 Zoning Ordinance, most of the land in the area around Shingle Creek Parkway and the freeway was zoned I -1, including the areas now zoned C2 south of Summit Drive. As roadways were developed in these areas, proposals for commercial development came forward, land was rezoned and used ultimately for commercial purposes. The I -1 zone was viewed as a zone to be preserved for employment where commerce had a limited role. However, the City desired to have the flexibility to allow certain commercial uses in this industrial park zone where it could be demonstrated that the uses were compatible with, complimentary to, and of comparable intensity to uses already permitted in the industrial park district. Therefore, in 1973, the City Council amended the ordinance to allow certain commercial uses in the I -1 zone through the issuance of a special use permit. Control of the location of the uses was with the City which could deny the uses if it found that the uses were not compatible, complimentary, or of comparable intensity or that the uses could not meet the Standards for Special Use Permits contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The burden of proof was with the developer to show the proposal met these criteria. In 1976 the City Council further amended the Zoning Ordinance to provide even more flexibility by comprehending even more commercial uses in the I -1 zone. The City also was generally dealing with one developer in the Industrial Park and there was, for the most part, a common consensus on what uses would be appropriate and in what location. t' r•, SUMMARY EXPLANATION Page 3 Two things have changed since that time which we believe lead to the need to pursue the proposed rezoning. One is how courts have more recently viewed the whole special use permit process. If uses are listed as either a special use or a permitted use in a zoning district, courts have generally tended to look at this fact as giving the owner a property right to make use of the land in such a manner. The burden has, in reality shifted to the City to prove such a use, or uses, are inappropriate. So, in great part, the flexibility sought by the City in allowing expanded uses in the I -1 zone through its amendments in 1973 and 1976 to the Zoning Ordinance have really reduced the City's ability to control the use question. Also, a potential change in philosophy of the developer of the Industrial Park has caused some changes. The principal developer is more inclined to sell land for development than he was in the past and there is not as clear a plan for long range development in the Industrial Park as there had been in the past. These two factors have gone a long way toward influencing the recommended rezoning proposal and ordinance amendment. The Planning Commission Information Sheet dated January 26, 1989 relating to this application, I believe, outlines quite well the justification for the proposed rezoning. Attached are Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 89 -1 and 89 -2 which represent the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend the Comprehensive Plan regarding uses allowed in the area immediately north of the freeway and east of Shingle Creek Parkway and their rationale for the proposed rezoning. The Commission reaffirmed these two resolutions at their March 1, 1990 meeting. They also recommended a Zoning Ordinance amendment which would eliminate a number of commercial uses, now comprehended as special uses in the I -1 zoning district. Attached for the City Council's review are the following items related to this matter: 1. A February 27, 1990 memorandum to the Planning Commission from the Planning staff. 2. The January 26, 1989 Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89003. 3. The January 26, 1989 Planning Commission minutes relating to Application No. 89003. 4. The March 2, 1989 Planning Commission Information Sheet relating to this application and the March 2, 1989 Planning Commission minutes relating to this application. SUMMARY EXPLANATION Page 4 5. A copy of Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -1 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -2 setting forth the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding Application No. 89003. 6. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes from March 1, 1990 relating to this matter. 7. A map of this area highlighting the land areas proposed to be rezoned from I -1 to C2. 8. A copy of Figure 15 and Table 14 from the City's Comprehensive Plan. 9. A letter from the Metropolitan Council indicating that the proposed amendment has no potential impact upon any of the metropolitan system plans, therefore, the City may place the amendment into effect immediately. 10. A copy of an ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances regarding permitted a special g g p and p cial uses in the C1, C2 and I -1 zoning districts which was recommended by the Planning Commission at its March 1, 1990. Recommendation Two resolutions, one a resolution amending the City's Comprehensive Plan relative to a land north of I -694 and east of Shingle Creek, adjacent to Freeway Boulevard and a resolution regarding the disposition of _Planning Commission Application No. 89003 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center are offered for adoption by the City Council. If these resolutions are adopted, the proposed rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment will 11 be effective. Also offered for the City Council's consideration is the first reading on an ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances regarding permitted and special uses in the C1, C2, and I -1 zoning districts. _ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Uses Permitted in C1, C2, and I -1 Zones DATE: February 27, 1990 This memo is to return to the Planning Commission for consideration a City- initiated rezoning application (No. 89003) to 'rezone a number of parcels near or adjacent to the freeway from I -1 to C2, and an ordinance amendment which would eliminate certain commercial uses from the I -1 to C2, and an ordinance amendment which would eliminate certain commercial uses from the I -1 zone special uses. The Planning Commission considered these matters early in 1989 and adopted Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 89 -1 (Comprehensive Plan amendment) and 89 -2 (Rezoning) recommending to the City Council adoption of a Comprehensive Plan amendment and the rezoning on March 2, 1989. Attached is a copy of the minutes of the March 2, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, the resolutions and the recommended ordinance amendment. These matters were not considered by the City Council, but were held off, pending adoption of a Planned Unit Development ordinance, which will add flexibility to all zoning districts within the City. Also attached for the Commission's consideration is a new draft ordinance amendment regarding uses permitted in the C1, C2, and I -1 zones. It differs from the ordinance recommended by the Commission in March 1989 in certain respects. First of all, it adds as a permitted use, in the C1 and C2 zones, leasing offices provided there is no storage or display of products on the use site. Secondly, it removes automobile and truck rental and leasing as a permitted use in the I -1 zone. It is believed that such a use, unless it is simply a leasing office, would likely involve outdoor storage of leased vehicles or inventory which is otherwise prohibited in the I -1 zone. Thirdly, and most importantly, it eliminates from the I -1 zone all retail sales uses as principal uses. The previous ordinance amendment allowed certain single - tenant retail uses, however, the City Attorney has expressed concerns about that approach. Retail sales as an accessory use would still be allowed by special use permit. We feel that the Schmitt Music use - -which combines warehousing, educational lessons, and retail sales - -can be comprehended under this provision. Other retail sales uses may be comprehended under a PUD approval. Finally, the new ordinance amendment reduces the range of commercial uses allowed in the I -1 zone by special use permit. Among the uses to be eliminated from consideration would be: eating establishments of all kinds, equipment rental and leasing services, hospitals, gasoline service stations and motor vehicle repair, transient lodging, clubrooms and lodges. School bus garages and tennis clubs would be added as special uses in the I -1 zone. Memo Page 2 February 27, 1990 The general effect of these changes would be to make the I -1 zone more of a zone for employment, where commerce would have a limited role. The rezoning of land adjacent to the freeway should accommodate commercial development demand in this area for some time to come. Moreover, the PUD ordinance will add flexibility for mixing uses which did not previously exist. We feel that the draft ordinance amendment would include in the I -1 zone uses which are likely to be compatible with, complementary to, and of comparable intensity to the other uses permitted in the I -1 zone. A copy of the C2 and I -1 permitted and special uses is attached for the Commission's review. We will be prepared to discuss this matter further at Thursday's meeting. It is hoped that the Commission can act on the revised ordinance amendment at that time. c ) Granting a variance would be detrimental to the public welfare by undermining the required setback for structures adjacent to major thoroughfares. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Chairman Nelson then inquired of the Commission as to whether they recommend the ordinance amendment drafted by staff. Commissioner Malecki asked whether she understood correctly that, if 69th Avenue North becomes a four lane street, it would become a major thoroughfare again. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, adding that it would only be a major thoroughfare where widened to four lanes. He noted that there is no plan as yet to widen 69th west of Brooklyn Boulevard where it is a county road. ACTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REDEFINING MAJOR THOROUGHFARES Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Definition of Major Thoroughfares as all four lane streets and roads. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. , APPLICATION NO. 89003 (City of Brooklyn Center) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for rezoning approval by the City of Brooklyn Center of the land bordering the freeway, generally south of Freeway Boulevard and north of Summit Drive. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commissionr Information Sheet for Application No. 89003 attached). The Secretary added that he would like the Commission to review the ordinance language amending the uses permitted in the I -1 zone. He noted that the language in the ordinance draft would eliminate all C2 uses except service /office uses from the I -1 zone. He reviewed with the Commission some of the C2 uses that would be eliminated, including retail sales, restaurants, and some service uses. He stated that the Commission should take a close look at what would be taken out of the I -1 zone. He stated that the initial concern was to prevent fast food restaurants and budget motels at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. He stated that he recommended that the Commission not go as far as the draft ordinance, but rather consider allowing the permitted C2 uses in the I -1 zone, while excluding the special uses such as fast food restaurants and transient lodging. In response to a question from Chairman Nelson as to the vacant parcels involved, the Secretary showed the Commission a map of the commercial and industrial park and pointed out existing vacant parcels in the I -1 zone and the parcels that would be rezoned under the proposed rezoning. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt the proposed ordinance covers the things that he would not like to see in the I -1 zone, including retail centers. He stated that he did not think a restaurant would go on the I -1 zoned land remaining. Chairman Nelson asked whether the ordinance would eliminate a dining facility. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, but added that he would not recommend going that far. He stated that he would also allow retail uses in the I -1 zone. He noted that there is some retail that would still be allowed as an accessory use to manufacturing, and wholesale, etc. Commissioner Ainas asked whether the City could restrict the type of retail uses that would go into the I -1 zone. He stated that he did not want to see a strip shopping center built in the I -1 zone. The Secretary stated that the Commission could look at ordinance language in 1 -26 -89 _2_ restricting retail establishments in the I -1 zone. He stated that some retail uses have been allowed, such as Schmitt Music and the former Carriage House use west of Shingle Creek. He admitted that allowing retail uses in the I -1 zone could open up the possibility of a strip shopping center, but he doubted that such a use would be proposed. Commissioner Ainas acknowledged that a strip shopping center was not expected, but he would still like to prevent it. Mr. Al Beisner, the representative of Richardson and Sons, the owner of much of the vacant land left north of the freeway, commented on the ordinance amendment changes. Chairman Nelson asked about the possibility of restaurants at Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. Mr. Beisner stated that he had talked to representatives of a couple of restaurants interested in locating at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. The Secretary briefly reviewed the areas proposed for rezoning to C2 and asked Mr. Beisner to comment on the reality and potential for the I -1 zone. Mr. Beisner stated that he had contacts with a company that wanted to put a furniture showroom similar to Schmitt Music west of the Schmitt Music site. He also stated that a restaurant could be proposed at the northwest corner of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway. He stated that the area at Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard is a very popular corner and will be in the future. He predicted that the industrial building at the northeast corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard would probably be demolished and redeveloped in the next five years or so. He stated that he understood the aim of the ordinance amendment, but would still like to allow restaurants in the I -1 zone. Commissioner Malecki stated that it sounded as if the vision Mr. Beisner had of the land along Freeway Boulevard involved more commercial than industrial uses. Mr. Beisner stated that that could be what works out. He stated, that because of the first ring suburb location of the industrial park, the City would not see much warehousing proposed in this area, but would see more service - oriented uses. He stated that he did not want to see the City zone out future possibilities for the industrial park. Commissioner Ainas asked whether Mr. Beisner foresaw a strip shopping center in the I -1 zone. Mr. Beisner answered in the negative, but stated that a retail showroom /warehouse type use, similar to Schmitt Music might be proposed. The Secretary pointed out that what spurred the rezoning proposal was interest on the part of fast food restaurants and budget motels to locate at Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. He stated that staff did not believe such uses would reflect well on the industrial park and the Planning Commission and City Council had concurred with that judgement. He went on to explain that the uses south of Freeway Boulevard were basically commercial in nature even though they were located in the industrial park zoning district. He stated that staff had become concerned that the City would be unable to defend in court a denial of a special use permit for a fast food restaurant and a budget motel since similar uses had been allowed in the area south of Freeway Boulevard. Commissioner Ainas asked whether the City could distinguish between a large and a small restaurant in its use regulations. The Secretary stated that the City already distinguishes between convenience food restaurants and other eating establishments. He also pointed out that a liquor license requires a restaurant to have at least 150 dining seats. Commissioner Malecki asked whether Schmitt Music wouldn't fit under the category of retail sales as an accessory use to wholesale and warehousing uses. The Secretary stated that it possibly could, but that that building was originally an appliance showroom and warehouse for Kennedy and Cohen. Commissioner Malecki noted that there had been educational uses in the I -1 zone such as a dance studio. The Secretary also pointed out some other uses that had been allowed, including gymnasiums. 1 -26 -89 _3_ Mr. Beisner stated that he was concerned that the City not send the message that some good things for the industrial park would be kept out. The Secretary suggested that the application could be tabled until the next study meeting when a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be brought back for the Commission's consideration. He added that, in the interim, staff could get further input on potential uses from Mr. Beisner. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89003) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone else wished to comment on the proposed rezoning. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to table the application and continue the public hearing until the next study meeting. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 89003 AND CONTINUING PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89003 - City of Brooklyn Center ) Motion by Commissioner Malecki, seconded by Commissioner Ainas, to table Application No. 89003 and continue the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Chairman Nelson added that he would like to see language that would allow an upscale type restaurant in the I -1 zone, but definitely not a fast food restaurant. DISCUSSION ITEM a) Residential Facilities The Secretary then introduced the topic of how to regulate community based residential facilities within the City. He pointed out that the City has retained Donn Wiski as a consultant to help the City develop regulations governing community based residential facilities. He noted also that the City has retained Peter Patchin to study property value changes that occur due to the location of group homes in residential neighborhoods. He informed the Commission that the preliminary results of Mr. Patchin Is study do not appear to support the contention that property values decline when a group home is located in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Donn Wiski, of Resolution, Inc., then distributed to the Planning Commission copies of a preliminary report entitled Community Based Residential Facilities Regulatory Framework Evaluation. Mr. Wiski then reviewed with the Commission some of the graphs and tables in the report. Mr. Wiski stated that one key term used in zoning regulations is the residential unit and how that unit is defined. Pair. Wiski stated that, many years ago, cities had a mixture of land uses within a given district. He stated that zoning regulations for some time then sought to separate uses into homogeneous districts, but that now regulations were moving back in the direction of allowing some mixture of uses within districts. He cited Riverplace as an example of a mixed use development. He added that court decisions have been moving toward a more liberal definition of the family unit to include group occupancies as well as family occupancies. Mr. Wiski pointed out that there has been a decline in state hospital occupancy over the last 30 years. He stated that the trend toward deinstitutionialization has been matched by more people coming from single family homes into supervised living facilities. He informed the Commission that there are far more offenders living in supervised living arrangements than are actually confined in prisons or jails. Mr. 1 -2E -89 -4- Wiski told the Commission that the City cannot discriminate in deciding who can live where. He reviewed with the Commission a table which summarized the types of community based residential facilities that operate under various state rules. He stated that the task of the Commission is to develop a land use regulation to overlay these operational rules governing residential facilities. He stated one potential area of regulation would be the size of the facility. He pointed out that supervised living facilities tend to be smaller in number of clients than those where total care is offered, such as nursing homes, which tend to be large institutions. Mr. Wiski reviewed various ways to distinguish facilities, among them: living arrangement, living support, support type and facility size or level of activity. He suggested that it should be possible to distinguish between independent living facilities and service dependent living facilities. He added that regulations should cover what is permitted in various districts and number of persons per housing unit. Mr. Wiski then reviewed various implementation options, including: a) do nothing b) comply with State preemption c) revise definitions of family and supportive housing, and d) adopt regulations including: permitted uses with conditions, special uses with special conditions, and a separate special use permit process. Mr. Wiski then reviewed with the Commission policy considerations dealing with group homes, including district uses, new districts, and regulations or conditions governing group homes. Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Wiski whether his task was to help the City devise regulations to deal with community based residential facilities. Mr. Wiski responded in the affirmative and stated that it was important for the City to have a policy and regulations in place before proposals for group homes come forth. Commissioner Malecki asked whether there were other communities that have such policies. Mr. Wiski responded in the affirmative, mentioning Plymouth and Eden Prairie among other cities that have dealt with the issue. He stated that each community has to look at the issue and devise a policy for itself. The Secretary explained that the City had contracted for a broader based study than just dealing with the Bill Kelly House. He stated that there were concerns regarding property values and safety impacts of community based residential facilities. He added that the City can only regulate land use aspects of community based residential facilities, not operational considerations. He stated that community based residential facilities will be here, whether we like them or not. He stated that legal decisions have been laid down protecting the rights of facility residents to locate in residential zoning districts and limiting the scope of local regulation. He explained that Mr. Wiski is laying out possibilities that the City can have for regulating such facilities, but that the State has preempted some of the decisions. Mr. Wiski recommended that the regulations set conditions for community based residential facilities and, if they are met, such facilities should be allowed. Chairman Nelson concluded that the Commission is being told that it cannot say no and get away with it. Mr. Wiski responded in the affirmative and reiterated that cities cannot discriminate on the basis of who can live where. The Secretary commented that one option would be to allow group homes as a permitted use with limited occupancies consistent with State law and not have any special use category. He asked whether the special use process has helped or served any purpose in resolving differences between group home advocates and neighborhood residence. He noted that, in the case of the Bill Kelly House, attitudes have not changed as a result of the public hearings. He went on to explain that the moratorium imposed on 1 -26 -89 _5_ group homes was to allow time for a study of possible land use regulations governing group homes. He added that the City cannot deny a facility with 7 to 16 clients in a multiple family zone, since State law mandates that such facilities are permitted uses in multiple family zoning districts. Mr. Wiski commented that, when the State preempted zoning authority on facilities with six or fewer clients, it quieted down the neighborhoods, since there were no public hearings and no debate on whether such a facility could be located in a residential neighborhood. He added, however, that there should be limits as to what can be allowed in both single family and multiple family districts. The Secretary informed the Commission that he has had contacts with people in the neighborhood grow (near the Bill Kelly elly House) and with a legal representative of the Bill Kelly House. He stated that he would expect people to show up at future meetings where these regulations will be discussed. He concluded by stating that the issue before the Commission is how to regulate community based residential facilities generally, not just the Bill Kelly House. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:06 p.m. Chairman 1 -26 -49 -6- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89003 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: Generally.between I94 and Freeway Boulevard from Shingle Creek to Days Inn and between 194 and Summit Drive between Shingle Creek Parkway and Highway 100. Request: Rezoning The City requests that the land bordering on the freeway (north and south) south of Freeway Boulevard and north of Summit Drive be rezoned from I1 (Industrial Park) to C2 (General Commerce). The land in question is partially vacant and partially developed. It includes the Holiday Inn, La Casita Restaurant, Econolodge (formerly Thrifty Scot), Budgetel, and Earle Brown Bowl north of the freeway. South of the freeway it includes Brookdale Corporate Centers I, II and III, the Earle Brown Farm, and the Earle Brown Office Tower. Many adjacent vacant parcels are also included. Please refer to the attached area map for a designation of the properties included in this rezoning proposal. Background The principal impetus to the proposed rezoning is a desire on the part of the City to make the I -1 zone more truly an industrial park zone primarily for office, warehouse, light manufacturing, some service uses, and wholesale trade. Proposed along with the rezoning is an ordinance amendment that would eliminate from the I -1 zone certain special uses allowed in the C2 zoning district, including transient lodging, convenience food restaurants, bowling alleys, movie theatres, gymnasiums, eating establishments offering live entertainment, etc. Many permitted uses in the C2 zoning district, including retail sales and eating establishments not offering live entertainment would continue to be allowed by special use permit. The Commission may wish to recommend eliminating these uses as well. To do so would make Schmitt Music nonconforming (though perhaps their sales could be compreheded as accessory to a wholesale or warehouse function). Nevertheless, we would not favor the development of a strip shopping center at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. To prevent that would require eliminating most retail sales from the I -1 zoning district or rezoning that area to perhaps C1A, allowing only service /office uses with no height limitation. The City staff have received, over the past few years, a number of inquiries regarding the land at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. Among them have been inquiries into the possibility of developing the area for fast -food restaurants and /or budget motels. We believe the parcel at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard is prime land and that its development will reflect favorably or unfavorably on the industrial park and, to some extent, on the City itself. We do not believe that development of a fast -food restaurant and /or a budget motel would be appropriate for this key parcel. However, they would be allowed by special use permit under the current ordinance. A concept plan for a high -rise office building was also submitted approximately two years ago, but has gone nowhere due to the excess of such space in the northern suburbs at this time. Nevertheless, we believe such a development would be more appropriate in that location. The ordinace amedment proposed would continue to allow office uses in the I -1 zone by special use permit. Simply eliminating certain commercial uses from the I -1 zone would result in many uses between I94 and Freeway Boulevard, and the transient lodging proposed for the Earle Brown Farm, becoming nonconforming uses. This is certainly not a desirable 1 -26 -89 _1_ Application No. 89003 continued result. The alternative is to rezone most of the I -1 land south of Freeway Boulevard to C2, recognizing the commercial nature of the development in this area and allowing it to continue as conforming. We propose that the City do the latter and, thus, this application is put forward for consideration. Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings All rezoning requests are evaluated under a set of guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) . The following comments are offered to address the guidelines. (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? The effect of the rezoning nd ordinance e amendment is to reduce the overlap between the I -1 and C2 districts and to explicitly plan for commercial rather than industrial development on the land near the freeway. The proposed rezoning ratifies a trend which has been prevalent in the area near the freeway and limits the uses which may be developed in the industrial park. The resulting benefit is that commercial uses will be allowed to locate near the freeway, while the industrial park will be reserved for industrial and office uses. We believe there is benefit to this action because it will prevent or reduce the commercialization of the industrial park and will preserve it as a place for employment rather than a place for trade and commerce. (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding r land use classifications ? South of the freeway, the zoning district abutting the existing I -1 zone is the C2 zoning district; so, of course, the new C2 zoning designation will be compatible. North of the freeway, the new C2 district will abut the I -1 zoning district. While the proposed ordinance amendment will create a greater distinction between the two zones, we certainly do not believe these zones are incompatible. (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? We believe they can. The area in question abuts the freeway and has almost no residential abutment. There need be no extensive buffers which might g ht com romlse the buildability of certain parcels. Nor are there any limitations such as gas stations not abutting Rl, R2 or R3 zoned property. (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? One major physical change has been the redesign of the Highway 100 /I94 interchange eliminating some movements and the opening up of the Shingle Creek Parkway /I94 interchange. These roadway modifications have brought much more traffic to Shingle Creek Parkway, especially south of the freeway where it is the most direct route to Brookdale. The increased traffic at this interchange has tended to boost 1 -26 -89 _2_ Application No. 89003 continued commercial demand for the area and has led to the construction of two motels and a restaurant north of the freeway and three major office buildings south of the freeway. As to zoning changes, there have been other rezonings of land south of the freeway from I -1 to C2. Apparently, after the adoption of the 1968 Zoning Ordinance, most of the land between County Road 10 and 194 was zoned I -1. As the system of roadways was completed in the late 60's and early 70's, development proposals for commercial use were approved with rezoning of land to C2, ultimately to its present configuration. Prior to 1973, C2 uses were not allowed in the I -1 zone. Then, in 1973, an ordinance amendment was adopted allowing certain C2 uses by special use permit. Later, more C2 uses were allowed as designated in the present ordinance. One rationale behind the amendment was to give the City more discretion in approving commercial uses near the freeway. The I -1 zoning was, thus, retained and special use permits were granted for the commercial uses north of the freeway and the office buildings south of the freeway. The rezoning proposal and ordinance amendment before the Commission represent a change in strategy. We no longer have confidence that certain C2 uses can be denied, even though they are special uses in the I -1 district. In effect, we are saying that the trend of commercialization near the freeway should be ratified by rezoning where it has already occurred, but should be prevented - by ordinance amendment - from further infiltrating the industrial park. The Shingle Creek Parkway freeway interchange has made the land close to the freeway too valuable for traditional industrial development. Since I -1 uses are not likely to be built on 16 the land in question, and since denial of special uses is at least difficult, we recommend the proposed rezoning and ordinance amendment as the best strategy for controlling development in the future. uture. (e) In the case of City - initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? The public purpose of the rezoning is to more clearly define both in terms of real estate and ordinance regulations the location and content of the industrial park. To do that, it is necessary to place freeway - oriented commercial development in t he commercial district - C2 and tighten up the allowable uses in the I -1 zone. This action will, we hope, preserve the character of the industrial park, while allowing commercial uses to locate on the most valuable land next to the freeway. (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? Yes. All the properties in question are of adequate size for commercial development and face no extraordinary buffer or use limitations because of residential abutment. (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? There has never been a formal proposal for an industrial use on the parcels contained 1 -26 -89 _3_ Application No. 89003 continued in the rezoning proposal. There are existing commercial uses and office buildings which have been approved by special use permit in the I -1 zone. We would expect that even if the I -1 zoning remained, development proposals would likely be for commercial rather than industrial uses. The topography of the land in question is suitable for either use. The recent replat of the land south of Freeway Boulevard and east and south of the Earle Brown Bowl has created a number of smaller parcels most likely for development of small commercial establishments, not large speculative industrial buildings which characterize the industrial park. The primary factor of unsuitability is location. Because of their proximity to the freeway and the Shingle Creek Parkway interchange, the parcels to be rezoned are more suitable for commercial development with freeway visibility. Such uses are presently allowed in the I -1 zone, but will not be in the future if the proposed ordinance amendment is adopted. (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? The land covered by the rezoning is contained in areas 6a and 11 of the Land Use Revisions Map in the City's Comprehensive Plan (attached). Area 6a covers most of the parcels north of the freeway. The recommendation for 6a is "light industrial." The proposed zoning and a number of existing land uses in the area are clearly not light industrial, though the zoning has been for light industrial (and by special use permit, commercial uses). A Comprehensive Plan amendment may be warranted, creating a separate area for commercial development north of the freeway. Area 11, south of the freeway, was the subject of a Comprehensive Plan amendment in 1986 in which the recommendation for the area was changed from service /office to "Mixed Use Development (including High Density, High -Rise Residential, Service /Office and General Commerce)." The proposed C2 zoning is certainly consistent with this Plan recommendation. As to to the lack of developable land in the C2 zoning district, there is vacant C2 zoned land near 66th Avenue North and Highway 252 in the northeast neighborhood. However, with the upcoming construction of the City County Credit Union, there is no more vacant C2 land left in the vicinity of the Earle Brown Farm. As to the best interests of the community, we would argue that preserving the industrial park as a place of employment and keeping commercial uses in areas for the most part south of Freeway Boulevard is in the best interests of the community. The present zoning designation and use restrictions do not, we feel, adequately protect against the "commercialization" of the industrial park. We believe such commercialization is detrimental to the industrial park in terms of its character, aesthetics, traffic control and parcelization. Reducing the options for development in the I -1 zone is the only way of distinguishing clearly between the I -1 and C2 zoning districts and limiting commercialization to appropriate locations. (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? This is not an owner - initiated rezoning. The effect of the rezoning will be to make some commercial uses which are now special uses, permitted uses. At the same time, 1 -26 -89 _4_ Application No. 89003 continued industrial uses will be prohibited. We believe the net effect for the property owners will be somewhat positive, but not really to the detriment of the community. It seems clear from past history that the development of the subject property would in all likelihood be commercial even under the I -1 zoning. The proposed rezoning recognizes this reality and zones for it openly. Procedure Normally, rezoning applications are tabled and referred to a neighborhood advisory group for review and comment. However, there is no neighborhood advisory group for the commercial and industrial park in the center of town. The Planning Commission itself serves that function. A public hearing has been scheduled for this meeting and notices have been sent. The Commission should open the public hearing and take whatever comments are offered. The Commission may certainly table the application if it wishes to and /or direct staff to prepare a resolution concerning the matter. We recommend that any favorable action on the rezoning be accompanied by action on the draft ordinance amendment also before the Commission. 1 -26 -89 -5- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA MARCH 2, 1989 STUDY SESSION CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Mike Nelson at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 1989 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Bernards to approve the minutes of the February 16, 1989 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki and Bernards. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Mann. The motion passed. A PPLICATION NO. 89003 (City of Brooklyn Center) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for approval of a rezoning from I -1 to C2 of the land generally lying near the freeway between Shingle Creek and Highway 100. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89003 attached). The Secretary also reviewed with the Commission the draft ordinance amendment regarding special uses in the I -1 zone. He explained that all of the uses that would be eliminated were special uses. He went on to explain that there have been amendments to the I -1 zone permitted uses in the past that have allowed more and more commercial uses by special use permit. He stated that the concern arose last year that the City would be unable to deny a special use permit for a convenience food restaurant and a budget rate motel at the northwest corner of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway. He explained that the amended I-1 zone special uses would eliminate transient lodging and convenience food restaurants as special uses in the I -1 zone. He added that gas stations and multiple tenant retail centers would also be excluded. He noted, however, that single tenant retail buildings offering for sale large ticket items such as furniture and appliances would be allowed by special use permit. He stated that he would consult with the City Attorney regarding the legality of limiting retail uses to single tenant uses. The Secretary then went on to review with the Commission the draft resolution on the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and the draft resolution regarding the proposed rezoning. He explained that there should be a public hearing for both the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the rezoning. Chairman Nelson stated that he thought the ordinance amendment would regulate eating establishments by setting a minimum number of seats. He asked why live entertainment was selected as a describing element. The Secretary responded that eating establishments are allowed as a permitted use in the C2 zoning district, but that eating establishments offering live entertainment are classified as a special use in the C2 zone and would also be a special use in the I -1 zone. 3 -2 -89 _1_ In response to a question from Chairman Nelson regarding the possible legal challenge to the types of retail uses allowed, the Secretary stated that he thought you could distinguish between establishments offering for sale large ticket items r such as furniture and appliances, and those which offer a broader range of products. l ( ` Chairman Nelson asked whether a Holiday warehouse would be permitted in the I -1 zone. The Secretary responded in the negative, noting that Holiday sells a variety of items, some of which are not big ticket items. Commissioner Bernards asked whether a single tenant establishment implied a separate building. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, explaining establishments could not be attached in multiple tenant buildings. p PUBLIC HEARING (Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Application No. 89003) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment and on Application No. 89003 and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application and amendment. Mr. Al Beisner, representing Richardson and Sons, a prominent owner of land in the area to be rezoned, stated that he was pretty much in agreement with the rezoning and the ordinance amendment proposed by staff. He noted that a computer sales company has applied for space in the Parkway Place building. The Secretary explained that retail sales of goods wholesaled, processed or manufactured on the use site would still be a special use in the I -1 zone. He stated that the concern that staff had at present was whether retail sales could be limited to single tenant buildings. Mr. Beisner stated that he thought the ordinance amendment would clean up the I -1 zone. He added that the industrial park is becoming more service oriented than manufacturing or warehousing oriented. CLOSE PUBLIC Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing on Application No. 89003. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Nelson suggested that the draft ordinance be amended slightly to comprehend "other uses similar in nature" on the single tenant retail uses acknowledged in the I -1 zone. The Planner added that it might be appropriate to add "as determined by the City Council" rather than giving the discretion to the staff to make such a determination. Chairman Nelson stated that an appeal of a staff determination could always be made if it went against a potential user. The Secretary pointed out that determinations by the City Council are relied on in the C1 and C2 zoning districts as well and such language might be appropriate. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the traffic study which was done a couple of years ago covered the area to be rezoned. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, explaining that the traffic study included Brookdale and the entire commercial and industrial area in the central part of town. Commissioner Bernards stated that he saw the rezoning as having a neutral impact on potential development in the area. The Secretary agreed, explaining that the rezoning would really ratify the trend toward commercial development near the freeway. He explained that the concern was aroused by a proposal to put a convenience food restaurant and a budget motel at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. The City staff and Council did not feel that such a proposal was appropriate and the ordinance amendment and rezoning are intended to address those concerns. Mr. Al Beisner told the Planning Commission that Hardees and Super 8 would be going into the area south of Freeway Boulevard and east of Shingle Creek Parkway in part of 3 -2 -89 -2- the area to be rezoned. The Secretary stated that the City has had no problem with commercial uses south of Freeway Boulevard and that is why that area is being rezoned. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89 -1 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT) RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82 -255 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATIVE TO LAND NORTH OF THE FREEWAY AND EAST OF SHINGLE CREEK, ADJACENT TO FREEWAY BOULEVARD Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -1, recommending an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to allow commercial and service /office development in area 6a of Figure 15 of the Comprehensive Plan. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89 -2 (Application No. 89003 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION N0. 89003 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -2 regarding rezoning Application No. 89003 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. MOTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE I -1 ZONE SPECIAL USES Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend an ordinance amendment regarding special uses in the I -1 zone and including language acknowledging uses similar in nature as determined by the City Council to the allowable single tenant retail establishments. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary informed the Commission that he would be getting some additional information from Mr. Donn Wiski, the City's consultant on land use regulations on group homes, and would pass it along in the near future. The Secretary also stated that he was grossly mis- stated by the Brooklyn Center Post in its February 23 issue where some quotes were attributed to him regarding clientele in group homes. He noted a number of erroneous quotes and clarified his statement to the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Chairman 3 -2 -89 -3- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89003 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: Generally between 1694 and Freeway Boulevard from Shingle Creek to Days Inn and between I694 and Summit Drive between Shingle Creek Parkway and Highway 100. Request: Rezoning This City - initiated rezoning was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its January 26, 1989 study meeting. The application was tabled and the public hearing continued to a later date. A Comprehensive Plan amendment has been prepared and a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment has been called. The parcels affected by the rezoning have been highlighted on the attached area map and are located generally between 169 and Freeway Boulevard from Shingle Creek to the Days Inn (the Holiday Inn site is also included) and between Summit Drive and I694 from Shingle Creek Parkway to Highway 100. The existing zoning is I -1 (Industrial Park) and the proposed zoning is C2 (Commerce). Along with the rezoning application is a draft ordinance amendment which would eliminate certain commercial uses from consideration in the I -1 zone (among them transient lodging and convenience food restaurants). As we have indicated in our previous report (attached), one purpose of the rezoning application is to ratify the trend to commercial development where it seems most likely to occur and to limit the possibilities of commercial development in the I -1 zone. The Commission is urged to act on the ordinance concomitant with the rezoning. The Comprehensive Plan amendment covers area 6a from the Land Use Revisions Map of the Comprehensive Plan (attached). That area includes the Holiday Inn site, the LaCasita restaurant, and land south of Freeway Boulevard and east of Shingle Creek Parkway. The land use recommended for area 6a in Table 14 (also attached) of the Plan is light industrial. We recommend broadening that designation to include commercial and service /office uses as well. A draft resolution recommending the Comprehensive Plan amendment is attached for the Commission's review. A resolution relating to the rezoning application is also attached. 3 -2 -89 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1989 at p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Special Uses in the I -1 Zoning District. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING SPECIAL USES IN THE I -1 ZONING DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 - 330. I -1 INDUSTRIAL PARK 3. Special Uses [c. Gasoline service stations (see Section 35 -414), motor vehicle repair and auto washes provided they do not abut an R1, R2, or R3 district, including abutment at a street line; trailer rental in conjunction with these uses, provided that there is adequate trailer parking space.] [d.] c. Retail sales of products manufactured, processed, or wholesaled on the use site. [e.] d. Accessory off -site parking not located on the same property with the principal use, subject to the provisions of Section 35 -701. [f.] e. Those commercial developments, which in each specific case, are demonstrated to the City Council to be: 1. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the I -1 district generally. 2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to those uses permitted in the I -1 district generally. 3. Of comparable intensity to permitted I -1 district land uses with respect to activity levels. 4. Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be within the capacity of available public facilities and will not have an adverse impact upon the industrial park or the community. and which are described in Section 35 -322, Subsection 1 (b) 1 (d) through 1 (j); 13 (c); 3 (d); and 3 (g) through 3 (j)]. Such commercial developments shall be subject to I -1 district requirements of Section 35 -400 and 35- 413 and shall otherwise be subject to the ordinance requirements of the use classification h the proposed n whic p p sed development represents. ORDINANCE NO. f. Eating establishments offering live entertainment. g. Single- tenant retail establishments offering for sale any of the following items: —' Furniture Appliances Musical instruments Office equipment Electronics Computers and other items similar in nature to the foregoing as determined by the City Council. [g.] h. Warehousing and storage uses which, in each specific case, are demonstrated to the City Council to be: 1. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the I -1 district generally. 2. Of comparable intensity to permitted I -1 district land uses with respect to activity levels. provided such uses shall adhere to applicable requirements in the I -1 district and shall not involve maintenance or servicing of vehicles on the site. [h.] i. Other noncommercial uses required for the public welfare as determined by the Council, including accessory outside storage of materials when screened from view by an opaque wall. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1989. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted). adoption: Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its _ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. 89 -1 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82 -255 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATIVE TO LAND NORTH OF THE FREEWAY AND EAST OF SHINGLE. CREEK, ADJACENT TO FREEWAY BOULEVARD WHEREAS, the City Council on December 20, 1982 adopted Resolution No. 82- 255, adopting the updated Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Plan's Land Use Revisions Map at page 98 (Table 14 and Figure 15) designates the area north of Interstate 694 (area 6a) for light :industrial; and WHEREAS, a rezoning request (Application No. 89003) by the City of Brooklyn Center has been submitted to rezone 18 parcels comprising approximately 68 acres of land adjacent to Interstate 694 from I -1 (Light Industrial) to C2 (Commerce) to eliminate the possibility of industrial development on these parcels; and WHEREAS, the rezoning request is partially inconsistent with Table 14 of the Plan which recommends only light industrial for part of the area considered for rezoning; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered a Comprehensive Plan ,f amendment to Table 14 in conjunction with the rezoning application and finds the rezoning proposal to be in the best interests of the community; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 35 -202 of the City ordinances, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 2, 1989 to consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council, pursuant to Section 35 -202 of the City Ordinances, that City Council Resolution No. 82 -255 (Comprehensive Plan) be amended to allow commercial and service /office development in the area north of Interstate 94 and east of Shingle Creek (adjacent to Freeway Boulevard, area 6a of Table 14) based upon the following findings: 1. Commercial and service /office development has already taken place in this area and has been acknowledged under the existing I -1 zoning. 2. It is appropriate now to ratify the trend toward commercial development near the Interstate by rezoning a number of parcels to C2. Such a rezoning, however, is not strictly consistent with the Plan recommendation for land north of the Interstate to be developed light industrial. 3. Traffic impact in this area will not be adversely affected by such an amendment and this amendment has no adverse effect on any Metropolitan systems. _ 4. Such a Comprehensive Plan amendment is in the best interests of the community, given the above considerations. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -1 _ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan be revised to read as follows: No. 6a of Table 14 on page 98 of the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Land Use Revisions Map be changed from "light industrial" to "light industrial, commercial and service /office." Date Chairman ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Molly Malecki, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Mike Nelson, Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards and Kristen Mann and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. �r i adoption: Member Wallace Bernards introduced the following resolution and moved its _ PLANNING COMMISSION - APPLICATION N0. 89 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 89003 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, Application No. 89003 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center proposes rezoning from I -1 (Industrial Park) to C2 (Commerce) of 67.73 acres of land lying near Interstate 694 between Shingle Creek and Highway 100 /Humboldt Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on January 26, 1989 and concluded it on March 2, 1989 when testimony regarding the request was taken; and WHEREAS, the Commission on March 2 1 1989 considered and recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 - 1, an amendment to the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan allowing for light industrial, commercial and service /office development over that part of the area north of Interstate 694. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 89003 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center be approved in consideration of the following: 1. The proposed C2 zoning is consistent with the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan, in light of the amendment proposed in Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -1. 2. Existing and proposed development of the parcels to be rezoned is consistent with the C2 zoning designation and in many cases would be inconsistent with the I -1 zoning designation as the I -1 district is amended to exclude certain commercial uses, such as convenience food restaurants, transient lodging and bowling alleys. 3. It is appropriate to ratify the trend of a commercial, as opposed to industrial, development adjacent to Interstate 694 because the Shingle Creek Parkway Interchange has increased the visibility and accessibility of parcels near the Interstate and made them much more appropriate for commercial development. 4. The proposed C2 zoning is consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications. 5. A permitted use in the C2 zoning district can be contemplated for development of the subject property. 6. The property in question will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions of the C2 zoning district. f 7. In light of the above, it is believed that the proposed rezoning meets the guidelines for evaluating rezonings set forth in Section 35 -208 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -2 Date Chairman ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kristen Mann and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Mike Nelson, Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards and Kristen Mann and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. L_ f N •11: IIII` � � ww ONY l�I FYN tlrrG y lA 1 � \. - __...� lid 1� l�. ,, r �I� `�.,,. �'' ln•. 1 � -- II � � III �'�+ "�•. „� / ! ao 0o I d \ - �•�'_ -- � ',,,.^•' '..AIL J ' \ �+' �,./ � b - p j , l _ p co 1 . "' ' r � ` � 'F .. cv� if \ t �f I11' I JI Illl�� ll` --�11 ___. � _ � ♦�� ��'.I� �� �`��",�1/ ��l � _ {Il i f K 'lm 4 y ��J � I 1 7�'',7 �\ /�,.. ; ,`. �,,, � 1 ' ►( r 11.1 :)I_ I ..�. - ;, ., \ �. ��I `� �• � �/ / 4 1 a p r r >��� � IS L ')tl1t I ,T` I I I ::D 1' I .Tlly L�, •�rtl. ` J lV\ 1 .{ I• "' i� 1 • �.-- -• =- = •�s� Imo..-- �,,...- ', �� ,�- ..J � �°�� � _ / o TABLE 14 Land Use Plan Revisions Location Number Recommended Land Use la. Mid - Density Residential or Public Land lb. Mid - Density Residential 2. Single - Family Residential 3. Commercial Retail 4. Commercial Retail 5. Mid- Density Residential 6a. Light Industrial, Service /Office and Commercial 6b. Light Industrial 6c. Mid- Density Residential 7a. Single - Family Residential 7b. Public Open Space 8. Multiple - Family Residential 9• Commercial /Retail 10. Commercial /Retail 11. Mixed Use Development (Including High - Density, High -Rise Residential, Service /Office and General Commerce) 12. Mid - Density Residential /High Density Residential 13. Mid- Density Residential 14• Single- or Two - Family Residential 15. Public Open Space 16. Public Open Space 17. Mid- Density Residential 18. Light Industrial 19. Commercial 20. Low - Density Residential 21. Service /Office 22. Low - Density Residential 23. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential 24• Service /Office 25. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential 26. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential 27. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential 28. Service %Office /Mid - Density Residential 29• Commercial Retail 30 Mid- Density Residential /Service /Office 31. Service /Office /Mid- Density Residential 32. Mid- Density Residential /Service /Office 33. Mid- Density Residential /Service /Office 34. Mid- Density Residential 35. Commercial Retail 36. Mid - Density Residential /Service /Office 37. Mid- Density Residential 38. Single- Family Residential 39. Service /Office 40. Commercial Retail 41. Service /Office 42. Mid- Density Residential 98 south lot lines of the properties. Mr. Saari indicated that it was the property owner to the south. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There being no other comments from those present, there was a motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90001 (Duane Saari) Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 90001, subject to the following conditions: 1. The new legal descriptions criptions and necessary deeds for transfer of property hall be filed with the titles itles to the property at the County. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. / DISCUSSION ITEMS Y a) Ordinance Amendment Regarding Uses Permitted in the C1, C2 and I -1 Districts and Rezoning Application No. 89003 The Secretary then introduced a discussion item with the Planning Commission regarding the City initiated rezoning under Application No. 89003 and a companion zoning ordinance amendment which would eliminate some commercial uses from the I -1 zone. The Secretary explained that the City Attorney had had concerns regarding the ordinance amendment recommended by the Planning Commission in March of 1989. He stated that the staff was also working on a PUD ordinance at the time and that it was decided to hold off the consideration on the amendment to the I -1 zone until the PUD ordinance was in effect. The Secretary added that the PUD ordinance is now effective and that it is, therefore, appropriate to recommend consideration of the rezoning and ordinance amendment. He stated that it was appropriate at this time to reaffirm the actions on the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the rezoning which were taken under Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 89 -1 and 89 -2. The Secretary then reviewed the background of the rezoning application which had been initiated by the City. He stated that one of the reasons the rezoning was initiated was because the owner of some of the industrial land north of the Freeway, Richardson and Sons, began marketing some of their parcels for sale about two years ago and that some of the parties who were interested in those parcels would have made use of them for convenience food restaurants and budget hotels. The Secretary stated that staff did not believe those sorts of uses were appropriate in the I -1 zone, especially in the area north of Freeway Boulevard and were not in 3-1-90 2 keeping with the conceptual plans put forth by the owner over the years. The Secretary went on to explain that the Zoning Ordinance pertaining - nin to the P g I 1 district was amended twice in the past to allow more commercial uses by special use permit in the I -1 zone. He stated that along with those uses, there were standards added to the I -1 zone which were to apply to those commercial uses, namely, that the uses would be of comparable intensity and compatible with existing I -1 uses and other uses allowed in the I -1 zone generally. He explained that the City, at the time it adopted these ordinances, thought it had control over development through its ability to deny a special use permit. He pointed out, however, that recent history of legal cases showed that cities have very little ability to den a special use Y p permit. He stated that the burden of proof has fallen on the City rather than on the developer. Because of this, staff became concerned when some commercial uses were proposed for the I -1 zone a year and a half ago. Therefore, staff initiated the rezoning application and an ordinance amendment to eliminate some commercial uses from the I -1 zone. The Secretary then showed the Commission a transparency of the areas that were affected by the rezoning application, including the Holiday Inn and the La Casita restaurant and parcels between the freeway and Freeway Boulevard east of Shingle Creek Parkway. He added that there were parcels south of the freeway and east of Shingle Creek Parkway which would also be included in the rezoning. g He pointed out that the uses in this area are generally commercial and that none of them would become nonconforming by being rezoned to C2. The Secretary then explained the action that had been taken in March of 1989 to recommend a Comprehensive Plan amendment along with an ordinance amendment. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan amendment was forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for their review and comment and that the Met Council had no objection to the Plan amendment. The Secretary then reviewed with the Commission the contents of a staff memo on the draft ordinance amendment before the Planning Commission. ion. (See memorandum attached). The Secretary explained that the previous ordinance amendment had called for allowing certain single tenant retailers selling large or expensive items to be allowed by special use permit. He stated that the City Attorney had expressed reservations about limiting retail establishments to only single tenant establishments and those selling certain products. He stated that the land use impacts could really not be differentiated from other types of establishments. The Secretary pointed out that the draft ordinance amendment would eliminate retail sales as a principal use in the I -1 zone, but that retail sales as an accessory y use to a manufacturing, wholesaling, or warehousing type use would still be allowed by special use permit. He stated that the Schmitt Music operation would still be considered a conforming use since its retail operation is more of an incidental part of the use of the building rather than the 3 -1 -90 3 principal use. He then reviewed with the Commission uses to be eliminated from the I -1 zone and others to be added by special use permit. Commissioner Bernards asked about projected traffic impact as a result of the ordinance amendment. The Secretary stated that staff do not envision more traffic than was projected by the 1985 Short - Elliott (SEH) Traffic Study of the Industrial Park and the Brookdale area. He stated that the study had projected peak hour traffic that would result from maximum development of this area. He stated that there may have to be some modifications to certain intersections if the traffic levels increase, but that these modifications were foreseen by the traffic study. The Planner indicated that the draft ordinance amendment would make the I -1 zone more of an employment zone rather than a zone open for commerce. He stated that the likely effect of this restriction would be to perhaps increase the 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. peak hour traffic along Shingle Creek Parkway, north of Freeway Boulevard, but that it would reduce the 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. traffic in that area from what it might otherwise be. Commissioner Bernards asked whether any existing uses in the Industrial Park would become nonconforming as a result of the ordinance amendment. The Secretary responded in the negative. The Secretary recommended to the Commission that it reaffirm the actions to amend the Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning and also to act on the draft ordinance amendment. He added that there would be no nonconforming uses in the area to be rezoned to C2. ACTION REAFFIRMING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING APPLICATION NO. 89003 (PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NOS. 89 -1 AND 89- 2 Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to reaffirm the Planning Commission's action on the Comprehensive Plan amendment contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -1 and also to reaffirm the rezoning recommendation contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -2. Voting n favor: Chairperson airperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING USES PERMITTED IN THE C1 C2 AND I -1 ZONING DISTRICTS Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Sander to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment regarding uses permitted in the C1, C2 and I -1 zoning districts, especially uses allowed by special use permit in the I -1 zone. (See draft ordinance attached). Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 3 -1 -90 4 I fl i T r , 1' .. -.. .` ,I {, F , �3 �•,,,,_ �.- �0,14 1 _ , } -I _ 1 1 1 , ,•, I I i , _{ I :: ,n- - � � '? .... :� .. .. ¢'' .. �. j... � .. ,......,� a � -t �if3i' ; ;N �,� : x { �- 1 . • � f ;:wS[E,d - r j {� .._, �i' ,. f.. I . I r 'r,' ti i:4v `''y , i, .N a k•'" .�.. �'' .. t`'a 'A S P �....'!, r l Irn., ,. L, t , '':+ ri 'i'„ ' '..:.. �.... ;_:. : '••„ 1 /.. r.. A, C5: .... .. f ., .: :/ ,A n.,.:.. r�� � ftr li 4 f z f 1 � - fi r• .... 1.. ,l 1 : rd; / I „ r� i L.' t .;�, .. � ( ,,, i {, V "___•._ <.) ,f. .. :11.1 � .. / - ;' ! f ., ... y }� '� �. _. , ., J, (� ,.. }...... l .... - r • :.'.. /J x :i 1 � / - ' ..,,,.c...!. __ w :,y ,,,,, ,,,,,, ,'' ; J1: i'h'i'i1' ' �..Y_k,t,,.. � - � / :•. ,:y �.... j � ;..._. t .'Y (Am ',fi rll,' '4' r„ 4 } t !r j 1-. - �.. '. 11tk. :� :. __...... - -_::> ,:. _ __ _.....__ 1. r %. ;; ;i ,y `�.1•. iyt�; } ;i`�;;i' , r! I' „ , n i �'II • ,.r. i � 1 ... ,� � i_..: ^, f I_.� ... r ;... !„ <': l M r ._ .1�11 u J ,'` ;•;t. r . I .: ( � _ j - L.. � , ..� .,1.,� .. '.4 , .. � �� ,.. � �r'JJ,h Ar :r is r a r `7 1 a x 5 r . h: I •t = 4 I rl. "i ti 1 9 (1, I 'Pp 1 . `.4 ,•� -. .``•i„ � . ''i err, f. J14' 'r,4 J 4y '• 1 , , t , , , '�' .�.. 1. � � / r','• r•Ir � Fr < i1 M k! , ?I4, ,' 4kr,,,l' , ,1't,ti•lr''v' r ' a'Y {• r ''( '';,�' ','f41 ,, f',r r{ Ji`;JJ1 /" �, •' '! , Ij{ e, T ��1 .. .� i J, ' ' I r9,,p`,,I ,,,,, i;'1 ,' , ",'r,1 " "','1 ,,.p,,; ,•,Z,• `` �,, •M Ik i'� .'k' I S i r ) f2�) I' �,', 1 �I�,J,' w ''•' � �'. t _ L' 1 �� ,� �','' 1 ail vir cl _.. Zp N f ',, ' • ` •. ') iI r _ ..��r r ^ ., "� y' • � ,,ir', 1 '� '11 r'1 1' � � I � , t. '�K ?� k ~ I I ��► �i �1 h N r' � . 11 1 - .v ah:�� _, ;f T � - XY � i� tip• 11 If( I Y ' ' Y' �' ' _ ,r\ � t' >' k 4 t ,. , ., .. -.. � A ,rte' \ 1 I r I ,. HMI t := �„�,:�5:,.•*. y; . - \ s ' , ,.K/ ;,'i(`: 1 ; �' :� +. _..:.. �.. I B _.. . x �iV l in u t�I t P�_O f y �N 7 '(,•T j '.� + Y�T E �..__. c'T- t^ •• 4; 1r �' .{, ki I I 1 t ' i . , �. 1 1 rrr--r•r -: y '� -,-•-, ! rT T f � J f � � � III I I . I , � . ,, � ; �I � I I ► 'll � � : 1 �� � � I , 1j i. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ,blears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN. 55101 612 291 -6359 March 13, 1989 Ronald A. Warren City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment Light Industrial to Office /Commercial Metropolitan Council District 10 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 11480 -3 Dear Mr. Warren: The Metropolitan Council staff has reviewed the city's comprehensive plan amendment received by the Council on March 6, 1989. We have determined that the proposed amendment has no potential impact upon any of the metropolitan system plans. Therefore, the city may place the amendment into effect immediately. Because the proposed amendment appears unlikely to affect policies and plans in other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide, the Council will waive further review and comment on this amendment. The amendment, explanatory materials supplied and the information submission form will be appended to the city's plan in the Council's files. This concludes the Council's review. Sincerely, V Steve Keefe Chair SK:tf cc: John Evans, Metropolitan Council District 10 John Rutford, Metropolitan Council Staff Tori Flood, Metropolitan Council Staff CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1990 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding permitted and special uses in the C1, C2, and I -1 zoning districts. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES IN THE C1, C2 AND I -1 ZONING DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS; Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -320. C1 SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses. w. Leasing offices, provided there is no storage or display of products on the use site Section 35 -322. C2 COMMERCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses. d. Service /office uses described in Subsection (b) through (u) and Subsection (w) of Section 35 -320. Section 35 -330. I -1 INDUSTRIAL PARK. 1. Permitted Uses. C. The following service activities: [5. Automobile and truck rental and leasing] i ORDINANCE NO. 3. Special Uses [c. Gasoline service stations (see Section 35- 414), motor vehicle repair and auto washes provided they do not abut an Rl, R2, or R3 district, including abutment at a street line; trailer rental in conjunction with these uses, provided that there is adequate trailer parking space.] [d] c. Retail sales of products, manufactured, processed, warehoused, or wholesaled on the use site. [e] d. Accessory off -site parking not located on the same property with the principal use, subject to the provisions of Section 35 -701. [f] e. Those commercial developments which, in each specific case, are demonstrated to the City Council to be: 1. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the I -1 district generally. 2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to those uses permitted in the I -1 district generally. 3. Of comparable intensity to permitted I -1 district land uses with respect to activity levels. 4. Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be within the capacity of available public facilities and will not have an adverse impact upon the industrial park or the community. [Subsection 1 (a) through 1(j); 3 (c) ; 3 (d); and 3 (g) through 3 (j).] and which are described in Section 35 -322 Subsection 1 d, e (subparts 1 -6) f (subparts 2 and 3) q through 1, 3 m and 7p. Such commercial developments shall be subject to I -1 district requirements of Section 35 -400 and 35 -413 and shall otherwise be subject to the ordinance requirements of the use classification which the proposed development represents. ORDINANCE NO. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82 -255 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) RELATIVE TO LAND NORTH OF THE FREEWAY AND EAST OF SHINGLE CREEK, ADJACENT TO FREEWAY BOULEVARD WHEREAS, the City Council on December 20, 1982 adopted Resolution No. 82 -255, adopting the updated Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Plan's Land Use Revisions Map at page 98 (Table 14 and Figure 15) designates the area north of Interstate 94 (area 6a) for light industrial; and WHEREAS, a rezoning request (Application No. 89003) by the City of Brooklyn Center has been submitted to rezone 18 parcels comprising approximately 68 acres of land adjacent to Interstate 94 from I -1 (Light Industrial) to C2 (Commerce) to eliminate the possibility of industrial development on these parcels; and WHEREAS, the rezoning request is partially inconsistent with Table 14 of the Plan which recommends only light industrial for part of the area considered for rezoning; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered a Comprehensive Plan amendment to Table 14 in conjunction with the rezoning application and finds the rezoning proposal to be in the best interests of the community; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 35 -202 of the City ordinances, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 2, 1989 to consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -1 on March 2, 1989 and reaffirmed its action on March 1, 1990; and WHEREAS, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment was forwarded to the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Council has indicated that the proposed amendment does not conflict with regional systems plans, and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the proposed Plan amendment at its March 12, 1990 regular meeting and finds that the Plan amendment and accompanying rezoning proposal are in the best interests of the community. RESOLUTION NO, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, pursuant to Section 35 -202 of the City ordinances, that City Council Resolution No. 82 -255 (Comprehensive Plan) is hereby amended to allow commercial and service /office development in the area north of Interstate 94 and east of Shingle Creek (adjacent to Freeway Boulevard, area 6a of Table 14) based upon the following findings: 1. Commercial and service /office development has already taken place in this area and has been acknowledged under the existing I -1 zoning. 2. It is appropriate now to ratify the trend toward commercial development near the Interstate by rezoning a number of parcels to C2. Such a rezoning, however, is not strictly consistent with the Plan recommendation for land north of the Interstate to be developed light industrial. 3. Traffic impact in this area will not be adversely affected by such an amendment and this amendment has no adverse effect on any Metropolitan systems. 4. Such a Comprehensive Plan amendment is in the best interests of the community, given the above considerations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan be revised as follows: No. 6a of Table 14 on page 98 of the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Land Use Revisions Map be changed from "light industrial" to "light industrial, commercial and service /office. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 89003 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, Application No. 89003 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center proposes rezoning from I -1 (Industrial Park) to C2 (Commerce) 67.73 acres of land lying near Interstate 94 between Shingle Creek and Highway 100 /Humboldt Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on January 26, 1989 and concluded it on March 2, 1989 when testimony regarding the request was taken; and WHEREAS, the Commission on March 2, 1989 considered and recommended by Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -1, an amendment to the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan allowing for light industrial, commercial and service /office development over that part of the area north of Interstate 94 and reaffirmed its action on March 1, 1990; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the rezoning proposal at its March 12, 1990 regular meeting and finds that the rezoning proposal is in the best interests of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 89003 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby approved in consideration of the following: 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan, in light of the amendment proposed in Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -1. 2. Existing and proposed development of the parcels to be rezoned is consistent with the C2 zoning designation and in many cases would be inconsistent with the I -1 zoning designation as the I -1 district is amended to exclude certain commercial uses, such as convenience food restaurants, transient lodging and bowling alleys. 3. It is appropriate to ratify the trend of commercial, as opposed to industrial, development adjacent to Interstate 94 because the Shingle Creek Parkway Interchange has increased the visibility and accessibility of parcels near the Interstate and made them much more appropriate for commercial development. RESOLUTION NO. 4. The proposed C2 zoning is consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications. 5. Permitted uses in the C2 zoning district can be contemplated for development of the subject property. 6. The property in question will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions of the C2 zoning district. 7. In light of the above, it is believed that the proposed rezoning meets the guidelines for evaluating rezonings set forth in Section 35 -208 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 9th day of April , 1990 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding permitted and special uses in the C1, C2, and I -1 zoning districts. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES IN THE C1, C2 AND I -1 ZONIN DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS; Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -320. C1 SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses. W. Leasing offices, provided there is no storage or display of products on the use site. Section 35 -322. C2 COMMERCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses. d. Service /office uses described in Subsection (b) through (u) and Subsection (w) of Section 35 -320. Section 35 -330. I -1 INDUSTRIAL PARK. 1. Permitted Uses. C. The following service activities: [5. Automobile and truck rental and leasing] ORDINANCE NO. 3. Special Uses [c. Gasoline service stations (see Section 35- 414), motor vehicle repair and auto washes provided they do not abut an R1, R2, or R3 district, including abutment at a street line; trailer rental in conjunction with these uses, provided that there is adequate trailer parking space.] [d] c. Retail sales of products, manufactured, processed, warehoused, or wholesaled on the use site. [e] d. Accessory off -site parking not located on the same property with the principal use, subject to the provisions of Section 35 -701. [f] e_ Those commercial developments which, in each specific case, are demonstrated to the City Council to be: 1. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the I -1 district generally. 2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to those uses permitted in the I -1 district generally. 3. Of comparable intensity to permitted I -1 district land uses with respect to activity levels. 4. Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be within the capacity of available public facilities and will not have an adverse impact upon the industrial park or the community. [Subsection 1 (a) through 1(j); 3 (c) ; 3 (d); and 3 (g) through 3 (j).] and which are described in Section 35 -322 Subsectio 1 d, e (subparts 1 -6), f, (subparts 2 and 3 ),_g through JL 3 and 3 g. Such commercial developments shall be subject to I -1 district requirements of Section 35 -400 and 35 -413 and shall otherwise be subject to the ordinance requirements of the use classification which the proposed developiront represents. ORDINANCE NO. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the Stn day of April ,19 90 , at 7 :30 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 11 of the city ordinances. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the personnel coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY ORDINANCES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 11 -702. LICENSE REQUIRED. L On -Sale Class F Liquor License: This license is available only to the Earle Brown Heritage Center Convention Facility. This license applies to the sale and dispensing of liquor to patrons attending events at the center and shall not be valid for amateur athletic events. This license allows for the sale and dispensing of liquor at the convention center and bed and breakfast facilities located at the Earle Brown Heritage Center. Section 11 -703. NUMBER OF LICENSES ISSUED. The number of "on -sale liquor" licenses issued by the City of Brooklyn Center shall be limited to 18. The license for the Earle Brown Heritage Center shall not be counted in the 18 license limit Section 11 -709. PERSONS INELIGIBLE FOR LICENSE. [6. Who is directly or indirectly interested in any other establishment in the City of Brooklyn Center to which an "on -sale liquor" or an "on -sale wine" license has been issued under this ordinance.] ORDINANCE NO. [10. No person shall own an interest in more than one establishment or business within Brooklyn Center for which an "on -sale liquor" or an "on -sale wine" license has been granted. The term "interest" as used in this section includes any pecuniary interest in the ownership, operation, management, or profits of a retail liquor establishment, but does not include bona fide loans; bona fide fixed sum rental agreements; bona fide open accounts or other obligations held with or without security arising out of the ordinance and regular course of business of selling or leasing merchandise, fixtures or supplies to such establishment; or an interest of 10 percent or less in any corporation holding a license. A person who received monies from time to time directly or indirectly from a licensee, in the absence of a bona fide consideration therefor and excluding bona fide gifts or donations, shall be deemed to have a pecuniary interest in such retail license. In determining "bona fide" the reasonable value of the goods or things received as consideration for any payment by the licensee and all other facts reasonably tending to prove or disprove the existence of any purposeful scheme or arrangement to evade the prohibitions of this section shall be considered.] Section 11 -712. HOURS OF OPERATION. Establishments to which "on -sale liquor" licenses have been issued for the sale of intoxicating liquors may serve intoxicating liquor between the hours of 10 a.m. Sunday and [12 midnight on Sundays] 1 a.m. on Monday in conjunction with the serving of food. Section 11 -714. LIABILITY INSURANCE. [Subdivision 6. "On -sale liquor" license holders, must provide a corporate surety bond in the amount of at least $3,000 at application or renewal time.] Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. ORDINANCE NO. Adopted this day of Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4 -9 -90 Agenda Item Number //E REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ********************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning of Certain Land DEPARTMENT APP VAL: 11 Signature - title Director of Planning and Insppcti on , MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X ) On March 12, 1990 the City Council approved Planning Commission Application No. 89003 which was a City- initiated proposal to rezone a number of parcels of land located both north and south of the • freeway from I -1 (Industrial Park) to C2 (Commerce). The properties under consideration included the Holiday Inn, the La Casita restaurant, the Budgetel and Econolodge hotels, the Earle Brown Bowl, Hardees restaurant as well as the remaining vacant land located south of Freeway Boulevard between Shingle Creek Parkway and Humboldt Avenue on the north side of the freeway. On the south side of the freeway, the rezoning included the Brookdale Corporate Center I, II and III sites, the Earle Brown Heritage Center, the Earle Brown Office Tower /Minnesota School of Business building site, and the vacant property proposed for Phase IV of the Brookdale Corporate Center and the vacant land contemplated for a second office tower located north of, and attached to, the Earle Brown Office Tower /Minnesota School of Business building. The final step in any rezoning approval is a housekeeping type of ordinance amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 35) that describes the rezoned land under its newly designated zoning district. Such an ordinance amendment is offered to the City Council for first reading. A slight deviation from the rezoning approval considered under Planning Commission Application No. 89003 is being requested, however. That would be to not rezone from I -1 to C2 at this time the land south of the freeway with the exception of the Earle Brown Heritage Center property. • -1- SUMMARY EXPLANATION CONTINUED Discussion amongst the staff, since the Council consideration of the rezoning, has raised the question of the desirability of a C2 zoning designation for land already being used and proposed for future development as high -rise (above three stories) office building uses. This type of use is permitted in the C2 zoning district as well as the ClA zoning district. However, the C2 zoning designation would also allow as permitted uses, a number of uses such as a strip shopping center and other retail and general commerce uses, that we do not believe would be appropriate on the vacant land in this area. The lands have, for a number of years, been projected for only service /office development of a high -rise nature. A C2 designation might become a problem in the future. This aspect of the rezoning was only considered a problem with the realization that the office development may not be undertaken as soon as we believed and a subsequent owner of the land might try to push through an undesirable, but nevertheless permitted, C2 type use. We still recommend the rezoning of the Earle Brown Heritage Center site to C2, for this is an appropriate zoning designation for the uses that will be conducted on that property. We anticipate the need to initiate another rezoning to C1A of the land in this area which has been proposed, or is now being used, • for high -rise office development. Such a proposal will require Planning Commission review and a public hearing and will be pursued by the staff in the immediate future. Recommendation We recommend approval of the ordinance describing the property (absent the office property) approved for a C2 zoning classification under Planning Commission Application No. 89003. -2- i _J111 L 1 1 1 ' � 1 ' "' " ) I__ — L—J k 77 ;r T �Nol" TEB N 3�� 0 1 z' to Y o � �4 � I L \ I � �� I Qz t"r E L , r1t: to r 71 FT A ilk L-j L- F 7- to QZ �I ; - 1.....1 ,.! .. ,._:. ) ...I 5 .� , '1 \ \�\ Oo 77 77 00 " 77 7T - C \1 7 17 [77 j ., T V it tr . I .. ........ . Ir 10 ' ,,/ ./ 4 _ � ; .. { .., �`° fir.. Y �. -. ' ; 4, ;, _ ,.,,Y ..._� 4, V a ' i, . t.. ..i +_�. t }...f.i .J... ...J.. r r,', ' , r, ' .,. 1, Yj' `j� �� l._. a n� y .,r 'r , ::h::r .,I ,rr; r,'rrrr r,r 'r 4': N:r ':5 t' `hr s V iO L Fr • • t r_,I_J �_,:._!1..�. ' I� -1 11 P-Qez: ' x ✓'/ ,k -k =T 7 �. r 1 "r .r:.D r • �,�• r,rr rrr. r ,' r. 11 � � ' , 1 r ',M "ih' ''''11'''''i'lrri'', d;� T1 , r �! I �'G�nfX=�� I . 7 � �� �, ;? " "1'1'r''r ' r ', ih ,, 1 I ,.r . r ;! , �� II ! >' x t_.i.._ _�. _.� 1 � -A '77 : tn LHOc I :., ,. � ,kp..�'. 'r;,'1'1'''11' v �x f - r )i ,`� � �."i:� _•-- .'� � " � ,,, . .. �„ '� r I, I , Y T, �, r � 4 r �"ti r � r wl V � 1N,7J �. t., , G . ', � AREA RECOMMENDED FOR REZONING A ----- -- --- ------ -- - - =_ - __ _ - __ - - - - - ----------------- ------ C2 R5 C2 C2 R5 c- e RST AT �� 1 - ____ F 94 Kr 61 4 C2 CIA -- ---- ------ C 2 CI TY 6F BR N CENTER. 600 1200 - 2400 . � i ..... .. .... 'ED MAY 88 ZONING DISTRICTS ALL DISTRICT SOUNOAR113 EXTENO ►ERKNOICtILARLY TOTKE CENTERLINES Of STREETS ALL ARIAS NOT OTHERWISE DESIONATIO ARE III ULTIMAP CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1990 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the zoning of certain land. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN LAND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -1190. COMMERCE DISTRICT (C2). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (C2) Commerce District zoning classification: Tract A, R. L. S No 1477 Block 1 and Block 2. Richardson Park Addition Tracts A, F, and H R L S No 1482 Tract A, R. L. S No 1538 Tract B, R. L. S No 1572 Tracts A and D, R. L S No 1594 Section 35 -1200. INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (I -1). The following properties are hereby established as being within the I -1 Industrial Park District zoning classification: [Tracts A, B, C, D, E, F, and H, R. L. S. No. 1482] [Tract A, R. L. S. No. 1538] Tracts A, [B,] C, [D, E, F,] and G, R. L. S. No. 1572 [Tracts A and D, R. L. S. No. 1594] Tracts A and B R. L. S. No. 1619 ORDINANCE NO. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1990. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date Published Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter) . Ilia CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1990 at p .m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider and amendment to Chapter 7 of the Brooklyn Center City Ordinances Regarding Collection of Yard Waste. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING COLLECTION OF YARD WASTE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 7 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended as follows: Section 7 -103. REFUSE HAULERS REGULATIONS. Subdivision 13. Yard Waste Collection. A licensed refuse collector providing residential refuse collection service must separately collect and dispose of yard waste Within 15 days after notification from the City, a licensed refuse collector providing residential refuse collection service Must give the city manager a detailed description of a. The manner by which the collector intends to separately collect and dispose of yard waste; 1?. The manner by which the collector intends to account for the amount of yard waste collected; and c. The method by which the collector will inform its customers of the yard waste collection program The collector must take the yard waste to a disposal site or transfer site, approved by the city manager for subsequent composting landspreadina or both The licensed collector must keep accurate accounting of the amount of yard waste collected and must within 30 days of the end of each calendar year, submit a written report to the city manager detailing the amount of yard waste collected and disposed of for composting or landspreadinq during the year. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. ORDINANCE NO. Adopted this day of 1990. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) STAFF PRESENTATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING RE: FREEWAY BOULEVARD /65TH /66TH AVE'1UE; AND HUMBOLDT AVENUE 4/9/90 Slide No. Description Existing. Conditions Map r 2 Traffic Map - Existing & 2010 Proposed Improvements - General Map ( Proposed Geometrics @ Shingle Creek Parkway /Freeway ® Proposed Geometrics @ Humboldt /65th 0 6 Proposed Geometrics @ Dupont /65th ``J Proposed Geometrics @ T.H. 252/66th (� 5 -lane street with TWTL's O 9 Existing and proposed X- sections - Freeway Blvd. 10 3 lane street with TWTL's 11 Existing and proposed X- sections - 65th /66th 12 Existing and proposed X- sections - Humboldt 13 Sanitary sewer repairs /replacements map 14 Trailway map - City wide 15 Trailway map - this area 18 Freeway Blvd. project - cost summary Freeway Blvd. project - spec. assess map 18 65th /66th Avenues - cost summary 19 65th /66th Avenues - spec. assess map 20 Humboldt Avenue - cost summary Humboldt avenue - spec. assess map 637N. 7VE. .V. 3 r--- I 1 >> i rrro >� i i 68TH. 1 AVE. V. 2 r 'UCF 07TH. AVE. L , 67TH. AVE. .� �1 Y :R PAAKIIA • ^\I < i l I r 3 1 I 1 67TH. AV 3Rg7tz �m 1 667}1 - NIGx! SatXL i — I N .�' .• CTxtsy5 FREEWAY BLVD. 65TH AV y. 1 , 1 AVE. ` 65TH I' , z LjueS C:R. !�.I z � L s' r 1 W EXISTING CONDITIONS *HEAVY TURNING MOVEMENTS *MANY DRIVEWAYS 1 (NO DEDICATED TURN LANES) *HEAVY LEFT TURN VOLUMES *TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNAL 4 *SURFACE CONDITIONS (RUTTING, ETC) •POOR DRAINAGE IN GUTTER LINE SIHEAVY TURNING MOVEMENTS (NO DEDICATED TURN LANES) 044' WIDTH = 2 LANES TRAFFIC & 2 *TRAFFIC SIGNALS DO NOT INCLUDE 2 LANES PARKING SEPARATE LEFT TURN PHASE FOR 5 E -W TRAFFIC SPEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES •SURFACE CONDITIONS *ONLY ONE EASTBOUND LANE EAST NORMAL MSA REQUIREMENTS = 4 LANES OF HUMBOLDT AVE is 04 - WAY STOP SIGNS 6 •SURFACE CONDITIONS (RUTTING, ETC) 3 SITURNING MOVEMENTS CAN CONFLICT •SIDEWALK ON EAST SIDE WITH PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS 1 69TH. AVE. Ni ° 69TH. AVE. N. 3 0 Z � - ' z a _ , � LLi I I o i _ di CD Z o r — � I + CD 3 � cc JI E I W 68TH. AVE. N. 252 3i HLUBDLDT _ — LU ¢ I w PLACE w Z 0 990 ADT 12 ,750 • = 67TH. AVE. N. Q w Z C I ! x LU 10 ADT 16 _ �; Q w � �.. z Q CIR. ------- 67TH. AVE. N. PARKWAY _ _ o ° _ Q U r ---- ----- - - -- � Y - 19 OA T 7,500 � ° I Z I ' _ ----- -- - -- w - 120 A T 9,000 w. Z a _ QROGIYL YN 66TH a 1990 ADl`4 w HIC S1,7d7OL �� 010 ADT 10,2 _ PARK FREEWAY BLVD. _ 5AsrFZaE X �• I' STATION 65TH AVE. N. AVE. \ N. \z z z m z U) > I > I Li V > ¢ w Q > w w < > > > PED. BRIM co °�I Z Z ¢ ¢ ¢ JAAlES CIR. N. ¢ I ° ° z x z "> Z 111 w r ¢ I �� � iI w o o I I 0 ADT 1057W ! 64TH AV w U ,�CENTFRX _. ;1 CITY —' r - - --- i LANE N• z � ;� � i CT 1 O� 62ND , AVE. N. .� m mail r -- ..� :♦::♦:�:♦: ♦:�:� . ;. ALI ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦� Mir F Am I T �' �`♦ ° ° - - - - - -- -- -- -- ° °-- i p ° 11 �. r El A FREEVUAYBOULEVARD - - -_— — -- —� 0 OC7Oq❑ no -- -- -_ _ wl 'i P ECONO -LOCGE Lul �P CP z N I ' PRO I SCP /FREEWAY BLVD. INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS N I o I � DUKE'S AMOCO 1 I I BROOKLYN CENTER i HIGH SCHOOL 17C7gg00 00110 A q _ q -e-- - " 13 13 q A CJ- q p 65TH ggQpqqqqqq _ O Zi ! Z , i = Lu Z' Z Q Q I cc m cc PROPOSED HUMBOLDT AVEJ65TH AVE. INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS v1 N j EAST FIRE E TION I ann�ono � o o a 65TH AVEN NO. O - — _ Ono W O - Z -= W l Z u M Z, W N U.S. WEST a ~ LL � � Z j PROPOSED 0 W ° 65TH AVE. /DUPONT AVE. INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS 07 i� �J r A c N -� r N z W Z W a W � p Q EXISTING 66TH AVE. /T.H.252 ' INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS f i 1 1 W r J -- W 65TH AVENUE NO. uj - -- - - - - - - -- y W - r ir-C. PROPOSED N 5 LANE PLAN VIEW SHOWING TWO -WAY TURN LAN 0o w FREEWAY BLVD TYPICAL SECTION R/W R/W NORTH SOUTH 50' 50' 25' 25' 10' 1 ' 1' 5 5' 9' 30' 36' 8' 5' 1' MILL & OVERLAY EXISTING SIDEWALK CONSTRUCT NEW 13' 12' 13' 12' 13' 5' SIDEWALK N t EAST i FIRE i STATION I ❑❑a❑ao a a 0 ° 0 65TH AVENUE NO. 1301310 ❑13 � __ - Z� - Z Z p O' I c 0 PROPOSED 3 LANE PLAN VIEW SHOWING TWO -WAY TURN LANES o ' *TH AVE NO TY PICAL SECTION R I W NORTH SOUTH R / VARIES 33' + VARIES 33' TO 40' i 22' 22' VARIES 2' 10' B i 40' 26' g' 5 . 1 . MILL & OVERLAY CONSTRUCTw' EXISTING SIDEWALK �10' SIDEWALK 13' 12' 13' 12' I i I 65TH - 66TH AVE NO TYPICAL SECTION R / W NORTH SOUTH R / W VARIES 33' + VARIES 33' TO 40' 5' 5' VARIES 22 . ' 22 . ARIES MILL & OVERLAY CONSTRUCT EXISTING S' SIDEWALK _. -- - NEW S' SIDEWALK 15 14' 15' HUMBOLDT AVE N. TYPICA 'S ECTION R/W WEST EAST R/W VARIES 30' TO 35' VARIES 30' TO 35' VARIES 2 5' 25' ;10' 2'X- x" MILL &OVERLAY CONSTRUCT NEW SIDEWALK 13 12' 12' 13' AT B.C.H.S. N CL ILI a I > Z m n r m � E r^ z 70 / 1 I I I 1 1 I � .� - ... II .. ° <a t j Jl •• \L z '�� i iii T 1 I: I r �< 1 V it Y r UPI- - I I It I f l �r it if It r it JAll I r '._:.. ; F "�. - it \• X A L : - -�._ ti i I __ it ry , , r -- n K `' .,' 1 ! It I I f i,4 ' 4 fi s Y�/� nn. LAE •�� � � UV �� W � ; c I _ � �; �' r• ��Q�L GIG' �" EXISTING ON TREET TRAILS EXISTING OFF STREET E 1 \ II TRAILS - -- -- PROPOSED ON STREET TRAILS i _ It - -- ROPOSED OFF 7 Y P STREET TRAILS -- MAP 2 Comp- ehens' \ ive Flan 14 .. 0..'I I1T J 1 'rl w�lllM � � W Q� a3AIa MP i II U. N c ° ° c 0 •''_= 7 •N '3AV 'H1S /' -\ ,� � � � LU = i N '3Atl N3(I cc cc X c x r _ N '3 IW)"Q y` ., f > `, •N 3Ar XyA 10� g 'N '30 XY3i0� x r - I 1 e •N '3Ar 1Npdna � I N '30 1N08n0 z J n 'N '30 Np$a3h3 � •v poe+a � � _ • 3Atl 1NOM�3ad � z � � • i� � _ - 3nr aatlals k � � Q N '3Atl InlnR►InH - -_ 1 1 'N '3Ar `1NIAbI o jAWS CIR. N. i z z > U U Z N •3Ar s3►Nr "' Li � c rz 'o N `' •),►A�d X332 -I9NIHS 15 FREEWAY BOULEVARD ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $626 LESS SEWER REPAIR / REPLACEMENT (-)$65 LESS SIGNAL @ SHGL. CRK. PKWY. ( -) $110,400 NET PROJECT COST $450 COST SHARING OF NET PROJECT COST 33% OF $450 = $148 = CITY SHARE 67% OF $450 = $301 = TOTAL ASSESSABLE COST SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRIBUTION ZONE A DISTRIBUTION = 67% OF $301,660 = $202,100 ZONE A RATE = $202 / 806 SO. FT. = $0.2507 PER SQ. FT. ZONE B DISTRIBUTION = 33% OF $301 = $99 ZONE B RATE = $99,560 / 1 SQ. FT. = $0.0648 PER SQ. FT. 16 Q a Z W LU Y C IV I - - - ZONE A - 806 SF / 18.5 AC ($0.2507/S.F.) ZONE B - 1,536,750 SF / 35.3 AC ($0.0648S.F.) FREEWAY BLVD. ASSESSMENT AREA C/T Y OF BROOKLYN CENTER FENNENN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 17 . 65TH. AVENUE NO. / 66TH. AVENUE NO. ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $729 LESS SEWER REPAIR /REPLACEMENT ( -) $233 LESS SIGNALS @ HUMBOLDT, DUPONT AVENUES ( -) $158 NET PROJECT COST $337,700 SHARING OF NET PROJECT COST 33% OF $337,720 = $111,450 = CITY SHARE 67% OF $337,720 = $226,270 = TOTAL ASSESSABLE COST SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRIBUTION R -3 DISTRIBUTION = 805 FF X $18.74 PER FF = $15 ZONE A DISTRIBUTION = 67% OF $211,190 = $141 ZONE A RATE = $141,493/733 SQ. FT. _ $0.1930 PER SQ. FT. ZONE B DISTRIBUTION = 33% OF $211 = $69,691 ZONE B RATE = $69,691 / 2,495,343 SQ. FT. = $0.0279 PER SQ. FT. 18 65Th / 66TH AAr ENUE • _ AS SE SSMENT ARE CO W - CD _ N. 1 \ � \ xN��M���\ � \ \ 0` \ l.� � \\ fi t_ ��`: i /ii i • \ X 65TH O \\\� X LLJ U_ \\\, • ZONE A - 733. SF / 16.8 AC ($0.1930/S.F.) ZONE B 2,448,543 SF / 56.2 AC ($0.0279/S.F.) El R -3 805 FEET OF FRONTAGE CIT ($18.74/F.F.) OF BROOKLYN CENTER FENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 19 HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH NET PROJECT COST $141 SHARING OF NET PROJECT COST 33% OF $141,940 = $46,840 =CITY SHARE 67% OF $141 = $95,100 = TOTAL ASSESSABLE COST SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRIBUTION $95 / 1 SQ. FT. = $0.0771 PER SQ. FT. 20 LM 6N R — ?s�� )TH \ �� AV E. ' 68THLAI \ \\ w \. \\\ \\\\�\ ���♦ 1m 1 Iw \ \\ \\\\\\ .67TH LA .1 Icr- \ 67TH s \ \ \ \ \\ BROOKLYN CENTER HIGH SCHOOL \ \ \ \ \ C2 HUMBOLDT AVENUE ASSESSMENT AREA L\\'\\'\ \ ZONE A 1,233 SF / 28.3 AC ($0.0771 /S.F.) .. BROOKLYN CENTER FENNENN GOUN", MMINE 50TA 21 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/9/90 Agenda Item Number Q. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO FREEWAY BOULEVARD /65TH AVENUE /66TH AVENUE BETWEEN SHINGLE CREEK AND T.H. 252 AND TO HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN 65TH AND 69TH AVENUES NORTH DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP DrIREC°f R OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: y No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes A public hearing regarding proposed improvements to Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue and Humboldt Avenue North is scheduled to be held at • 8:00 p.m., April 9, 1990 in City Council Chambers. Notices of this hearing have been published in the City's official newspaper and individual notices were sent to the owners of property affected by the proposed improvements. The information sent to the property owners is attached for reference. It is recommended that the public hearing be conducted in accordance with the following format: Part 1: City staff present an overview of the proposed improvements Part 2: Open public hearing for comments regarding proposed improvements Part 3: Close public hearing Part 4: Discussion by City Council Part 5: Consideration of the attached resolutions which order improvements, approve plans and specifications, authorize advertisement for bids and establish parking restrictions Re: First resolution (ordering the improvement) If a vote is taken on this resolutions, it should be taken by roll call. Because this project was initiated by Council action and because it is proposed to levy special assessments to cover a part of the costs, adoption of this resolution requires a 4/5 vote. Re: Second resolution (establishing parking restrictions) • It is noted that parking is now prohibited on each of the streets included in these improvements. However Municipal State Aid rules require that this be formalized by the adoption of a resolution. A simple majority vote is required for adoption. The following is a tentative implementation schedule for completion of this project if it is ordered by the City Council. May 8, 1990 - bid opening May 21, 1990 - Council award 1st week in June, 1990 - begin construction September 1, 1990 - substantial completion September 10, 1990 - special assessment public hearing • • I CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :BFROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 March 21, 1990 Dear Property Owner: At 8:00 p.m. on Monday, April 9, 1990, the Brooklyn Center City Council will conduct a public hearing on the proposed improvement of Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue from Shingle Creek Parkway to T.H. 252 and of Humboldt Avenue from Freeway Boulevard to 69th Avenue North. Enclosed are the following items: • the official "Notice of Public Hearing" • a report summarizing the proposed projects • estimated special assessments o maps of areas proposed to be specially assessed The hearing is an opportunity for you to express an opinion on the proposed improvement, if you desire to do so. The City Council will consider your comments and input before making decisions regarding these projects. You are encourage to call the City Engineering Department at 569 -3340, if you need additional information or have a question which could be resolved in advance of the meeting. Yours very truly, Sy Knapp Director of Public Works Enclosures rr i`� ' CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE C ENTER 911 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Brooklyn Center will meet in Constitution Hall of the Brooklyn Center Community Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway at 8:00 p.m., April 9, 1990 for a public hearing on the following improvement: Description: Street reconstruction, including storm sewer improvements, regrading, subgrade preparation, installation of concrete curb and gutter, bituminous paving, construction of sidewalks and bikeways, installation of traffic signal systems, and landscaping. Location: Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue from Shingle Creek to T.H. 252; and Humboldt Avenue North from Freeway Boulevard to 69th Avenue North Estimated Cost: $1,378,460.00 The Council proposes to proceed under authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.011 to 429.111. The area proposed to be assessed includes commercial /industrial properties adjacent to Freeway Boulevard and those benefitting from its improvement; commercial /industrial properties and properties zoned R -3, R -4 and R -5 adjacent to 65th /66th Avenues North and those benefitting from its improvement; and properties which have direct access to Humboldt Avenue North between 65th and 69th Avenues North. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvements will be heard at this meeting. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. Senior citizens and persons totally or permanently disabled may be eligible to defer some or all of this proposed special assessment. Please contact the Engineering office at 569 -3340 for more information. D. K. Weeks c� Published in the Brooklyn Center City Clerk Post on March 28 and April 4, 1990 d ,seem- uueiurnr ='� CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PROJECT SUMMARY Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue North /66th Avenue North and Humboldt Avenue North Improvement Project Nos. 1988 -25, 1989 -26, 1989 -27, 1990 -11 and 1990 -12 On March 12, 1990 the Brooklyn Center City Council formally initiated consideration of an improvement program which includes the upgrading of the Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue roadway between Shingle Creek and T.H. 252, and the resurfacing of Humboldt Avenue North from 65th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North. The proposed projects include the following major components. • Improved geometric designs at the intersections of Freeway Blvd /65th Avenue with Shingle in le Creek Parkway and w" g y with Humboldt Avenue, • A five -lane roadway with a two - way -left -turn center lane between Shingle Creek Parkway nd Humboldt y Avenue; • A bituminous overlay of existing 65th Avenue /66th Avenue North, easterly from the improved Humboldt Avenue intersection to Camden Avenue - and establishing that roadway as a three -lane roadway with a two- way -left- turn center lane; • Installation of a permanent traffic signal system at the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard; o Traffic signal system changes as needed to accommodate the revised intersection geometrics at the intersection of Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue with Humboldt Avenue; • Installation of a traffic signal system at the intersection of 65th Avenue with Dupont Avenue; • Construction of a pedestrian /bicycle trailway on the north side of Freeway Blvd /65th Avenue /66th Avenue from Shingle Creek to T.H. 252; • Bituminous overlay of Humboldt Avenue from 65th to 69th Avenue; • Widening of the existing sidewalk on the east side of Humboldt Avenue, adjacent to the Brooklyn Center High School. FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS - Freeway Blvd /65th Avenue /66th Avenue Improvements In accordance with established policies, it is proposed to levy special assessments to adjacent properties, based on two levels of benefit. Zone A is defined as that portion of property abutting and within 200 feet of Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue, while Zone B is that benefitted property lying more than 200 feet from Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue (see maps enclosed). It is proposed to "credit" the assessed properties one -third of the street improvement costs. For these projects, 67% of the proposed levy is assigned to Zone A, with the remainder to Zone B. It is not proposed to levy special assessments to ro erties which p p are zoned and used as R -1 (single family) properties. I ICI FUNDING SUMMARY: FREEWAY BOULEVARD Estimated Construction Cost (inc. 15% contingency) $ 506,800 Right -of -way Acquisition $ 18,000 Engineering (8%) 40,544 Administration (1%) 5,068 Legal (1 %) 5068 Interest (10 %) 50,680 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 626,160 less sewer repair ( -) 65,520 less signal work (@ SCP) (- )110,400 ASSESSABLE PROJECT COST $ 450,240 Estimated City Cost (33 %) $ 148,580 Estimated Assessable Cost (67 %) 301,660 (Zone A - $ 202,100/806,027 sq.ft.) (Zone B - $ 99,560/1,536,750 sq.ft.) Proposed Unit Assessments Zone A = $ 0.2507 / sq.ft. Zone B = $ 0.0648 /sq.ft. FUNDING SUMMARY: 65TH AVENUE /66TH AVENUE NORTH Estimated Construction Cost (inc. 15% contingency) $ 558,100 Engineering (8 %) $ 44,650 Administration (1 %) 5,580 Legal (1%) 5,580 Interest (10 %) 55.810 SUB -TOTAL EST. PROJECT COST $- 669,720 Overhead Power Relocation (by NSP) ( +)60.000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 729,720 less sewer repair p (- )233,300 less signal work Humboldt, g (@ Dupont) _ ( )158,700 ASSESSABLE PROJECT COST $ 337,720 Estimated City Cost (33 %) $ 111,450 Estimated Assessable Cost (67 %) 226,270 (R -3, 805 FF @ $18.74 per FF = $ 15,086) (Zone A - $ 141,493/733,200 sq.ft.) (Zone B - 69,691/2,495,343 sq.ft.) Proposed Unit Assessments R -3= $ 18.74/FF Zone A= $ 0.1930 / sq.ft. Zone B= $ 0.0279 /sq.ft. FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS - Humboldt Avenue North Improvements It is proposed to levy special assessments to the adjacent properties. The properties are proposed to be "credited" one -third of the street improvement costs. FUNDING SUMMARY: HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH Estimated Construction Cost (incl. 15% contingency) $108,700 Easement Acquisition $ 11,500 Engineering (8%) 8,696 Administration (1%) 1,087 Legal (1%) 1,087 Interest (10 %) 10.870 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $141,940 Estimated City Cost (33 %) $ 46,840 Estimated Assessable Cost (67 %) 95,100 ($95,100/1,233,748 sq. ft.) Proposed Unit Assessment $ 0.0771 /sq.ft. E>,FASCN L� I � Y6pTH. A 35 777 1 — Z 2521 68TH. AVE. N.� HUMBOLDT AVE. N. CONSTRUCTION 1989 -27 WH. A r-- - - 19 90 -12 �� HUMBOLDT AVE DUPONT AVE. N SIGNAL 1990 - 11 aw= rm c5v 60 H a I I < Way SOiU ® �' SIGNAL MODIFICATION FREEWAY ELVD. rJGV _ 557H AVE. N. z z a aim JKES C;R. /FREEWAY BLVD /65TH AVE. N. CONSTRUCTION 1989 -26 � 4U, FREEWAY BLVD SIGNALS 1988 -25 ---- -_'�, PROJECT LO l CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER HENNEPiN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FIGURE 1 FREEWAY BOULEVARD /657H /66TH AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT FREEWAY BOULEVARD: SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY TO HUMBOLDT AVE Preliminary Assessments Based on Engineer's Estimate PROPOSED A ZONE B ZONE PID # ADDRESS ZONE ASSESSMENT AREA AREA 135- 119 -21 -13 -0012 i 3200 Freeway Blvd. i 1-1 1 $25,020.80 1 44,800 212,800 1 135- 119 -21 -13 -0019 1 Vacant I 1-1 ( 12,135.60 1 36,000 48,000 1 135- 119 -21 -13 -0020 1 2100 Freeway Blvd. 1 I -1 1 23,310.04 i 69,200 92,000 135- 119 -21 -13 -0006 1 2101 Freeway Blvd. l I -1 1 21,949.00 1 86,000 6,000 1 135- 119 -21 -14 -0008 1 1800 -1900 Freeway Blvd. 1 I -1 1 41,165.88 1 109,200 212,800 1 135- 119 -21 -14 -0004 1 Vacant 1 I -1 1 351.14 1 1,000 1,550 1 135- 119 -21 -14 -0011 1 1600 -1700 Freeway Blvd. 1 I -1 1 36,761.60 1 112,000 134,000 1 135 - 119 -21 -14 -0009 1 6511 -6521 Humboldt Ave. 1 R -5 1 7,661.39 1 30,560 1 135- 119 -21 -14 -0010 1 6501 Humboldt Ave. 1 C -2 1 10,044.80 1 40,067 1 135- 119 -21 -42 -0006 1 6445 James Circle N. ( I -1 1 19,840.16 1 68,800 40,000 1 135- 119 -21 -42 -0003 i 6415 James Circle N. 1 I -1 1 8,190.72 1 126,400 1 135- 119 -21 -42 -0010 1 Vacant 1 I -1 1 2,980.80 1 46,000 1 135- 119 -21 -41 -0016 1 Vacant 1 1-1 1 7,244.64 i 111,800 1 135- 119 -21 -41 -0017 1 Vacant i 1-1 1 12,636.00 1 195,000 1 135- 119 -21 -41 -0003 1 1501 Freeway Blvd. 1 C -2 1 39,524.84 1 113,200 172,000 1 135 - 119 -21 -41 -0008 1 6440 James Circle N. 1 1-1 ( 19,726.30 1 57,800 80,800 1 135- 119 -21 -41 -0014 1 1601 Freeway Blvd. 1 I -1 1 9,952.90 1 37,400 8,900 1 135- 119 -21 -41 -0015 ( Vacant 1 I -1 1 3,155.76 1 48,700 1 -------------------- 1 1----- 1------ -- ----- 1- ------------- - - -- -1 1 1TOTAL PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTSI 1 $301,652.37 1 806,027 1,536,750 1 -------------------------- NOTES: This Listing shows all parcels that are located within the assessment area. Assessments are based on the project as proposed. Q 3 1 = cc a z W r =- W W 1 W R 5 CIVI ZONE A - 806 SF / 18.5 AC ZONE B- 1,536 SF / 35.3 AC FREEWAY BIND ASSESSMENT ARE cirY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FIGURE 2 FREEWAY BOULEVARD /657H /661H AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT 65TH 166TH AVENUES: HUMBOLDT TO T.H. 252 Preliminary Assessments Eased on Engineer's Estimate PROPOSED A ZONE B ZONE FRONT PID # ADDRESS ZONE ASSESSMENT AREA AREA FEET 36 119 -21 -23 -0001 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. $78,679.98 246,600 1,114,200 36- 119 - 21 -32 -0082 1101 65th Ave. N. 10,980.05 53,200 25,536 36 119 -21 -24 -0037 6500 Dupont Ave. N 13,280.03 52,600 112,123 36 119 -21 -24 -0012 6535 Humboidt Ave. N. 15,780.99 63,600 125,670 36 119 - 21 -24 -0046 6507 66th Ave. N. R -5 11,900.88 61,200 3,200 36- 119 - 21 -31 -0045 6305 Camden Ave. N. R -5 27 207.12 73,200 468,800 0 119 - 21 -42 -0017 6445 N. _ Lilac Dr. C 2 � 2,589.12 92,800 36- 119 - 21 -42 -0018 Vacant C -2 691.92 24,800 36 6537 N. Lilac Dr. C -2 4,519.80 162,000 - _ 36 119- , 21 -42 00 15 6531 N. Lilac Dr. C -2 1,450.80 52,000 36 119 -21 -24 -0047 700 -890 66th Ave. N. R -3 12,181.00 650 36 6512 Camden Ave. N. C -2 261.56 9,375 36 119 - 21 -13 -0010 6506 Camden Ave. N. C -2 261.56 9,375 36 119 -21 -13 0011 6500 Camden Ave. N. C -2 261.56 9,375 36 119 - 21 -13 -0033 430 65th Ave. N. C -2 1,008.42 36,144 36 119 -21 -13 -0032 430 65th Ave. N. C -2 435.24 15,600 36 119 -21 -13 -0031 430 65th Ave. N. C -2 363.06 13,013 36 119 -21 -13 -0030 430 65th Ave. N. C -2 314.43 11,270 36 119 - 21 -13 -0029 6525 West River Road C -2 397.30 14,240 36 119 -21 -13 -0028 6525 West River Road C -2 111.32 3,990 36 119 -21 -13 -0027 6525 West River Road C -2 1,278.71 45,832 36 119 -21 -13 -0110 413 66th Ave N. C -2 11,426.40' 54,000 36,000 36 119 -21 -13 -0109 6545 West River Road C -2 11,734.40 60,800 36 119 -21 -13 -0079 Vacant C -2 12,333.00 48,000 110,000 36 119 - 21 -13 -0080 412 66th Ave. N. C-2 3,860.00 20,000 36 119 -21 -13 -0086 6646 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 155 FF/ 36 119 -21 -13 -0087 6644 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 20 Units 36 119 -21 -13 -0088 6642 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 36 119 - 21 -13 -0089 6638 Camden Ave. 11. R -3 145.24 ^ 36 119 -21 -13 -0090 6636 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 ^ 36 119 - 21 -13 -0091 6634 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 ^ 36 - 21 -13 -0092 6630 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 ^ 36 119 - 21 -13 -0093 6628 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 ^ 36 119 -21 -13 -0094 6626 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 ^ 36 119 -21 -13 -0095 6622 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 ^ 36 119 -21 -13 -0096 6620 Camden Ave. N. R-3 145.24 ^ 36 119 - 21 -13 -0097 6618 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 ^ 36 119 -21 -13 -0098 6616 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 ^ 36 119 -21 -13 -0099 6615 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 ^ 36- 119 -21 -13 -0100 6613 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 36 119 -21 -13 -0101 6611 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 ^ 36 119 - 21 -13 -0102 6609 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 ^ 36 119 - 21 -13 -0103 6605 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 ^ 36 119 - 21 -13 -0104 6603 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 ^ 36 119 - 21 -13 -0105 6601 Camden Ave. N. R -3 145.24 ^ -- --- --- --- --- ---- ---------------------------- - TOTAL PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTS $226,213.37 733,200 2,495,343 805 ---------------- --- -- - --- NOTES: This listing shows all parcels that are located within the assessment area. Assessments are based on the project as proposed. 10 65TH / 66TH A VENUE AREA o ASSESSMENT col NN. ii ` ' 6 5TH I� N. 0 LL • O W W p U m \\\\\\\\\\\L}. ED ZONE A► - 733,200 SF / 16.8 AC El ZONE B-2,448,543 SF / 56.2 AC R -3 805 FEET OF FRONTAGE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WMEPIN COUNTY, MNNESOTA FIGURE 3 HUMBOLDT AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS: 65TH TO 69TH AVENUES Preliminary Assessments Based on Engineer's Estimate PROPOSED A ZONE PID # ADDRESS ZONE ASSESSMENT AREA 135- 119 -21 -14 -0009 1 6511 Humboldt Ave. N. I R -5 1 $19,213.32 1 249,200 1 135- 119 -21 -14 -0013 6625 Humboldt Ave. N. i R -5 8,986.47 1 116,556 135- 119 -21 -11 -0015 1 6637 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 3,797.48 1 49,254 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0007 1 6719 Humboldt Ave. N. ( R -5 1 945.17 1 12,259 135- 119 -21 -11 -0008 1 6721 Humboldt Ave. N. i R -5 1 945.17 1 12,259 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0009 i 6715 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 ( 945.17 1 12,259 135- 119 -21 -11 -0010 1 6717 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 945.17 1 12,259 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0026 1 1537 Humboldt Place i R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0027 I 1543 Humboldt Place R -5 378.07 4 904 1 , 1 1 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0028 1 1549 Humboldt Place 1 R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 i 135- 119 -21 -11 -0029 1 1555 Humboldt Place 1 R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0030 1 1531 Humboldt Place i R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 135 119 -21 -11 -0031 ( 1525 Humboldt Place 1 R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 135- 119 -21 -11 -0032 1 1519 Humboldt Place 1 R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 135- 119 -21 -11 -0033 1 1513 Humboldt Place i R -5 1 378.07 I 4,904 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0034 i 1509 Humboldt Place 1 R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0035 1 1501 Humboldt Place 1 R -5 1 378.07 1 4,904 i 35- 119 -21- 11-0002 1 6737 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R-5 1 4,172.65 i 54,120 1 -5- 119 -21 -11 -0017 i 6753 Humboldt Ave. N. i R -5 1 415.37 1 5,387 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0018 1 6749 Humboldt Ave. N. i R -5 1 415.37 1 5,387 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0019 1 6757 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 415.37 1 5,387 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0020 1 6761 Humboldt Ave. N. i R -5 I 415.37 1 5,387 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0021 1 6769 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 I 415.37 1 5,387 I 135 119 -21 -11 -0022 6765 Humboldt Ave. N. R -5 1 1 415.37 5 387 1 , I I 135- 119 -21 -11 -0023 1 6773 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 415.37 1 5,387 I 135 119 -21 -11 -0024 1 6777 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 415.37 1 5,387 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0006 1 6807 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 7,003.92 1 90,842 1 135- 119 -21 -11 -0005 1 1505 69th Ave. N. ( C -2 1 2,931.96 1 38,028 1 136- 119 -21 -23 -0001 1 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 1 16,730.70 1 217,000 1 136 119 -21 -22 -0043 ( 6640 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 1 3,243.98 1 42,075 1 136- 119 -21 -22 -0038 1 6700 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 R -5 i 3,269.43 1 42,405 136- 119 -21 -22 -0047 1 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. ( C -2 1 12,889.96 1 167,185 1 136- 119 -21 -22 -0036 1 6840 Humboldt Ave. N. 1 C -2 1 1,997.82 1 25,912 1 1 - ------------------- 1- ------------- ----- ---- --- - -- i -- --- 1--- ---- ------ 1- ---- - - - - -1 1 1TOTAL PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTSI 1 $95,121.97 11,233,748 1 NOTES: This Listing shows all parcels that are Located within the assessment area. Assessments are based on the project as proposed. I > "s'n CV L RWI - 26, 25 )TN \`� \ \\ AV E. ': A I � iw \ \\ \\\\ \\ 67THLA.�i(X 67TH \\ \ \ \ \ \\ BROOKLYN CENTER HIGH SCHOOL I C2 u Is /M BLT A E At5 EMT AREA L\ \ ZONE A \ 748 SF 1,233, / 28.3 AC �Y CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER HENNEPIN Cowry, Mwme;OTA FIGURE 4 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1988 -25, 1989 -26, 1989 -27, 1990 -11 AND 1990 -12, FREEWAY BOULEVARD /65TH AVENUE /66TH AVENUE BETWEEN SHINGLE CREEK AND T.H. 252; AND FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1989 -27, HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN 65TH AND 69TH AVENUES WHEREAS, Resolution No. 90 -55, adopted on the 12th day of March, 1990, set a date for a public hearing regarding the proposed reconstruction of Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue /66th Avenue between Shingle Creek and T.H. 252, and for Humboldt Avenue North between 65th and 69th Avenues North; and WHEREAS, ten days' published notice of the hearing was given and the hearing thereon was held on the 9th day of April, 1990, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for these improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Such improvements are hereby ordered as proposed in Council Resolution No. 90 -55. 2. The plans and specifications for Improvement Projects 1989 -26, 1989 -2.7 (Contract 1990 -D) and Improvement Projects 1988 -25, 1990 -11, 1990 -12 (Contract 1990 -E) as prepared by the City Engineer are hereby approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 3. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published as required by law, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until the date and time specified, at which time they will be publicly opened at City Hall by the City Clerk and the City Engineer. Subsequently, the bids shall be tabulated and will then be considered by the City Council at a meeting of the City Council. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or RESOLUTION NO. certified check payable to the City for S percent of the total amount of such bid. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON MSAP 109 - 121 -04 AND 109 - 111 -13, FREEWAY BOULEVARD /65TH AVENUE/ 66TH AVENUE BETWEEN SHINGLE CREEK AND T.H. 252, AND MSAP 109- 108 -04, AND ON HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN 65TH AND 69TH AVENUES NORTH WHEREAS, the City has planned the improvements of Freeway Boulevard /65th /66th Avenues North and Humboldt Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the City will be expending Municipal State Aid Funds on the improvements of these streets; and WHEREAS, these improvements will not provide adequate width f'-or parking on both sides of the streets. Approval of the proposed construction was a Municipal State Aid street project is conditioned upon parking restrictions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City shall ban the parking of motor vehicles on both sides of Freeway Boulevard /65th /66th Avenues North between Shingle Creek and T.H. 252, and on Humboldt Avenue North between 65th and 69th Avenues North at all times. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A MODIFIED PROJECT PLAN FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 01 AND A MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 01 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (City), as follows: Section 2. Recitals 1.01. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center (HRA) adopted a project plan (Project Plan) for the project area (Project Area) in accordance with Minn Stat Sections 469.001 through 469.047 and a tax increment financing plan (TIF Plan) in accordance with Minn Stat Sections 469.174 through 469.179 (collectively, the Plans) for the Brookwood Project (TIF District) and said Plans were thereafter approved by the city council of the City of Brooklyn Center (City). 1.02. Responsibility for the Project Area and TIF District was shifted from the HRA to the Economic Development Authority for Brooklyn Center (EDA). 1.03. Changes in the public purposes and goals in the Project Area have prompted the EDA to prepare modified Plans. 1.04. The modified Plans are contained in a document entitled "Modified Housing Development Project Plan and Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan (Brookwood)" dated August 16, 1989, now on file with the EDA. 1.05. The modified Plans were referred to the Brooklyn Center planning commission which on November 16, 1989, found that they conform to and are not in conflict with the general plans for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole. 1.06. On February 26, 1989, the EDA approved the modified Plans for the Project Area and TIF District and referred them to the city council for public hearing and consideration as provided by state statute. 1.07. Copies of the modified Plans have been forwarded to Independent School District No. 286 and Hennepin County along with a notice of the public hearing as required by Minn Stat Sections 469.174 through 469.179 (TIF Act). RESOLUTION NO. 1.08. The city council has fully reviewed the contents of the modified Plans and has this date conducted a public hearing thereon g at which the views of all interested persons were heard. Section 2. Findings; Project Plan 2.01. It is hereby found and determined that within the Project Area there exist conditions of economic obsolescence, physical deterioration, underutilization, and inappropriate uses of land. 2.02. It is further specifically found and determined that: a) the land in the Project Area would not be made available for redevelopment without the public intervention and financial assistance described in the modified Plans; b) the modified Project Plan for the Project Area will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the redevelopment of the Project Area by private enterprise; c) the modified Project Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City as set forth in the comprehensive municipal plan. 2.03. The findings in this section are made in compliance with state statute for the purpose of showing the City's intent to exercise, in conjunction with the EDA, the powers granted to the City and the EDA by state statute. Section 3. Findings; Tax Increment Financing District 3.01. It is found and determined that it is necessary and desirable to the sound and orderly development and redevelopment of the Project Area, the TIF District, and the City as a whole, and for the protection and preservation of the public health, safety, and general welfare, that the authority of the TIF Act be exercised by the EDA and the City to provide public financial assistance to the Project Area and TIF District. 3.02. It is further found and determined, and it is the reasoned opinion of the EDA and the City, that the redevelopment of the Project Area and TIF District outlined in the modified Plans could not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that therefore the use of tax increment financing is necessary. RESOLUTION NO. 3.03. The modified TIF Plan conforms to the general plans for development of the City as a whole as set forth in the comprehensive municipal plan. 3.04. The modified TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the redevelopment of the Project Area and TIF District by private enterprise. Section 4. Modified Project Plan and TIF Plan Adopted 4.01. The modified Project Plan is approved. 4.02. The modified TIF Plan is approved. 4.03. The geographic boundaries of the Project Area have been expanded and are now as outlined in the modified Project Plan. There has been no change to the boundaries of the TIF District as a result of this modification. 4.04. The EDA is requested to file a copy of the modified Plans with the Minnesota commissioner of revenue as required by the TIF Act. 4.05. The city clerk is authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of the resolution to the EDA. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/9/90 Agenda Item Number /- , REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: NORTHWEST NEWS NEWSPAPER - CITY NEWSLETTER PROPOSAL DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Attached is a copy of a proposal submitted to the City by Northwest Newspapers, Inc., which is proposing a four week experiment in which the cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park at a total cost of $1800 each would each receive a page in the newspaper over which they would have complete editorial control. In other words, it would be similar to our existing City Manager's Newsletter publication. • The cost would include setup, printing, editorial, and distribution services. The City would be responsible for preparing rough drafts of informational items and approving the final text. In terms of the total work effort, this arrangement would involve about 75% to 80% from Northwest News and 20% to 25% from City staff. The proposal calls for weekly editions of the Brooklyn Bridge newsletter format, and attached is a copy of the April 2 edition which was published at Northwest News' risk because the Council has not authorized payment. City staff believes a timely wide distribution publication for a city newsletter such as this proposal offers, could have merit. However, it will call for a staff commitment to prepare rough drafts of text and review the final drafts on a weekly basis. While City staff could probably handle this four week experimental publication, 1 question whether or not we could sustain it on a weekly basis without additional permanent staff time commitments. The drafts of these articles cannot be developed by anybody outside the organization. The additional time demands of weekly publications on our department personnel were not anticipated. Currently, we are supplying similar information to an editorial contractor on our newsletter six times a year. In addition, we also prepare drafts of articles for the Northern Lights publication a similar number of times per year, and we are being asked by the Chamber of Commerce to supply reports for inclusion in their monthly newsletter. We are also involved in creating communication materials for the recreation program, crime prevention, drug awareness, and other programs. Individually these don't seem to take up much time, but when they are totaled there is a significant amount of staff time involved in the preparation of these materials. Adding additional burden in this area cannot be handled by our current staff. We can contract out for proofreading, editorializing, final copy, etc. However, to develop the base information for articles, we are simply going to have to use time from our regular staff because they are the only ones that have the information. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend the Council authorize expenditure of up to $1,800 on the four week newsletter experiment with Northwest News, the results of which will be used by Coleman & Christison to evaluate the use of this type of newsletter approach as a comparison to our existing publications. We do not believe it would make sense to continue the six times a year City Manager's Newsletter should this type of proposed newsletter format be recognized as more effective. • • e ! t, / 1• J BR OOKLYN CEN CITY NEWS Message From The Mayor Now We're Putting have increased the scope and fre Plastics Into Our by bean n. Ny101 quency of the City newsletter, W Rec havt hired a cpnsulkant to ana ycling Pict ure! Commiintcatidn Is a vital tie lyze and to recommend ways ment of'.evpry unit of society enhance the commu.nlCAkiori That's true whither it's a famtty within the community a company, an organization, or a community. TwoJndispensable We thcrefort welcome the inau- elements COinlllutlieatl0n art gUTatlgn of the' new Co mm unity a message ka communicate and m that it riewspaptr, Northwest News: I' a vehicle to convey the message hoPetuI'; will be a vehicle to im rave iRie slow of information; b Our community has the mes And 1 welcotrie the opportunity to sage to convey, Very. positive shart same vbseivattbns with things are happening and, there you . 1§ considerable noteworthy!activ Eroot ity the com l n Centtr iS tin! tie In mu nity: Tht y q I \ 6 greater challenge has been to ;community in many ways. One inlqueness is the dedication find an avtnae to abate khaf the citliens to be creative >n soly» 'cl information ; m ing our4problen s. Also gnfque i The Clty periodically contracts the degree of volunteerism in the I to have an independent ob�ectivt community and the sense of car: survey done in the City. It : As president of the Rotary revealed a very high degree of :Club, ],Just subrnitttd Krtpoi t6 . satisfaction with the community he district office summarizing and the servlces. The results .tht yytars activity in i2otary, Most did. however, reveal that we of tho Activity was expended on needed some improvirnent in local projects to improve the com our comtnunieatton; 1Ne have 'rrnunity and' I I local problinls.' attemptedjto improve and rectify, :Tht re port revealed ;that the that perception For exatuple; wt ; 13tooktyn Ctnttr, Experimental Plastics Ileeycling Prpject Underway oon Ind B Y y rookl n Center Community TripS On The Go by Tom Bublitz for existing markets. As other Hennepin County residents recyclable plastic markets devel- The Communi Tri ster senior throw away thousands of plastic op, other types of plastics may travel program sponsored b the,,, •., On May 13 there will be a trip bottles eve hour. It is estimat- be added. Y to the Ordway to hear the world- * y Americans parks. and recreation depart famous Glenn Miller Orchestra , ed that generate 158 ; - `!The experimental project is a ments of Brooklyn Center, This afternoon trip is a wonder- billion' tons bf rnuniciple solid cooperative effort between the Brooklyn Park, Crystal and New ful way to spend Mother's Day. Waste each year, with plastics Hennepin County board of Hope is sponsoring a trip to the The cost is $20. per person. representing 18 %. Commissioners, the cities of Blackhills /Badlands, June 26- includes excellent main floor In April of this year approxi- Brooklyn Center, Crystal, and 30, 1990. The trip is open to any seating, escort and trasporta- mately 1,500 Brooklyn Center New Hope, BFI Recycling senior adult interested in tour -, tion. April 12 registration dead- households will begin participat- Systems, and the Council for . ing this historic area. Cost is line. space permitting, ing in an experimental plastics Solid Waste Solutions (a pro - $329 per person, double occu- Approximate time: 1 :15 -4 :45 recycling program. The homes gram of the Society of the Plastic pancy. Triple, quad and single p.m. chosen to participate were ran -: Industry, Inc.).' aceomodations are also avail - doml selected and will a able. Departure points from New For information on either the Y p rtici- Residents whose households Hope and Brooklyn Center City Blackhills or Glenn Miller,contact Pate in this program for six are not included in the experi- Hall. A $50. deposit is due by Kathy Fleshes 569 -3400, months. The purpose of the mental project area, who would April 26 experimental project is to study still like to participate in plastics the overall feasibility of recycling recycling, can bring their plastic plastics by measuring parteipa- bottles to the Goodwill Recycling tion rates, collection costs, and Center located at 8089 Brooklyn CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER marketability of plastics col - Blvd. (adjacent to the Cub Food POLICE AND FIRE EMERGENCY .............. 911 lected. - store). The Goodwill drop -off : center is co- sponsored by the Nonemergency Police .............. 569 -3333 Results of the experimental project will help to determine � : cities of Brooklyn Center, Crime Tips and Prevention . :....... ..,..... 561 -6649 whether curbside plastics collec- Crystal, New Hope and Brooklyn ... tion will be expanded City-wide'-'..`. Park. For information on addi- CONiMUPIITY CENTER ..................:.,. 569 -3400 and County -wide. tional donation center locations (6301 Shingle Creek Parkway) and guidelines, residents can Park and Recreation . .. . ... : ........................ ... 569 -3400 For the test project, plastic call the Goodwill /Easter Seal milk, and soda pop bottles will Society Inc. offices at 646 -2591. Swimming Pool ..... 569-3400 be collected from those house- The Goodwill Recycling Center holds included in the special accepts plastic milk, pop, water CITY HALL project. Since plastics recycling and detergent bottles, aluminum (6301 Shingle Creek Parkway) is in its early stages, milk and beverage cans, glass, bagged pop bottles are made of plastic newspaper, and corrugated Information .............. ............................... 569 -3300 materials that are ideally suited cardboard. Administration........... ...:........................... 569 - 3350 Assessing ............. ............................... :...569 -3310 B uilding Inspections ....... ........................... 569 -3344 Engineering ............... ............................... 569 -3340 Finance.................... ............................... 569 -3320 Strike Three! He's Out Of There! A softball and baseball umpires Highschool League or the clinic will be held on Monday Minnesota Recreation and Park April 9 at 7 p.m. at the Brooklyn Association and the earning Center Community Center. Any potential. Registration deadline Vacancies on the Charter Commission person interested in becoming is Sunday, April 8, at the an umpire should attend this Brooklyn Center Community The Brooklyn Center Charter Y ticpation. Anyone interested or session. Don Bertek from Center, 6301 Shingle. Creek Commission announces it has wanting additional information Gopher State Officials will cover Parkway. The cost is $2.00 per three positions open for new should contact the City of slow pitch, fast pitch, and base- person. Questions may be commissioners. Persons apply- Brooklyn Center at 561 -5440 to ball umpiring. He will also cover referred to Arnie or Joe at 569 - ing must be a resident of leave your name, number and how to register with the State 3400. Brooklyn Center and a regis- address. tered voter. These are important voluntary positions of civic par- SW +C • STATUS OF THE "BROOKLYN BRIDGE" A segment of NORTHWEST NEWSPAPERS featuring information from the cities of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center PREMIER EDITION: APRIL 2 I. Both cities are unsure whether to underwrite the cost of printing such a page: a. How much news they'll generate b. How it will look C. If it will be cost effective d. How to coordinate with newspaper staff and e. The objectivity of this newspaper as "free press ". 2. The newspaper is progressing: a. Editorial /news staff training includes city coordination b. Newspaper office is established and computers are in place. c. News deadline is fast approaching d. Financial planning is critical. 3. Inclusion of "Brooklyn Bridge" is crucial to public opinion of format, as well as overall presentation. SOLUTION: Enter into a temporary agreement with refundable retainer; thus delaying a decision by City Council until mid -April (pursuant to seeing 3 -4 issues in print). Retainer would be equivalent to the cost of printing one page in 4 weekly issues at $450 each = $1800. If the city and /or council were unsatisfied and no solutions could be found to meet expectations, then denial of the proposal would warrant refund of the retainer. SUBMITTED BY: Patricia Milton, Publisher NORTHWEST NEWSPAPERS, INC. 7040 Lakeland Avenue Suite 206 Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager ` FROM: Brad Hoffman, EDA Coordinator DATE: April 6, 1990 SUBJECT: Brooklyn Center Representative to Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee It is again Brooklyn Center's turn to appoint a representative to Hennepin County's Citizen Advisory Committee on block grants. This is a two -year appointment. Barb Jensen, who is the chair of our advisory committee on block grants, has indicated her willingness to serve in that capacity. I would recommend that the City appoint Barb Jensen to represent the City in this capacity. I will be available Monday to discuss this matter. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/9/90 Agenda Item Number /S Z REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: AMENDING 1990 PAY PLAN TO ADD ONE ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE WORKER IN THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION I *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP IRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: r No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached It is recommended that one additional Maintenance Worker be added to the existing Public Utilities Division staff. The staff for this Division (1 supervisor and 6 maintenance workers) overseas a water and sewer system with: Water Sewer 8 wells & 3 water towers 10 lift stations 112 miles of water main 104 miles of sanitary sewer About 8,870 water accounts About 8,820 sewer accounts About 1,605 million gallons pumped in 1989 The existing level of staffing has remained unchanged for more than 10 years. During that time, and especially during the last few years, many changes have occurred which add significantly to the responsibilities and workload of this division. These changes include: 1. System improvements - including one additional well; one additional sewage lift station; 3.35 new miles of water mains; 5.8 new miles of sanitary sewer mains; nearly 50 more fire hydrants; and 250 new water and 450 new sewer customers. Also, significant changes which will occur within the next 1 or 2 years include another well, major improvements to the water distribution system, the replacement of 3 or 4 lift stations, and the continued addition of new customers. 1 2. Operational changes in the water supply system - including the addition • of chemicals, a water main flushing program, and other activities to reduce taste and odor problems. 3. An improved sewer cleaning and lift station maintenance program was initiated in 1984, and aggressively pursued since then. This has resulted in a dramatic reduction in the number of sewer backups (22 in 1980, 53 in 1981, 48 in 1982, 26 in 1983, 26 in 1984, 13 in 1985, 5 in 1986, 8 in 1987, 11 in 1988, and 4 in 1989). Note During 1989, maintenance crews reported an increase in the number of roots growing into sanitary sewers, apparently a direct result of the continuing drought. It is our belief this will result in the need for additional inspections, cleaning, root cutting, chemical treatments, etc. on a continuing basis because once roots penetrate a sewer, they can never be totally eliminated. 4. In October, 1988 the state -wide "Gopher State One Call" system was implemented in accordance with a mandate from the Minnesota Legislature. Under this system, which is intended to reduce the number of times that utility lines are cut as a result of construction activities, anyone who intends to make any excavation within public rights -of -way notifies the Gopher State One Call system, which then notifies all owners of public utilities (water, sewer, power, telephone, CATV, gas, etc.). Each utility owner is then required to review its records and to send a staff member to the site to "locate" any facilities which it owns in this • area. Then, if the excavator damages the utility after it has properly been located, the excavator is responsible for damages incurred. If, however, the utility owner does not respond to the call, or does not accurately locate its facilities, that owner is then responsible for the repair costs. In total, I believe this system to be an improvement over the system (or lack of system) which previously existed. However, in 1989, the City's participation in this system consumed over 750 employee -hours - a "full time equivalent" of 0.36 employees. Without additional staffing, this obviously reduces our ability to cover other tasks. 5. During the drought periods of 1988 and 1989, a substantial amount of increased staff time was required to deal with the results of the drought - i.e., monitoring and controlling the water supply system to assure its optimal performance, establishment and enforcement of water use restrictions, etc. Note The computerized SCADA system, which was installed in 1987 -88 to assist in operating the water system efficiently, has provided excellent assistance during the drought periods. Without it, the number of overtime hours required to operate the system would have been much greater, and our ability to achieve maximum system performance would have been much lower. However, this system does little to reduce • staffing requirements during regular work hours. 6. The staff time involved in collecting the number of water samples (for • chemical and bacterial analyses) during 1989 was approximately 400 hours. The amount of time for sampling in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (even assuming that the lead and copper rules are not adopted as proposed) will more than double in the 1990 -92 time period. In summary, the existing 7- member Public Utilities Division staff has done an excellent job at improving the level -of- service for the community. I believe that the above items, in total, justify the addition of one Maintenance Worker so that this level of service can be maintained. • • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING 1990 PAY PLAN TO ADD ONE ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE WORKER IN THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council chat it is necesary to increase the authorized staff for the Public Utilities Division by one full -time Maintenance Worker in order to maintain an appropriate level of service for the City's public utility users. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Schedule A of the 1990 Pay Plan be amended to increase the authorized number of Maintenance II positions from six (b) to seven (7)• 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 Meetin Date 4/9/90 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: 1990 PLANNING SESSION DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature -title t67 ��7 MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached I have had initial discussions with Jim Brimeyer and Deborah Bennett-Leet, who handled last year's planning session as facilitators, and we are proposing the following format for the 1990 planning session. It would be our intention to hold the planning session on a weekday evening in the Captain's Room at the Heritage Center. The dates available for this session are May 1, 2, and 3. Please review your • calendars prior to Monday night's meeting to see if there is a conflict with any of the above dates. We propose the 1990 planning session to have three goals. 1. To reaffirm the priorities previously established by the group and condensed by the City Council (see attached 1989 priorities list). 2. To increase the understanding of the group regarding priority strategies and status of various projects. 3. To enhance the knowledge of the group in order to prepare for the 1991 goal setting session. It is our opinion an annual planning session is an important element in any strategic planning process for any organization, but to go through the process of prioritizing issues on an annual basis may be too frequent. We are proposing, as a part of this process for 1990, to re- evaluate and educate on the '89 goals and, if necessary, modify them but not completely go through the prioritizing process every year. By doing it every other year, it gives opportunity to fine tune the projects, get them implemented, show progress on certain issues, and place more emphasis on educating and preparing for the prioritizing process the following year (1991). Prior to our 1990 planning session, 1 will be meeting with all the advisory commissions, reviewing the issues and attempting to bring them up to date and answer any questions they may have so they come to the 1990 session more informed than they did to the 1989 session. At the 1990 session, it is our intention to further re- enforce and inform participants on the current projects and their status to better prepare us for a complete review and reassessment of our priorities in 1991. Please review the attached proposed plan for Brooklyn Center's strategic planning process for 1990 as prepared by Brimeyer and Bennett-Leet. The staff will be prepared to discuss any questions you may have. is RECOMMENDATION : If the Council approves the recommended process, a motion approving the proposed process and directing the staff to set up the session would be in order. • 2/1/90 1989 BROOKLYN CENTER PRIORITIES 1. CRIME /DRUGS a. Drug Education /Prevention Programs -The primary programs in this area are the DARE program and the police department's proactive activity in the area of drugs (four cities joint drug enforcement task force, etc.). b. Drug Task Force -The Council has directed the staff to prepare necessary documents and work with the current Mayor's task force to formalize the task force as an official city advisory body. C. Crime Watch Program -The crime watch program is a nationally known program where, with police officer assistance, small neighborhood groups are organized to help their neighbors "watch" for crime in their neighborhoods and call the police when suspicious activity occurs. d. Battered Spouse /Youth Program -The battered spouse program is an existing contract effort with the Duluth project which handles battered spouse situations and counsels victims. Efforts at developing a similar program for battered youth is in the formative stages. e. Crime Prevention Fund -This is an ongoing independent organization which was established to supplement police department activities in the crime prevention area. They provide needed "buy" monies to the police department personnel, an anonymous tipster phone line, and provide a useful financial conduit for directing and accounting for privately donated or collected monies to assist in drug and crime prevention. f. Police Master Plan Update - Brooklyn Center has a five year police department master plan which is to be annually reviewed, updated, and evaluated by the City Council at budget time. -2- 2. HOUSING a. Maintenance Code for Commercial /Industrial Buildings -This is a project which, when it is adopted by the City Council, will extend the building maintenance and ground maintenance requirements of the housing maintenance code to commercial /industrial properties in Brooklyn Center. b. Housing Rehab Program Initiatives -These are a series of initiatives which are to be developed as a part of the review of the Maxfield housing analysis study and the Publicorp housing program implementation plan. C. Subsidized Elderly Housing - Brooklyn Center should evaluate all aspects of elderly housing and service needs as this group will be an increasing percent of our total population. d. Coordinated Housing Maintenance Program -This program calls for a coordinated interdepartmental staff effort on enforcement of housing maintenance codes, health regulations, and nuisance ordinance enforcement. e. Group Home Siting Process -This process involves an effort at seeking legislative change to involve more City input into the siting process and more grassroots state administrative agency involvement. In addition, Brooklyn Center is in the process Of implementing the "ordinance study" which reviews the status and effectiveness of our current ordinances as it relates to state requirements for group home siting. 3. BUDGET /FINANCES a. Legislative Impact - Efforts are to be made to influence the legislature to stabilize its policy direction to cities. The state should enact a fiscal note process which would require economic impact analysis of all state legislation (mandates) which fiscally impact cities. -3- b. Property Tax Change -In the last few years the state legislature has made changes in property tax legislation which has produced swings in revenue from state aids, levy limits, and modifications of the property tax system which complicated long term financial planning of cities. The State of Minnesota is encouraged to allow cities the necessary revenue flexibility to meet increased service demands in the areas of housing, drug /crime prevention, education, and stabilize state fiscal policies as they relate to cities. C. Alternative Revenue Sources -The City is to review all possible alternative revenue sources including the recently state authorized 3% tax on hotel and motel facilities. d. LGA Funding Equity - Recent state tax legislation has created a further imbalance between metro and outstate cities as it relates to their local government aids, and the equity of the • current system is in question. Brooklyn Center should seek a legislative change which provides balance and equity. e. Financing Various Housing Programs -The City should make a proactive effort to seek funding sources for various housing programs developed out of the Maxfield /Publicorp housing study and implementation plan. 4. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT /REDEVELOPMENT a. Improve Business Climate in Community b. Maintenance Code for Commercial /Industrial Buildings (see item 2a) C. Complete a Formal Development /Redevelopment Process or Policy -This policy or process would formalize the steps and process to be followed by City staff, commissions, and Council in evaluating and approving development and redevelopment projects. -4- d. Examine Feasibility f Development Y r Projects in the 50th and France Area, 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard, and Lynbrook Bowl Areas 5. COMMUNICATIONS a. Evaluate Expansion of Newsletter - Consider expanded use of the City newsletter as a part of an effective citizen communication program. b. Evaluate Expanded Use of Cable Television - Consider expanded use of cable television as one element in an effective citizen communication program. C. Improve Effectiveness of Newspaper Coverage -City should review all possible alternatives to improving effectiveness of news media reporting. d. Inform Public regarding Redevelopment Projects - Consider special efforts to communicate to the public the pros and cons of development and redevelopment projects. 6. DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES a. Housing Impacts b. Senior Citizen Drop -in Center C. Recreation and Parks System Impacts d. Evaluation of Aging Population Needs 7. PUBLIC FACILITIES a. Review City Building Needs - Various City departments are experiencing space and facility shortages. Evaluate needs, prepare necessary reports and submit same to City Council for review by citizens committee. b. Review Park De velopment /Redevelopment and Expansion -The City park system, especially in the Twin Lakes area and completion of our bike and pedestrian trail, it nee ds to be evaluated and a decision should be made on the timing of final development. Complete necessary evaluations and submit to City Council for review by citizens committee. BROOKLYN CENTER 0 STRATEGIC PLANNING 1990 GOALS: • To reaffirm the priorities (issues) previously established by the group and condensed by the City Council. • To increase the understanding of the group regarding the priorities, strategies and status for completion. * To establish a frame of mind and enhance the knowledge of the group in order to prepare for the 1991 goal- setting session. STRATEGIES /ACTION PLAN: PHASE I. STRATEGY EVALUATION * One at a time, review each priority and its set of cooresponding strategies. * Immediately following each review, the group determines their level of satisfaction for each strategy. Level of Satisfaction 1 ....... ... .........5 ....................9 Low Not Sure High * Feedback is displayed and discussed. - Instant feedback helps determine those strategies which require more discussion time. - Purpose of the discussion is: • to clarify WHY people vote as they do. • to ask and answer questions. • to share further information. • to determine major differences among sub - groups. - Major strategy /action plans which are different from original plans are discussed and recorded. Example: REVIEW CRIME /DRUGS and its six strategies. VOTE on each of the six strategies. DISPLAY AND DISCUSS. * Continue process for each priority /set of strategies. 2. PHASE II. PRIORITY EVALUATION * Two votes are taken. Vote #1 - prioritize the 7 priorities using the forced choice method which compares each priority with each other. Results will give us a ranking of priorities from highest to lowest in terms of relative CRITICALITY. Note: Assumption is that ALL priorities are important but that determining a sense of RELATIVE CRITICALITY is essential for achieving effective strategic planning. Vote #2 - Rate overall LEVEL OF SATISFACTION as to the perceived effectiveness of the set of strategies for each priority. (7 votes) Level of Satisfaction 1 ............ ........5.....................9 Low Not Sure High • Combine,display and discuss the two vote matrix. See matrix. III. FOLLOW -UP • Beet with Council to review session's results and to reaffirm Council's role /responsibility to give direction in response to the decisions on revised priorities and strategies. • Establish framework for 1991 goal- setting session. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/9/90 Agenda Item Number 1-'5 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: REVIEW OF 69TH AVENUE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT -IMPACT ON SOUTH SIDE PROPERTIES *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title ************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGERS REVIEW RECOMMEND / ATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: supplemental sheets attached Council and staff have received a number of requests from citizens on the south side of the 69th Avenue construction roject t p o consider impacts pacts and possible additional taking of properties. Council, as a part of its approval of the 69th Avenue reconstruction project, authorized the staff to look at properties on the south side of 69th west of France Avenue. 1 believe it would be appropriate for the Council to further discuss properties to be taken under this project and also give the opportunity for the staff to comment on some of the impacts such as: • financial, construction, and redevelopment opportunities. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the Council discuss the various opportunities and impacts, especially as it relates to redevelopment possibilities and financial impacts. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9 9 0 Agenda Item Number l 1p REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: APPROVAL OF CLASS F ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE FOR OMEGA FOODS, INC D /B /A ATRIUM CATERING ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ***************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - e - -James Lindsay, Chief of Poli MANAGER'S R /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes ) Attached is the background investigation of Omega Foods, Inc. d /b /a Atrium Catering in application for a Class F On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for use at the Earle Brown Heritage Center. Omega Foods d /b /a Atrium Catering has been contracted to provide the food and liquor service at both the bed and breakfast and convention center facilities located on the property. The investigation found nothing to preclude issuance of the liquor license. A special bill in the State Legislature is required in order to license this facility for on -sale liquor. This bill has passed through committee, but is being held up by the Omnibus Liquor Bill which is anticipated to be signed either this weekend or next by the Governor. Currently, Omega Foods is operating at the Center by using a special section of the state law which allows the City to grant permission to use their Minneapolis On -Sale Liquor License at the facility. This is a temporary measure until the bill is signed. We are requesting approval so that we may issue the license immediately upon its authorization by the state. RECOMMENDATION- The City Council authorize the staff to issue the Class F On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License to Omega Foods, Inc. d /b /a Atrium Catering upon its being signed into law at the State level. POLICE LIQUOR LICENSE INVESTIGATION APPLICANT: Omega Foods, Inc. ADDRESS: 620 Mendelssohn Avenue, Suite 125 Golden Valley, 1 .411 55427 DBA: Atrium Catering DATE OF APPLICATION: 11/9/89 TYPE OF LICENSE: Class "A" On Sale Liquor W /SS ASSIGNED INVESTIGATOR: Cathy Hennessy PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: On Sale Liquor License With Sunday Sales And For Catered Events LICENSE RECOMMENDATION: The investigation of the above corporation has not indicated any reason to deny Omega Foods a liquor license within the Earle Brown Farm banquet facility and bed and breakfast. An application has been submitted by Kenneth Spiess Weldon on behalf of Omega Foods, Inc. requesting approval for a Class "A" liquor license with Sunday sales to be issued to them at 620 Mendelssohn Avenue, suite 125 in Golden Valley, MN. This is the site of their corporate headquarters for Omega Foods which is the corporation sponsoring the Atrium Catering Service, which will be the service extended at the Earle Brown Farm complex. The licensing they are looking to receive will include various special events, which would be located at the banquet facility at the Earle Brown Farm and also the on sale liquor availability for the bed and breakfast, both of which are owned by the City of Brooklyn Center. Atrium Catering will be the exclusive vendor of beverages and food at the complex. Kenneth Weldon will be the manager of the Atrium Catering franchise and he is currently the vice president of Omni Venture Limited, which is the management company for the Omega Foods, Inc. which is in turn owned by Omega Trust. Page Two - Omega Foods, Inc. - 11/9/89 APPLICANT: The applicant is a South Dakota corporation formed on 2/16/78 with the following stockholder, officers, directors and manager: Omega Trust 100% Stockholder Howard Seiford Cox President /Treasurer /Director Patrick Michael Ruhr Vice President /Director John Robert Whisnant Secretary Gregory Robert Kirkpatrick Assistant Secretary Kenneth Spiess Weldon Manager OMEGA TRUST is the common name designation of three South Dakota irrevocable trusts established under a Trust Agreement dated 1/30/78. The trustees of which are Howard Seiford Cox, Richard S. Taylor, Reynold Anderson, and National Bank of South Dakota. The beneficiary of each single trust comprising Omega Trust is, respectively, Rhonda K. Nelson, Melanie Marie Nelson, and Melinda Sue Nelson. These three women are sisters. RHONDA KAY NELSON - FOWLER (dob: 3/20/61) formally resided at 3660 Northome Road Wayzata, MN since 1974. She has since married and is currently residing at 1201 Yale Place in Minneapolis, MN. MELANIE MARIE NELSON (dob: 5/21/63) also formally resided at 3660 Northome Road in Wayzata. She currently resides at 1150 Hennepin Avenue #1702 in Minneapolis. MELINDA SUE NELSON (dob: 11/1/66) she formally resided with the family at 3660 Northome Road in Wayzata. She currently is living with her sister Rhonda Fowler at 1201 Yale Place in Minneapolis. Page three - Omega Foods, Inc. - 11/9/89 zOv7ARD SEIFORD C OV (;.xb: 1118124} Cox has resided at 1410 Fairlawn Way in tiinneapoii:s since 1972. He is married to the former Audrey Johnson (dob: 6/15/29). They have four children. He is employed by Wiese and Cox, LTD., a Minneapolis law firm. RICHARD S. TAYLOR (dob: 4/26/26) he has resided at 10243 Scarborough Road since 1976. He is married to the former Dorothy Bush (dob: 12/31/26), and they have three adult children. He has been self - employed in the insurance industry since 1960. REYNOLD 11. ANDERSON (dob: 1/11/31) he has resided at 4130 Burton Lane in Minneapolis :since 1960. He is married to the former Betty Alverna Clay (dob: 6/5/31) and they have four r.hildren. He has been employed by Zaeco Construction of Minneapolis since 1956. On 11/9/79, Omega Trust, in partnership with Wyman Nelson and Norman Kerr, was granted a Class "A" liquor license for the Curtis Hotel. Since the demolition of the building, this license was returned to the City of Minneapolis. No complaints could be found in the Minneapolis records concerning the operation of this liquor license while it was issued to Omega Trust. OMEGA FOODS, INC. HOWARD S. COX, President, has been previously profiled. PATRICK MICHAEL RUHR, Vice President (dob: 3/15/45) has resided at 5133 Emerald Drive, Mound since 1976. He is married to the former Diane Marie Casey (dob: 6/17/47) and they have two children. From 1975 to 1980, he was executive vice president of Perkins Cake and Steak. Since 1980, he has been the president of Omni Venture, Ltd., a Minneapolis development firm, which is part of Omega Foods, Inc. JOHN ROBERT WHISNANT, Secretary (dob: 8/15/45) formally resided at 2432 Lamplight Dr., Woodbury, from 1971 to August 1984. He now resides at 18400 Timber Ridge Dr., Minnetonka. He is married the former Cynthia J. Smith (dob: 3/3/48) and they have three children. He has been employed as legal counsel for Omni Venture, Ltd. since 1981. i Page four - Omega Foods, Inc. - 11/9/89 GREGORY ROBERT KIRKPATRICi;, Assistant Secretary (dob: 10/21/51) has resided at 2 Webber Hills Road in Orono, HN for approximately the past 4 years. He is married to the former Kathy A. Erickson (dob: 11/13/56) and they have two children ages 21 months, and 6 years. He has been with Omni Venture since 1986 and prior to this he =;7as the chief Comptroller for Harold's Clothing for women in Minneapolis. a SOURCE R �, OF FUNDS Omni Venture the company requesting the liquor license to be granted for the Earle Brown Farm Complex will be receiving all of their funding through Omega Foods, Inc. and this amount will be approximately $ 57,500.00. This money will be used for movable property such as dishes and silverware, glassware, various kitchen items, and also the liquor stock. The balance of the equipment and the facilities are being furnished and built by the City of Brooklyn Center. ARREST RECORD: The only arrest record that was noted through out the entire investigation is that of one of the three sisters involved in the Omega Trust Inc. and this arrest was for a D.W.I. These three women apparently do not participate in the daily management and operation of Omni Venture. Respectfully Submitted Investigator Hennessy Licenses to be approved by the City Council on April 9, 1990: CIGARETTE - OVER THE COUNTER Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 North Lilac Drive LIJL City Clerk ` FOOD ESTABLISHMENT J � Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Babe Ruth Evergreen Park Brooklyn Center Babe Ruth Grandview Park Brooklyn Center Mobil Super Mart 6849 Brooklyn Blvd. Burger King #220 6110 Brooklyn Blvd. Carmel Corn 1333 Brookdale Center Chuck Wagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave. N. T. J. Cinnamons Bakery 1345 Brookdale Center Cross of Glory Lutheran Church 5929 Brooklyn Blvd. Donut Delight 6838 Humboldt Ave. N. Earle Brown Commons 6100 Summit Drive 50's Grill 5524 Brooklyn Blvd. Kim Fung 5704 Morgan Ave. N. Ground Round, Inc. 2545 County Road 10 Hickory Farms (Kiosk) Brookdale Mall Gloria Jean's Coffee Bean 1119 Brookdale Center K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Drive Kids' Time Out 5611 Xerxes Ave. N. Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 North Lilac Drive Maranatha Cons. Baptist Home 5401 69th Ave. N. McDonald's 5525 Xerxes Ave. N. Minnesota Vikings Food Service 5200 West 74th Street U. S. West 5910 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Nutrition World 1271 Brookdale Center 1 Potato 2 1319 Brookdale Center Perkins Family Restaurant 5915 John Martin Drive Scoreboard Pizza 6816 Humboldt Ave. N. Subs Etc. 6048 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. T. Wright's 5800 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Yen Ching Mandarin Restaurant 5900 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Sanitarian ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Fire Department 6301 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Able Mechanical Services 8701 Hillswick Trail Aer, Inc. Box 1146, St. Cloud All Season Comfort, Inc. 55 Mound Street A. Binder & Son, Inc. 120 East Butler Ave. C. 0. Carlson Air Conditioning 1203 Bryant Ave. N. Centraire, Inc. 7402 Washington Ave. S. Custom Mechanical Inc. 5973 3rd Street NE Dean's Heating & A/C Route 4, Box 372 Louis Degidio, Inc. 6501 Cedar Ave. S. Egan & Sons Co. 7100 Medicine Lake Road Gas Supply, Inc. 2238 Edgewood Ave. S. Midwest Equipment Co. Inc. 300 West University Minnesota Heating & A/C 6908 Georgia Ave. N. Modern Heating & A/C 2318 First Street NE Pete's Repair, Inc. 8835 Xylon Ave. N. Realistic Heating & Cooling, Inc. 10604 Radisson Road NE Sedgwick Heating & Air Cond. 8910 Wentworth Ave. S. Thompson Air Inc. p � 5115 Hanson Court Fred Vogt & Co., Inc. 3260 Gorham Avenue 1 ty'Z Building Official MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd. �, W ; Bob Ryan Oldsmobile 6700 Brooklyn Blvd. City Clerk SIGN HANGER Sign Service 1016 North Fifth St. r Building Official SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT Paper Warehouse 5900 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Sanitarian � f„ SWIMMING POOL - Twin Lake North Apartments 4536 58th Ave. N. ! , 6 0,/n6,/Y( Sanitarian --s GENERAL APPROVAL: D. K. Weeks, City Clerk