Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1991 02-25 CCP Regular Session
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FEBRUARY 25, 1991 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Opening Ceremonies 4. Open Forum 5. Council Reports 6. Approval of Agenda and 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. 7. Approval of Minutes: a. December 5, 1990 - Special Session b. January 2, 1991 - Regular Session C. February 11, 1991 - Regular Session 8. Mayoral Appointments: *a. Temporary Chair for Human Rights and Resources Commission b. Council Liaisons to Commissions *c. Planning Commission Appointments 9. Presentation: a. Pedestrian Safety Citation 10. Planning Commission Items: (7:15 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 90028 submitted by Twin View Development, Inc. requesting rezoning and site and building plan approval to rezone from I -2 to PUD /R1 and Open Space the 17.5 acre parcel of land owned by Soo Line located west of France Avenue North and south of 51st Avenue North -This application was considered by the City Council at its February 11, 1991, meeting and the public hearing was continued pending consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment scheduled for consideration at the February 25, 1991, meeting. 1. Resolution Amending City Council Resolution No. 82- 255 (Comprehensive Plan) Relative to Land Located in the I -2 Zoning District CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- February 25, 1991 C. North Metro Mayors Association Emergency Action Request Regarding Toll Issue 13. Resolutions: a. Amending the 1991 General Fund Budget to Provide Requested Funding to Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council *b. Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into an Agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. *c. Authorizing Vacation Leave Benefits for Earle Brown Heritage Center Assistant Manager d. Resolution to Amend the 1991 General Fund Budget to Adjust for Anticipated Reduction of Local Government Aids (LGA) *e. Relating to Local Government Information System (LOGIS): Approving an Amendment to the Joint and Cooperative Agreement *f. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Landscaping on West River Road between 66th and 73rd Avenues North, Improvement Project No. 1990 -25, Contract 1991 -A *g. Approving Purchase Agreements for 69th Avenue Right -of- Way, Improvement Project No. 1990 -10 *h. Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1990 -C (Improvement Project No. 1989 -07, Lift Stations No. 4, 5 and 7) *i. Approving Change Order No. 1 and Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1990 -F, Improvement Project No. 1990 -02, Well No. 10 *j. Awarding Comprehensive Municipal Property and Casualty Insurance Contract *14. Licenses 15. Adjournment CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- February 25, 1991 2. Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Application No. 90028 Submitted by Twin View Development, Inc. b. Planning Commission Application No. 90029 submitted by Twin View Development, Inc. requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide the Soo Line property into 27 single- family lots and two open space lots -This application was considered by the City Council at its meeting on February 11, 1991, and was tabled pending consideration by the City Council of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment scheduled for February 25, 1991. C. Planning Commission Application No. 91003 submitted by Frances Lunacek requesting rezoning from R5 (Multiple amily Residential) to R1 (Single - Family Residential) of a 41' x 132' strip of land belonging to the property at 5211 Xerxes Avenue North, just south of the access drive to the property -This application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its February 14, 1991, meeting. 1. Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Application No. 91003 Submitted by Frances Lunacek 2. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land -This item is offered this evening for a first reading. d. Planning Commission Application No. 91004 submitted by Frances Lunacek requesting preliminary plat approval to transfer a 41' x 132' strip of land from the property at 5211 Xerxes to the property at 5201 Xerxes Avenue North. -This application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its February 14, 1991, meeting. 11. Ordinance: a. An Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 82 -1 ( "Flood Plain Management ") and Adopting a New Flood Plain Management Ordinance Consistent with State and Federal Regulations -This ordinance amendment which is offered for a first reading was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its February 14, 1991, meeting. 12. Discussion Items: a. Controlling Driveway Widths and Paving in Front Yards and Yards Abutting a Public Street b. Ice Arena Study MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL SESSION DECEMBER 5, 1990 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Todd Paulson, Jerry Pedlar, and Philip Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, City Assessor Mark Parish, Assistant Finance Director Charlie Hansen, and Administrative Aide Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Mayor Nyquist. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED 1991 BUDGET Mayor Nyquist noted the budget planning process for the 1991 budget started in the spring of 1990. He explained the City Council has reviewed the proposed City budget two evenings previous to this evening's meeting. The City Manager gave a brief overview of the budget process and the schedule used for the proposed 1991 budget. He noted there are certain requirements under State law which must be met. He explained from November 15 through December 27 the county, school districts, and cities must hold public hearings for the proposed budgets. He noted the meetings of these three cannot be held on the same evening. He added the proposed budget must be certified to the County by December 28, 1990. The City Manager then explained some of the changes that occurred in the State policy in the past year. The City Manager noted the City's proposed budget has increased in two areas, those being additional police officers and moderate reforestation program. The Director of Finance stated staff is proposing current service levels be maintained with a moderate increase in the service levels for the police, fire, and reforestation programs. He noted the capital outlay portion of the 1991 proposed budget is $358,000 more than 1990. He noted one of the reasons for this is the request for a new fire pumper which will cost $255,000. He noted this new pumper will replace a 20- year -old pumper. He added the cost of the capital outlay will be spread over a three -year period using certificates of indebtedness. The Finance Director then went on to review certain areas of the proposed budget. He noted of the personnel requests contained in the proposed budget, nine positions were denied. He then reviewed the major sources of income for the City. He added local government aid may disappear entirely in 1991. He then went on to discuss the proposed property tax on the average home in Brooklyn Center. He noted the tax capacity rate will increase 2.64%. He stated this would mean the City taxes on an average home in Brooklyn Center would increase 12/5/90 -1- s $26. He stressed the fact this does not show the County or School District increases. He went on to note the average -home in Brooklyn Center will pay $156.91 a year for the City's portion of the taxes. He noted this tax covers City services which include fire and police protection, street maintenance, snow removal, sidewalk maintenance, street lighting, traffic control, recreation programs and parks, health regulation, animal control, public facilities, planning and inspection services, and social services. The City Manager stated because of the State shortfalls some expenditures may not be made. He noted staff would cut back in whatever areas the City Council sees feasible. He noted it may be necessary to implement freezes on hiring or purchasing. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on the proposed 1991 budget. He recognized Bob Robinson who stated he owns rental property in Brooklyn Center, Edina, and Minneapolis. He noted in Edina the proposed property tax increase was 3.9 %, in Minneapolis the proposed increase was 4.3 %, and in Brooklyn Center it is 12.2% plus an additional 2% for the storm drainage utility. He noted taxes on his rental dwelling in Brooklyn Center are $1,500 more than in Minneapolis on the same type of property. He noted he does not feel he receives any better services in Brooklyn Center than he does in Minneapolis. He noted he cannot vote in Brooklyn Center; however, his tenants can, and he will inform them who is to blame when he has to raise their rent. He noted in the last year he has received a paycut by one - third, and his wife has not received any type of pay increase. He inquired if Brooklyn Center employees have received a pay increase or if their wages have been frozen. He added that he has mostly elderly tenants within his building and he tries to keep the rental rates affordable. Mayor Nyquist noted the public hearings have always been held in the past for review of the proposed City budget. He added this is not the first year the total operating budget has increased by five percent. He inquired if Mr. Robinson could give the Council some specifics on what areas he believes should be cut from the budget. The City Manager stated the tax rate in Minneapolis is higher, and there must be a difference in the property values between his Minneapolis property and his Brooklyn Center property. Mayor Nyquist recognized Dan Ramirez, 6201 June Avenue North. Mr. Ramirez inquired what expenses were transferred to Brooklyn Center from the State. The City Manager explained no expenses were transferred to Brooklyn Center; however, the local government aid (LGA) was transferred from Brooklyn Center to the school district aids. The Finance Director stated salary increases were not built into each department budget. He stated these are contained within the unallocated department budget. Mr. Ramirez inquired why each department has projected an increase if the salaries were not figured. The City Manager explained there has been an increase in capital outlay requests, service contract expenses, and other increased operating cost. Mr. Ramirez stated he feels the storm drainage utility is a way for the City to get around the tax levy limit. The City Manager explained $115,000 was transferred from the general fund budget to the storm drainage utility to cover such items as street sweeping and other maintenance. 12/5/90 -2- He noted this was mandated by the State of Minnesota, and the City is allowed to charge user fees to pay for the storm drainage utility. Mr. Ramirez inquired why there was an increase in the personnel when Brooklyn Center's population is decreasing. The City Manager noted there is an increased need for services because of areas like Brookdale and the industrial park in Brooklyn Center. He explained population is not the only factor driving the personnel and services provided. Mr. Ramirez inquired as to the number of police officers the City employs. The City Manager stated there are 43 police officers on the payroll. Councilmember Cohen stated some things are beyond the control of the City. He noted the criminal element is taking over the community and personnel must be added to protect the residents and the businesses within Brooklyn Center. He noted there are more social service needs now in Brooklyn Center and cited problems pertaining to battered spouses and the many elderly residents in the City. Councilmember Cohen stated the City staff and Council must react to these problems, and they must meet the forces from outside the community. Mayor Nyquist noted that Brookdale, a regional shopping center, brings in ten times the population of Brooklyn Center. Mr. Ramirez stated he would like information as to how much each department head is paid. Mayor Nyquist recognized Dan Middlestead who stated he had some questions regarding the Economic Development Authority. The City Manager noted the money indicated in the revenue section for EDA is the revenue collected from the tourism tax. He noted this money is transferred to the Economic Development Authority. Mr. Middlestead inquired if independent audits are completed each year. The City Manager stated an audit is completed each year, and as part of this audit, they do a broad comparison of Brooklyn Center to other cities in Minnesota. Mr. Middlestead inquired if the City uses a different audit firm each year. The City Manager stated the audit needs are reviewed periodically which has currently been every three years. Mayor Nyquist recognized Kathy Larson, 3825 Eckberg Drive. Ms. Larson stated she appreciates the situation the City Council is in with regard to crime and drugs within Brooklyn Center. She stated, however, she did not understand why so many requests for personnel were made for such an old City. The City Manager stated when things get old they need more repair. He noted there are a completely different set of problems and issues which must be addressed at this time than there was 30 years ago. He added there are also new State requirements which must be met, and there has to be the personnel to handle these things. He referenced a state mandate pertaining to the fire department. He noted our fire department is strictly volunteer with one full -time member being the Fire Chief. He noted part -time and volunteer personnel cannot keep up with the schooling and other requirements to meet the State mandate. Ms. Larson noted the City of Plymouth only raised its taxes 9 %. She inquired why Brooklyn Center's went up 12%. The City Manager noted the City of Plymouth has a significant commercial tax base, and they also do not receive local government aids at this time. Ms. Larson inquired if Brooklyn Center receives all Section 8 subsidies due to the City. The City Manager noted Section 8 subsidies go to the applicant and they choose where to live. He noted the City has no control over these subsidies. Ms. Larson inquired if the City will be converting or building new apartments for Section 8 purposes. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Robinson, an apartment owner, 12/5/90 -3- who stated as an apartment owner he can choose whether to rent to Section 8 applicants or not. He noted the City is not involved in this process at all. Councilmember Cohen stated the City has no control and receives no benefit from the Section 8 program. Mayor Nyquist recognized Greg Peppin, 6824 Drew Avenue North. Mr. Peppin stated he fully approves of the Truth and Taxation process. He stated he understands the need to maintain the existing service levels; however, there comes a time when the City staff and Council has to make the tough decisions. He noted this is something that he and other residents have to do every day, but he does not see the government making any cuts. He added he does not perceive a problem with increasing the staff level compared to the decreasing population; however, he feels there are some personnel positions which are not totally necessary. He stated he questions the logic of lobbying for money which the City is not going to receive. He noted this must be a terrible expense. The City Manager stated the City of Brooklyn Center has not spent a lot of money in the past on lobbying. He noted, however, he has seen other cities who spend a lot of money on lobbying and they also get their aids. The City Manager noted it may sound like the City Council and staff are complaining about the State mandates and went on to explain while these mandates are good and necessary, they cost money and the State does not provide any way of paying for these mandates. Councilmember Scott stated the audience is not the only ones frustrated by this process. She noted this has been a long process for the staff and Council. She explained this proposed budget has been reviewed, cut, shaved, and sliced, and whatever is left in this proposed budget is what the Council feels is absolutely necessary to maintain the levels of service which the City is currently providing. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ulyssess Boyd, 4807 Azelia Avenue North. Mr. Boyd stated he has lived in Brooklyn Center since 1954, and he has seen the property taxes accomplish such things as paved streets, sewer and water improvements, and he realizes maintaining service levels means increased taxes. He stated he feels the Police Department should be increased by three police officers because it is better to prepare for war in a time of peace. He added there are other things that could be eliminated to pay for this third police officer. Mr. Boyd noted that the children's chorus was phased out in 1990. He inquired if there was a lack of interest in Brooklyn Center or if it cost the City of Brooklyn Center money. The City Manager noted the City of Brooklyn Center was jointly funding this program with the City of Brooklyn Park. He noted it cost the City between $1,500 and $2,000 each year. He noted this program was also a duplication of programs offered through the schools and because of the phase -out, the program is still operating within the schools. Mayor Nyquist recognized Don Rzeszutek, 5501 Knox Avenue North. Mr. Rzeszutek stated he is happy with Brooklyn Center, and he feels it is a well maintained City, and the staff and Council have kept the taxes at a minimum. He inquired as to where the expenditure and incomes for the golf course can be found. The City Manager explained the golf course, like the municipal liquor stores, are operated as an enterprise fund. He noted the income received must pay the expenses incurred, and no property taxes are used for this. He noted the accounting for the golf course and municipal liquor stores are not found in the 12/5/90 -4- general fund. Mr. Rzeszutek stated he works for a large company in Minneapolis, and he is facing a two -year freeze on his wages. He noted last year he received a 4% increase, but it did not cover the increased cost of garbage pickup and gas. He noted residents have to tighten their belts and so does the City. Mayor Nyquist recognized Don Gilbert who stated he understands the reasoning for the personnel increases but noted if they all seem to relate back to the commercial areas, why don't the commercial areas bear the brunt of the taxes. The City Manager noted the commercial and industrial areas of Brooklyn Center do bear the brunt of the taxes; however, they are a drain on the services. He noted commercial and industrial areas are a plus to the City's tax base. The City Assessor stated a home with a property value of $100,000 may pay $1,000 in taxes, and a commercial property with a $100,000 property value would pay $5,000 in taxes. He noted Target and the other commercial areas within the City are paying quite heavily, and they are screaming to the State of Minnesota for a decrease. Mr. Gilbert noted the staff is projecting a decrease in income; yet, they are projecting an increase in expenditures. He stated he did not understand this. The City Manager noted the increase in expenditures is due to the capital outlay items that were approved and other operating cost increases. Mr. Gilbert inquired where the fines and forfeitures from unclaimed and drug forfeiture property are reflected. The City Manager stated the State of Minnesota requires a different accounting process for these funds, and they do not appear in the general fund. Mr. Gilbert stated he received a 5% pay decrease from his employer and inquired how he can justify a 5% increase to the City employees when he cannot even afford to buy Christmas presents for his family. A discussion then ensued regarding property tax credits available for elderly and low income residents. The City Manager noted information for these credits can be obtained through the assessing department or wherever tax forms are available. Councilmember Pedlar stated he gets the feeling the members of the audience feel this proposed budget is a "done- deal." He stated he believes there is more discussion necessary before the Council can adopt the budget. Mayor Nyquist recognized Rita Buehler who stated she does not understand why there is such a large increase in all the services. She noted money has been taken out of the general fund and put into the storm drainage utility to pay for such things as street sweeping. She inquired if this money has been eliminated from the property tax, why is the increase still so high. The City Manager explained there are still other proposed increases for the additional police officers and the forestry program. He noted every $25,000 cut from the budget drops $1 from the average homes property taxes. Mr. Gilbert noted the City seems to have a casual attitude about $1 or $2 increases. He noted it all adds up to the residents, and it begins to hurt. Councilmember Pedlar stated he is sorry if Mr. Gilbert is receiving the wrong impression, but the Council's attitude is certainly not cavalier regarding these increases. He stated he would like to recommend a cost reduction through a functional analysis program. He stated the City of Brooklyn Center should be run as a business. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else who wished to address the Council. No one appeared to speak. The City Manager noted the Council can 12/5/90 -5- continue the public hearing until the next meeting or close the public hearing tonight. Councilmember Cohen stated he believes the audience present this evening is entitled to comments from the Council. He noted there have been a number of questions why there is a need for a reforestation program or a forester in Brooklyn Center. He explained over the last few years the City has removed thousands of trees and by not doing anything, the Council and residents are leaving a lousy legacy to their children and grandchildren. He noted there are many State and Federal mandates which require work by the the City. He noted the government agencies are quick to tell us what to do, but they will not give us the money to pay for the mandate. He added the cities who have full -time lobbyists at the legislature get the money they are seeking, and if Brooklyn Center gets the short -end of the deal, it's their own fault. Councilmember Cohen stated if the State of Minnesota takes away the local government aids from the cities, he is sure there will be massive lay -offs within the City. He added there would also be service cuts which would mean less snow removal, less park maintenance, and less street maintenance. He added he would hope the City would not cut the police force. He noted it is time for people to look at the facts. He stated Brooklyn Center is growing older, and the residents are staying in their homes longer. He noted these homes and the City itself must be better maintained so the community and housing stock is left in good shape for our children and grandchildren. Mayor Nyquist recognized Don Rzeszutek who stated we must begin working on the politicians of the State. He noted these politicians would not run their households the way they run the State. Councilmember Paulson stated he would like to echo Councilmember Pedlar's comments and noted he would like to continue to look for ways to cut the budget. He stated when he was holding his door knocking campaign for Mayor, he was surprised how many people were willing to pay more taxes to increase the police protection in the City. He noted it would be quite easy for the staff or City Council to make the taxes decrease; however, the result the community would see would be more crime, more drugs, less snow plowing and elimination of other types of services. There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to continue the public hearing on the proposed 1991 budget to the December 18, 1990, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Cohen asked the City Manager what the decrease would be in local government aids which the governor -elect is recommending. The City Manager noted if there was a 100% local government aid cut, it would mean $1,955,000.69 less to the City of Brooklyn Center. He noted the governor elect is looking at three choices: 100% cut, a two -third local cut which would mean $1,303,000 decrease, or a one -third cut which would mean $651,690. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9 :40 p.m. 1991 COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE Mayor Nyquist noted there have been two proposed meeting schedules presented for 12/5/90 -6- the Council this evening. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to move the City Council meetings to Tuesday evening. Councilmember Paulson noted he has MTC meetings on Tuesday afternoons. He added occasionally these meetings run into the early evening. Councilmember Scott inquired if it would be helpful if the City Council meetings started at 7:30 p.m. Councilmember -elect Rosene stated there would be some conflicts within his family if the meetings were moved to Tuesday evenings, but he could attend meetings either night. Councilmember Paulson inquired if it would be possible to set up meetings on both Mondays and Tuesdays. The City Manager noted it is best to set up a consistent schedule; however, the Council could change part way through the year. Councilmember Paulson stated there seems to be a conflict for himself with the MTC meetings, for Councilmember -elect Rosene and for the Park and Recreation Commission. Councilmember Pedlar stated it really didn't matter to him, he could attend either evening. Councilmember Cohen made a substitute motion to schedule Council meetings for Monday evenings. The substitute motion was seconded by Councilmember Paulson. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Scott inquired if it would be possible to receive the packets before 4 :30 p.m. or 5 p.m. on Friday evenings for those people who are going out of town. The City Manager stated the Council should contact him if they need their packet delivered earlier on any particular Friday. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor 12/5/90 -7- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JANUARY 2, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Todd Paulson, Gerald Pedlar, and Philip Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, EDA Coordinator Brad Hoffman, Fire Chief Ron Boman, and Deputy City Clerk Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Reverend Bob Cilke. EMPLOYEE SERVICE RECOGNITION PROGRAM The City Manager stated tonight is the 12th annual presentation by the City Council of service awards to City employees recognizing years of service to the City. He noted recognition is to be given tonight to those employees who have observed the anniversary of 20, 25, or 35 years permanent, full -time employment with the City. The City Manager noted the awards are a part of a service recognition program approved by the City Council in 1979. He said employees with 20 years of service include Police Captain Paul Monteen, Street Maintenance worker Larry Hansen, and Police Dispatcher Ron Pearson. He stated Police Sergeant Dave Werner has been employed with the City of Brooklyn Center for 25 years, and Supervisor of Streets and Parks Maintenance Bob Cahlander has been employed with the City of Brooklyn Center for 35 years. Mr. Monteen, Mr. Pearson, Mr. Werner, and Mr. Cahlander were present at the meeting, and the Mayor and City Manager presented each of them with a service award. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 18 1990 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to approve the minutes of the December 18, 1990, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist made a few brief remarks regarding his ten years as Mayor. He thanked the present City staff and Council as well as those past members of staff and Council who have helped him so much. ADJOURN 1990 COUNCIL There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to adjourn the 1990 City Council. The motion passed unanimously. A final meeting of the 1990 Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 7:24 p.m. 1/2/91 -1- e ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE The Deputy City Clerk administered the oath of office to Mayor Todd Paulson, and Councilmembers Celia Scott and Dave o e R s ne. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 7:28 p.m. CALL TO ORDER - 1991 COUNCIL The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson at 7 :55 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Jerry Pedlar, and Dave Rosene. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, EDA Coordinator Brad Hoffman, Fire Chief Ron Boman, and Deputy City Clerk Patti Page. OPEN FORUM Mayor Paulson recognized Al Beisner from EBF Management Company. Mr. Beisner stated his company holds the contract with the City of Brooklyn Center to manage the Earle Brown Heritage Center and the Inn on the Farm. He stated he understands it is the City's intention to terminate this contract on December 18, 1990, because of bond issues. He stated he and his attorney have come up with some amendments to the contract which should make the bond issue workable, and he would like to renegotiate the contract. The City Manager noted the termination would be effective January 18, 1991, and staff would like to review these proposed changes prior to the termination date. The City Manager stated he has received a letter of resignation from Todd Paulson which will create a vacancy on the Council. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to accept the letter of resignation from Todd Paulson for his council seat. The motion passed unanimously. SELECT MAYOR PRO TEM Councilmember Rosene nominated Celia Scott as Mayor pro tem. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve Councilmember Scott as Mayor pro tem for the year 1991. The motion passed unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Paulson inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the consent agenda. The City Manager stated items 13a through 13e should be deferred to the next Council meeting. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to table mayoral appointments to the various commissions until the January 14, 1991, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. 1/2/91 -2- PERFORMANCE BOND RELEASE - LEARNING TREE - 6020 EARLE BROWN DRIVE There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the performance bond release for the Learning Tree located at 6020 Earle Brown Drive. The motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the following list of licenses: CIGARETTE Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Blvd. K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr. Neil's Total 1505 69th Ave. N. Total Petroleum 6830 Brooklyn Blvd. Wes' Amoco 6044 Brooklyn Blvd. GASOLINE SERVICE STATION Davies Water Equipment Co. 4010 Lakebreeze Ave. N. LODGING ESTABLISHMENT Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Blvd. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Gopher Heating & Sheet Metal 4815 W. 123rd Street POOL AND BILLIARDS TABLES CDL 1317 N. Hwy. 169 Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. PUBLIC DANCE Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Blvd. The motion passed unanimously. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT - WEED INSPECTOR There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to appoint EDA Coordinator Brad Hoffman as the weed inspector. The motion passed unanimously. There was a brief discussion regarding this appointment and the duties of the weed inspector. DESIGNATE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER - BROOKLYN CENTER POSTNEWS Councilmember Pedlar noted in the past there have been many concerns regarding the communication with the PostNews by staff and Council. The City Manager noted the PostNews is the only economically feasible publication available to the City. Councilmember Pedlar stated he would like to send a strong message to the PostNews that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center expects the highest quality of journalism from its staff because it is the only newspaper which can 1/2/91 -3- serve Brooklyn Center. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar approving the Brooklyn Center PostNews as the official newspaper. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -01 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Public Sale of $6,050,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1991A of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. He noted this would be the final financing for the Earle Brown Farm improvement project. He recognized Bob Thistle of Springsted, Inc. who could answer any questions the Council may have. Mr. Thistle noted the bonds would be sold on March 1, 1991. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -02 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND PUBLIC SALE OF $6,050,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1991A OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS HUMBOLDT /CAMDEN TASK FORCE The City Manager explained the findings and recommendations were taken from the Task Force report. He noted the actions suggested are what the Council should be approving this evening. He stated under finding No. 2, the action requested should be tabled at this time. Councilmember Scott noted under finding No. 4, recommendation No. 3, the action recommended was cut from the budget. The City Manager stated it should be noted that this action is on hold because of budget constraints. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the action plans as amended. The motion passed unanimously. APPOINTMENT PROCESS TO FILL VACANT COUNCIL SEAT The City Manager noted his office has received nine applications from interested persons for the Council vacancy. He noted he included with this agenda packet information from the last Council vacancy appointment. He noted it would be 1/2/91 -4- r necessary to narrow the list down from nine to three or four applicants. Mayor Paulson noted it is up to the City Council to decide the process which will be used. He suggested having each current member of the City Council nominate one person which would bring the list down to four people. He noted then a secret ballot could be done to narrow it down to one person. He added he would like to avoid ranking people and noted he feels there are a number of good qualified applicants, and he would like to install a process that is fair. Councilmember Scott noted this is not an easy decision to make and stated she is happy the Council has nine applicants. She suggested each current Councilmember should speak with the applicants and rate them privately so the list can be narrowed down to four people. She noted some people look great on paper but have difficulty communicating. The City Manager stated it would be difficult to coordinate a meeting for the current Council and nine applicants. He suggested each current Councilmember contact the applicants individually. The City Attorney noted if each current Councilmember nominates only one person it may eliminate everyone's second choice. He noted it may be best to nominate two applicants. Councilmember Rosene stated he feels it is important to meet with all nine applicants. He noted it would be a benefit to meeting the applicants as a group and added the Council may have to spend two nights doing this. The City Attorney noted the requirements of the open meeting law would have to be fulfilled if the Council were going to meet as a group and meet with the nine candidates. There was a general consensus among the Mayor and City Councilmembers to talk individually with each of the nine candidates. The City Manager stated he, the City Attorney, and Mayor Paulson would be meeting to develop the actual voting process. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - FIRE TRAINING ASSOCIATION The City Manager noted in January of 1990, the City Council had considered becoming a part of a four City Joint Powers Agreement to build and maintain a fire training facility. He explained the City of Fridley has taken the lead in developing a proposal which will provide a permanent facility for training firefighters. He explained since that time two other cities have joined the Joint Powers Agreement. The six cities involved are the cities of Fridley, Columbia Heights, Brooklyn Center, Spring Lake Park, Blaine, and Moundsview. The Fire Chief noted this would allow the firefighters a chance to experience hot fires on a regular basis and would allow those firefighters who cannot adjust a chance to leave the department. Councilmember Rosene inquired how much it would cost for Brooklyn Center to approach the group as a fee paying client and not enter the Joint Powers Agreement. The Fire Chief stated he was not sure there would be any openings available to other departments because of the odd training schedules. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Joint Powers Agreement for the fire training association. The motion passed unanimously. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS Mayor Paulson stated he would like to set aside time at each meeting to allow the 1/2/91 -5- 1 City Council an opportunity to discuss or report on items of concern or commission updates. Councilmember Pedlar stated at the time the 1991 budget was approved, no mention was made of how the Citizens Advisory Task Force would be appointed. He suggested each Councilmember provide a name of an individual to the City Manager. He noted the City Manager has already received some requests for appointment to this task force. The City Manager stated he would be meeting with the Evergreen Park Elementary School officials on January 10 at 7 p.m. regarding the proposed park improvements. Councilmember Rosene stated he would like to thank State Representative Phil Carruthers for his support and concern for the City of Brooklyn Center. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9 :21 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Mayor 1/2/91 -6- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGUI AR SESSION FEBRUARY 11, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson at 7:43 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Jerry Pedlar, Dave Rosene, 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, Assistant Finance Director Charlie Hansen, City Engineer Mark Maloney, EDA Coordinator Brad Hoffman, Assistant FDA Coordinator Tom Bublitz, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Council Secretary Ann Odden. Due to illness, Councilmember Celia Scott left the meeting at 9:45 p.m. FLAG CEREMONYAINVOCATION Members of the Webelos Boy Scout Pack #403 were in attendance at the Council meeting, as well as the government class from Park Center High School. Helen Jacobsen conducted the invocation: OPEN FORUM Mayor Paulson noted the Council had not received any requests to use the open forum session this evening. COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Paulson commented on the Councils changed agenda format. He also noted the Council had concurred they would abstain from voting on items they had not been present to discuss. Councilmember Pedlar suggested the Council review and discuss the official City newspaper as a future agenda item. It was his opinion that current news regarding the City was not informative enough. He had heard comments from others in regard to this also. 2111/91 - 1 - { 3 RESOLUTION NO. 91 -29 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPOINTING COMMISSIONERS TO THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion assed unanimously. P RESOLUTION NO. 91 -30 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) 4 -WHEEL DRIVE PICKUP The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -31 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION � APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) MAINTENANCE TRACTOR The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -32 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) 33,000 GVW CABICHASSIS, BOX AND HYDRAULICS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. 2/11/91 . 3 _ RESOLUTION NO. 91-33 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF TWO (2) 3/4 TON PICKUP TRUCKS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -34 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) MOBILE CONCESSION STAND The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -35 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) 1500 GPM PUMPER AND 50 FT. ELEVATED WATERWAY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91-36 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO REAPPROPRIATE BCA GRANT MONIES FROM FUND BALANCE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. 2111/91 -4- { RESOLUTION NO 91 -37 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AWARDING LIQUOR LIABILITY INSURANCE CONTRACT TO THE TRANSCONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -38 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING BHK&R AS THE CITY'S INSURANCE AGENT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -39 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AWARDING WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE CONTRACT TO THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST (LMCI The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded b P g g y y member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 9140 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AWARDING BOILER AND MACHINERY INSURANCE CONTRACT TO THE HARTFORD STEAM BOILER INSPECTION AND INSURANCE COMPANY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91-41 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE 1990 AND 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGETS TO CARRY FORWARD UNEXPENDED 1990 FUNDS APPROPRIATED FOR KYLAWN AND NORTHPORT PARKS TRAIL SECURITY LIGHTING TO THE 1991 BUDGET 2/11(91 -5- t The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -42 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE WRITE -OFF OF THE BALANCE OF THE EARLE BROWN DAYS COMMITTEE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE FOR CONSTITUTION HALL SIGNAGE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE RELEASE: ETHAN ALLEN FURNITURE STORE 5939 JOHN MARTIN DRIVE There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to release the Ethan Allen Furniture'Store Performance Guarantee in Planning Commission Application No. 89016 as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the following list of licenses: AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR C.D.L., Inc. 1317 No. Hwy 169 BOWLING ALLEY Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 No. Lilac Dr. BULK VENDOR Curtis Products, Inc. 2516 Dodds Avenue D & G Vending, Inc. 4313 NE Washington St. CATERING FOOD VEHICLE Bridgeman's 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. CIGARETTE LICENSE -OVER THE COUNTER SALES Applebee's 1347 Brookdale Center C-W.'s Corner 2200 Freeway Blvd. Jerry's New Market 5801 Xerxes Ave. No. Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 No. Lilac Drive 2/11/91 -6- a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT General Mills Restaurants 1601 James Circle No. dba The Olive Garden GASOLINE SERVICE STATION Brooklyn Srv. Ctr. UNOCAL 76 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. Humboldt Unocal 76 6840 Humboldt Ave. No. Metropolitan Transit Comm. 560 6th Avenue No. U.S. West 150 So. 5th St. Bill West's Srv. Ctr. 2000 57th Ave. No. INSTALL MECI LANIQL SYSTEMS LSV Metals, Inc. 6800 Shingle Crk. Pky. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES American Vending Company P.O. Box 511 Sears Automotive Brookdale Center Apple Automatic Food Svc. 6313 Cambridge St. Royal Business Forms 6840 Shingle Crk. Pky. ARA Services 2830 No. Fairview NWL Insurance Co. 6200 Shingle Crk. Pky. Bro- Midwest Insurance Co. 9110 Grand Ave, So. American Legion 4307 70th Ave. So. Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. No. Days Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. Pilgrim Cleaners 5748 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Ctr. Svc. "76" 6245 Brooklyn Blvd. Canteen Company of MN, Inc, 6300 Penn Ave. So. Medtronics 6700 Shingle Crk Pky. Consumer Vending 2828 g Lyndale Ave. So. Target Stores 6701 Parkway Circle Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Iten Chevrolet Co. 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 No. Lilac Dr. MN Vikings Food Svc., Inc. 5200 West 74th St. Hennepin Co. Svc. Ctr. 6125 Shingle Cr1L Pky. Highway 100 / No. France Health Club 4001 Lakebreeze Ave. No. Schmitt Music 2600 Freeway BIvd. Norcrof , Inc. - City Wide Vending 8833 Jefferson Highway Brooklyn Ctr. High Sch. 6500 Humboldt 2/11/91 -7- t Northern States Power 4501 68th Avenue No. Precision, Inc. 3415 48th Ave. No. Service America Corp. 749 P 0 Central Ave. N.E. Dayton's 1100 Brookdale kdale Center Graco 6820 Shingle Crlt Pky. MTC 6845 Shingle CrIG Pky. Theisen Vending Company 3804 Nicollet Ave. No. Brookdale Ford 2550 County Rd. 10 Budgetel Inn 6415 James Circle Econo Lodge 6445 James Circle Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Blvd. Bill's W. Svc. Ctr. 2000 57th Ave. No. Twin City Vending Co., Inc. 1065 East Highway 36 Sears 1297 Brookdale Center Woodside Enterprises 11889 65th Ave. No. Brooklyn Ctr. City Hall 6301 Shingle Crk. Pky. Brooklyn Ctr. Police 6301 Shingle Cr1L Pky. PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES American Vending Company P.O. Box 511 Sears Automotive Brookdale Center Apple Automatic Food Svc. 6313 Cambridge St. Royal Business Forms 6840 Shingle Crk. Pky. ARA Services 2830 No. Fairview NWNL Insurance Co. 6200 Shingle Crk Pky. Bro- Midwest Vending Co. 9110 Grand Ave. So. Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. No. Canteen Co. of MN, Inc. 6300 Penn Ave. So. Medtronics 6700 Shingle Crk. Pky. Consumer Vending 2828 Lyndale Ave. So. Target Stores 6701 Parkway Circle Iten Chevrolet Co. 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. MN Vikings Food Service, Inc. 5200 W. 74th St. Highway 100 / No. France Health Club 4001 I-akebreeze Ave. No. Schmitt Music Co. 2600 Freeway Blvd Norcroft, Inc. - City Wide Vending 8833 Jefferson Highway Brooklyn Ctr. High Sch. 6500 Humboldt Service America Corp. 7490 Central Ave. N.E. Dayton's 1100 Brookdale Center Graco 6820 Shingle Crk. Pky. MTC 6845 Shingle Crk. Pky. 2/11/91 . g . Twin City Vending Co., Inc. 1065 East Highway 36 Sears 1297 Brookdale Center POOL AND BILLIARDS TABLES Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 No. Lilac Dr. PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE Bridgeman's 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING EQUTPMENT Adventures in Video 6914 Brooklyn Blvd. Best Products Co., Inc. 5925 Earle Brown Dr. Brooklyn Ctr. Liquor Store #1 1500 69th Ave. No. Brooklyn Ctr. Liquor Store #2 6250 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Ctr. Liquor Store #3 1966 57th Ave. No. F & M Distributors 5951 Earle Brown Dr. Fun Services, Inc. 3615 50th Ave. No. Kay -Bee Toy & Hobby 1320 Brookdale Center Main Street Video 6800 Humboldt Ave. No. Snyder Brothers Drug 1296 Brookdale Center Total Petroleum, Inc. 6830 Brooklyn Blvd. TAXICAB Suburban Yellow 3555 5th Ave. So. Town Taxi 2500 Washington Ave. No. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 1990 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes of the November 19, 1990, City Council regular session. Vote: Four ayes. The motion passed. Councilmember Rosene abstained. DECEMBER 3 1990 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to approve the minutes of the December 3, 1990, City Council regular session. Vote: Three ayes. The motion passed. Councilmembers Pedlar and Rosene abstained. 2/11/91 -9- I t JANUARY 14 1991 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes of the January 14, 1991 City Council regular session. Vote: Four ayes. The motion passed- Councilmember Cohen abstained. PRESENTATION $6,050,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS The City Manager presented a Resolution Authorizing and Awarding the Sale of, and Providing the Form, Terms, Covenants and Direction for $6,050,000 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1991A, Pledging for the Security Thereof Certain Tax Increments and Authorizing Execution of a Tax Increment Pledge Agreement. He indicated bids had been taken at 11:30 a.m. February 11, 1991, and referred the Mayor and City Councilmembers to the bid information prepared by Springsted, Inc. Mr. Thistle of Springsted, Inc. was present to answer Council questions on the proposed Resolution. He was very pleased with the four bids received, which represented 19 -20 underwriters, and he noted the market was very favorable. He recommended the Council accept the low bid by Dain Bosworth, Inc. at a net interest rate of 5.978 %. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -43 Councilmember Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: UTHO G WARDING THE SALE OF RESOLUTION A RIZIN AND A , AND PROVIDTNG THE FORM, TERMS, COVENANTS AND DIRECTION FOR $6,050,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1991A, PLEDGING FOR THE SECURITY THEREOF CERTAIN TAX INCREMENT AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF TAX INCREMENT PLEDGE AGREEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager noted staff intended to review other City debts and consider cases where it might be advantageous to re- finance, due to the favorable market conditions. The EDA Coordinator presented the following Resolutions: - -A Resolution Approving a Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan For Tax Increment Financing District No. 02 --A Resolution Establishing a Date for a Public Hearing on the Modification of Tax Increment District No. 1, Known as the Brookwood Tax Increment District 2/11191 -10- He indicated these resolutions represented technical changes which had been previously overlooked, and which needed to be acted upon within 40 days to facilitate closing on the $6,050,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds in Resolution No. 91 -43 in March, 1991. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -44 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING A MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 02 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91-45 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MODIFICATION OF TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 1, KNOWN AS THE BROOKWOOD TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. The EDA Coordinator noted a cap had inadvertently been placed on Tax Increment District No. 1 (Brookwood) which the proposed modification would remove. ORDINANCE The City Manager presented an Ordinance Amending Chapter 18 of the Brooklyn Center Code of Ordinances, Adding New Section 18-103, Providing for the Issuance of Citations on the Surface of Twin Lakes. He indicated the ordinance would coordinate the law enforcement efforts of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, and Robbinsdale as well as allow non - sworn officers to issue certain types of tickets on Twin Lakes. Councilmember Scott commented she had received several calls supporting the proposed ordinance. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve for first reading an Ordinance Amending Chapter 18 of the Brooklyn Center Code of Ordinances, and setting a public hearing date of March 11, 1991, at 7:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. 2111191 i I PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS OF REAL ESTATE AT 6842 WEST RIVER ROAD The City Manager requested the Council hold no public hearing at the meeting and take no further action on the matter. He indicated Mr. and Mrs. David Wright Berg had made a significant effort at compliance with the City Order since the notice had been sent out. The Councilmembers concurred no further action was necessary at that time. Mayor Paulson declared the item removed from the agenda. DISCUSSION ITEMS PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION REGARDING SPRING CLEANUP DAY The City Manager noted this item was being presented to the Council for concept approval before staff took any further action. The Personnel Coordinator, who is the staff liaison for the Park and Recreation Commission, provided details of the proposed event for the Council. She indicated the Park & Recreation Commission had been approached with the idea of performing a cleanup similar to the one held in Brooklyn Park. The first annual Brooklyn Center Cleanup Day is tentatively scheduled for 9 a.m. -12 noon on Saturday, May 4, 1991, and will cover an area near Palmer Lake and a portion of Shingle Creek. She stated a formal proposal would be put on a future Council agenda, and some assistance would be required from the City, in the form of City crews and vehicles. Councilmember Pedlar indicated he supported the idea and volunteered to participate in the project. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the concept of a Spring Cleanup Day. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Cohen requested information on estimates of City costs. The City Manager stated he would provide this. PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSES 6730 DUPONT AVENUE NORTH I,INI'I'IAQ The City Manager reviewed the staff report on this item for the Council. He noted for the record a telephone call from Jeff Basche, 6724 Dupont Avenue, and a letter from Keith Bufis, 6731 Colfax Avenue in regard to the kennel license request. Both were opposed to granting the license on the grounds the dogs barked loudly and the conditions were frequently unsanitary. 2/11/91 -12- Councilmember Rosene questioned whether the license might be granted with certain conditions, such as requiring a higher fence. The City Attorney indicated the Council would be within legal bounds to impose such a condition; however, in the past they had been reluctant to require capital improvements as the license is not guaranteed to be permanent. Councilmember Pedlar indicated it would be beneficial if neighborhood concerns could be worked out among those affected. Councilmember Rosene concurred. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on a private kennel license at 6730 Dupont Avenue North at 7:40 p.m. Mayor Paulson recognized the applicant, Sharon Wiese, and her daughter, Michelle. They stated their dogs were not allowed to bark and were kept confined to their yard. Councilmember Scott noted a police complaint indicated the dogs had been in neighboring yards on at least three different occasions. Mayor Paulson inquired if there were anyone else who wished to address the Council. There being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to close the public hearing on a private kennel license at 6730 Dupont Avenue North at 7:47 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Scott requested the applicant to make every effort to ensure the dogs did not disturb the neighbors. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the kennel license for a period of one year, with the requirement that the yard be cleaned more frequently and a license be obtained for the collie. Councilmember Rosene suggested an amendment to the motion requiring one or two unannounced sanitary inspections of the property. Councilmember Cohen and Councilmember Pedlar accepted the amendment to the motion. Vote on amended motion: The motion passed unanimously. 6915 LEE AVENUE NORTH (RECONSIDERATION) The City Manager noted an extension was being requested due to extenuating circumstances. Councilmember Scott noted no complaints had been received at the location in the past year. 2/11/91 -13- I Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on a private kennel license at 6915 Lee Avenue North at 7:52 p.m. Mayor Paulson recognized Diane Baer, the applicant in the case. She indicated an injury at work prevented the dogs' owner from moving them out as planned and requested an extension of the license until July, 1991. The City Manager recommended the extension be granted until September, 1991. I Mayor Paulson inquired if there was anyone else who wished to address the Council. There being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to close the public hearing on a private kennel license at 6915 Lee Avenue North at 7:54 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to grant an extension of the private kennel license at 6915 Lee Avenue North until September 1, 1991. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Paulson questioned whether items such as kennel licenses could be reviewed and acted upon by staff: with appeals coming before the Council. Councilmember Scott noted it might be difficult to determine which staff member would have responsibility for the decision, and that such cases occur infrequently. The City Manager indicated he would look into the matter. DISCUSSION ITEMS (CONTINUED STATUS REPORT REGARDING PLANS FOR REPLACEMENT OF LIFT STATION NO 2 (AT LYNDALE AVENUE / 55TH AVENUE NORTHI The Director of Public Works presented a report regarding the status of plans for this project and of negotiations with the Hennepin Suburban Parks District (HSPD) for the use of park property. He outlined the preliminary design plans developed by Short - Elliott Hendrickson (SEH), which provided for a large structure surrounded by liberal landscaping. He stated a tentative agreement had been reached with the HSPD for the land needed by Brooklyn Center. In exchange for that property, the City would provide HSPD with two parcels of land. In response to Councilmember Scott's question, the Director of Public Works indicated the present station would remain in operation until the new one is constructed. Councilmember Scott indicated the landscaping was adequate for the most part; however, she would prefer to have more screening near the roof line. The City Manager stated this would be given consideration. The plans were preliminary and were scheduled to come before the Council for further review on a future agenda. 2/11/91 -14- RESOLUTION NO, 21 -46 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER OF PROPERTIES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO 91002 SUBMITTED BY GROUP HEALTH, INC. REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL TO MAKE A 1 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE GROUP HEALTH CLINIC AT 6845 LEE AVENUE NORTH The City Manager briefly reviewed the staff report on this agenda item. The Director of Planning and Inspection presented details of the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the site plan. The plan exceeded requirements for parking and landscaping. It was noted approval was recommended with six conditions as stated by the Planning Commission, and that no public hearing was required on the matter. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Planning Commission Application No. 91002 submitted by Group Health, Inc., subject to the conditions stated in the minutes of the January 31, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:27 p.m. and reconvened at 8:43 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO 90028 SUBMITTED BY TWIN VIE DEVELOPMENT, INC. REQUESTL tG REZONING AND SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL TO REZONE FROM 1-2 TO PUD/R1 AND OPEN SPACE THE 17.5 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND OWNED BY SOO LTNE LOCATED WEST O FRANCE AVENUE_ NORTH AND SOUTH OF 51ST AVENUE NORTH The City Manager reviewed the Staff report on this item. He requested letters from Carl Grabinski, attorney for the Joslyn Manufacturing Company, Jill M. Sherritt, 5237 Drew Avenue No., Daniel Middlestedt, 5120 East Twin Lake Boulevard, and Ethel Rolek, 3828 Oak Street No. be noted for the record. Mr. GrabinsId noted the Joslyn Manufacturing Company was concerned about the proposed development being constructed so close to the Joslyn site. Ms. Sherritt stated she supported the proposed development as she felt that Brooklyn Center was losing population at an alarming rate and new housing could alleviate this. Mr. Middlestedt opposed the proposed rezoning and felt there had not been adequate notice of the 2/11/91 i hearings pertaining to this item. He stated many residents neighboring the proposed rezoning had indicated they preferred a cul -de -sac at the end of 51st Avenue North instead of connecting the street to East Twin Lake Boulevard. Ms. Rolek indicated she opposed the rezoning also. Included in the staff report on this item was a memo and minutes dated January 16, 1991, from the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group recommending against the rezoning from I -2 to R -1 on the grounds there was virtually unanimous opposition to the plan proposed by the developer, specifically the size and number of the lots and the price range of the houses. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the concerns of the residents had been taken into consideration, and a revised site plan by the developer had reduced the number of lots from 29 to 27. He indicated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of Application No. 90028 based upon a number of factors including consistency with adjacent single - family dwellings, appropriate use of open space, the property was unsuitable for commercial or industrial uses, the variances requested were acceptable and the rezoning would be in the best interests of the community. He recommended City acquisition of the two westerly lots as a condition of acceptance of the application, which would effectively reduce the number of lots in the proposed development to 25. He noted Application No. 90028 was contingent on the acceptance of Planning Commission Application No. 90029. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO 90029 SUBMITTED BY TWIN VIEW DEVELOPMENT INC. REQUESTING PRELD IINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE THE SOO LINE PROPERTY INTO 27 SINGLE - FAMILY LOTS AND TWO OPEN SPAC1 LOTS_ The Director of Planning and Inspection noted the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the application subject to the five conditions listed in the staff report, including acquisition of lots 14 and 15 for public purposes. He further recommended the application be continued until the February 25, 1991, City Council meeting. In response to a question by Councilmember Pedlar, the Director of Planning and Inspection noted the value of the homes in the proposed development would be in the $85,000 to $115,000 range. The Director of Public Works noted that if the final plat were approved, the developer would be responsible for the necessary public improvements. He indicated City acquisition of lots 14 and 15 would avoid disruption of the floodplain and disturbance of the wetlands, if the proposed development were approved. He suggested the Council consider having the City pay the additional cost to oversize the storm sewer, a project which would be a benefit to the City and would be overseen by the City Engineer's office. 2/11191 -16- Councilmember Scott left at 9:45 p.m. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning y P g P � Commission Application No. 90028 and Planning Commission Application No. 9 0029 as outlined at 9:48 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. Mayor Paulson recognized John Johnson, representing the applicant who briefly reviewed the project. He indicated the developer had addressed staff concerns on the project and felt the development would provide high quality and moderately priced homes which would best serve the use of the land. Mayor Paulson noted the receipt of a letter for the record, which was not signed but opposed the development on the grounds that the new traffic pattern would frighten wildlife in the area. Mayor Paulson recognized Dan Middlestedt, 5120 East Twin Lake Boulevard, Charlie Gellerman, Chairman of the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group, William Hawes, 3612 53rd Avenue No., Carl Grabinski, attorney for the Joslyn Manufacturing Company, Diane Lerbs, 5107 East Twin Lakes Boulevard, Randy Windsperger, 3847 Oak Street, and Duke Dalrymple, 5142 France Avenue North, who spoke individually on the matter. Mr. Middlestedt reiterated the concerns addressed in his letter to the City regarding insufficient notice of the hearings and stated he opposed the development in question. Mr. Gellerman restated the concerns of the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group as listed in the staff report and felt the issue of wetland conservation was given insufficient attention. Mr. Hawes favored keeping the number of lots in the development to a minimum. P � Mr. Grabinski concurred with the remarks of Mr. Middlestedt and stated he favored delaying the development due to the concerns of his client, the Joslyn Company. The Couneilmembers concurred the site needed to be monitored closely for possible contamination regardless of the outcome of the case. Ms. herbs stated she opposed the development and discussed the matter at length. She read from a five -page handout which was presented to the Council with a petition from neighbors of the area attached. She felt the proposed development would be too close to the railroad tracks, too close to the highway, too close to the power transformer, and too close to the Joslyn Company. 2/11/91 - 17- Mr. Windsperger expressed concern over tree preservation on the site, and urged the Council to consider adopting a tree preservation ordinance. He volunteered to provide information from other cities in the area regarding their policies on the matter. Mr. Dalrymple noted that trees are important, and felt a developer would be more apt to consider conserving trees. Mr. Johnson addressed some of the concerns raised. He indicated notice requirements for hearings on the matter had been met. In response to the suggestion of a cul -de -sac on 51st Avenue, he stated that to do so would exceed the length preferred and might hamper emergency vehicles. He indicated every other possible use of the land in question had been explored and rejected and felt the development would offer best use of the land. In response to Councilmember Cohen's questions, Mr. Johnson showed overhead slides of representative homes in the proposed development. He indicated he felt there would be a good market for the homes, as new housing within a reasonable proximity of the downtown area is not readily available. Rick Hartman, a representative of the developer, addressed the issue of density for the Council. He indicated the number of lots had been cut by 7% at the request of the Planning Commission and that cutting the number of lots further would make the project financially difficult for the developer. Mr. Gellerman noted he originally o opposed the planned development but because the PP P developer had addressed the citizen concerns adequately, he now supported the proposal as the best use of the land. Mayor Paulson noted a number of legal issues had been raised which would need to be addressed before the Council could take further action. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to continue the public hearings on Planning Commission Application Nos. 90028 and 90029 and directing staff to prepare additional documents. Both applications were submitted by Twin View Development, Inc. and both public hearings were continued until the February 25, 1991 City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 11:40 p.m. and reconvened at 11:47 p.m. 2/11/91 - 18 DISCUSSION ITEMS (CONTINUED) P ROPOSED SPECIAL LEGISLATION FOR BROOKLYN CENTER'S HOUSING PROGRAM The City Manager briefly reviewed the staff report on this item. The Assistant EDA Coordinator provided a substitute resolution, which was recommended by staff and offered greater flexibility. RESOLUTION NO. 91-47 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING SPECIAL LEGISLATION TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF SPECIAL TAX LEVIES TO FUND NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION AND HOUSING PROGRAMS IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. M�OTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT The City Manager explained concerns had been raised about the need to limit public access to information in certain cases, specifically providing the public with names, addresses, and telephone numbers of minors involved in the Red Cross babysitting clinic. The Council concurred they would like to bring the matter to the attention of local legislators to solicit their assistance in amending the law to exclude the release of information involving minors. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar directing staff to work with Representative Carruthers and Senator Luther to address this item. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Cohen suggested staff draft a List of issues to be discussed with them. RESP ONSE TO MUNICIPAL AID CUTBACKS BY STA'T'E OF MINNESOT The City Manager reviewed the staff report on this item. The Councilmembers di scussed the draft mission statement and concurred that a maximum of seven persons should serve on the Citizens Task Force. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to approve the draft mission statement of the Citizens Task Force, to direct the City Manager to prepare a listing of budget modifications which would address the state mandated $146,000 reduction in local government aids, to direct staff to draft a Request 2/11/91 -19- for Proposal for Consulting Services to the Citizens Task Force and City Council on budget reduction strategies as recommended by staff, and to limit the Citizens Task Force to seven persons. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) RESOLUTION NO. 91 -48 Member Dave Rosene introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SICK LEAVE AND VACATION BENEFITS FOR A NEW POLICE OFFICER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91-49 Member Dave Rosene introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING VACATION LEAVE BENEFITS FOR THE CITY ASSESSOR The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -50 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PROGRAM FOR OFFERING VACCINATIONS TO CERTAIN POLICE, FIRE AND RECREATION EMPLOYEES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO, 91 -51 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH STATE OFFICE OF DRUG POLICY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. 2/11/91 -20- RESOLUTION NO. 91 -52 Member Dave Rosene introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF THREE (3) POLICE PATROL SEDANS, ONE (1) D.A.R.E. VAN AND ONE (1) USED LEASE VEHICLE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -53 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING VACATION AND SICK LEAVE BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EARLE BROWN HERITAGE CENTER EMPLOYEES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Couneilmember Pedlar, and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 12:10 a.m. on February 12, 1991. Deputy City Clerk Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Ann J. Odden Northern Counties Secretarial Service 2/11/91 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Dat -A6 Agenda hem Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: MAYORAL APPOINTMENT: TEMPORARY CHAIR FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESOURCES COMMISSION *************************************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: gm&A Personnel Coordinator Signature - titl MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Human rights and resources commission Chairperson Donna Stoderl has been called to serve six months to one • year in Saudi Arabia as a nurse with the Air National Guard. She has requested that she remain a member of the commission and would continue serving on it upon her return to Brooklyn Center. During her leave of absence, we are requesting that Commissioner Agatha Eckman be appointed to serve as acting chairperson until Ms. Stoderl's return. (Ms. Eckman has agreed to serve in this capacity. She has been on the commission since 1986 and is the senior member at this time.) Note that the commission's enabling resolution does allow the mayor and city council to make a temporary appointment to fill the seat of a commissioner on a temporary leave. At this time, that action is not necessary because there are already three vacancies on the commission. However, should these vacancies be filled during Ms. Stoderl's leave, the council may wish to make a temporary appointment to fill Ms. Stoderl's seat. REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Appoint Agatha Eckman as temporary chairperson of the human rights and resources commission until Chairperson Donna Stoderl returns to Brooklyn Center. 0 UCO �]0 (/^ Minneapolis /Crai g 21 5400 West 39th Street Minneapoiis, Minnesota 55416 -2576 Minneapolis /Craig JoAnne Doche 5400 WEST 39TH STREET ❑ MINNEAPOLIS, MIr Communit Services Manager (612) 927 -2537 December 3, 1990 Police Chief James Lindsay Brooklyn Center Police Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, NZI 55430 Dear Chief Lindsay: Congratulations upon winning The 1989 American Autamobile Club Association award for achievement "Pedestrian Safety Citation" in pedestrian safety which is part of the AAA's 51st Annual Pedestrian Protection Program. The enclosed information gives the pertinent information about this prestigicus award, along with the 1990 AAA Pedestrian Protection Program winners fact sheet/ appraisal program information. We would like to present your award plaque at one of your future City Council meetings either to yourself, council chairperson or city mayor Mr. Todd Pahlson. Also at that meeting we could invite the local media to attend this presentation is an excellent publicity vehicle for your city. If you are interested, please give me a call at 927 -2537 and we can discuss the date, place and time for this presentation. Thank you. Cordially, JoAnne Boche Community Services Manager M4H25 cc: Rod Shilkrot, Vice President, Marketing and Membership Development Enclosure: 1990 Pedestrian Protection Program Information of Winners Fact Sheet/plus Appraisal Program i 1990 AAA PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION PROGRAM WINNER'S FACT SHEET 0 2565 CITIES AND 25 STATES REPORTING POPULATION GROUP ,T,,,_ 95,nno- sn,nno NO. OF CITIES REPORTING 4'10 CITY AP-OD Y �,' ��,'' p STATE M ^J AWARD - -- PSC- S GRAND AWARD WINNERS Among All States. .... State of Wisconsin Cities Over 500,000 Population ..................... ...............San Jose, California Cities 50,000 to 500,000 Population ........ ........................Henrico Co., Virginia Cities Under 50,000 Population ............. ........................Rocklin „ California Your City's % Score Score Leadin Score in Group Earned Total Program & Record Score Northbrook, IL 96% Pedestrian Death & Injury Score 1 X Four cities tied with 1000 0 Pedestrian Program Activities Score b X Northbrook, IL 93.4% Pedestrian Death Rate Group Pedestrian Death Rate Pedestrian Injury Rate W Group Pedestrian Injury Rate 47 (Pedestrian death and injury rates are based on per 100,000 population.) ABBREVIATIONS FOR AWARDS GA GRAND AWARD AE : AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE AM AWARD OF MERIT SCPAR SPECIAL CITATION FOR OUTSTANDING PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT RECORD SCPPA SPECIAL CITATION FOR OUTSTANDING PEDESTRIAN PROGRAM ACTIVITIES SCPPI : SPECIAL CITATION FOR OUTSTANDING PEDESTRIAN PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT PSA : PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ACHIEVEMENT (10 or more years without a pedestrian fatality) PSC : PEDESTRIAN SAFETY CITATION (under 10 years without a pedestrian fatality) D E S C R I P T I O N OF AWARDS AAA PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION PROGRAM GRAND AWARD The Grand Award is the highest recognition given to states and cities with outstanding pedestrian death and injury records and pedestrian accident prevention programs. Winners of this top award are selected each year from those cities and states which have already been selected for an Award for Excellence in their respective population groupings. AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE The Award for Excellence is awarded to states and cities which achieve top performances in both their pedestrian safety program activities and their pedestrian death and injury records within their respective population categories. AWARD OF MERIT The Award of Merit is granted to states and cities for demonstrating combined achievement in both pedestrian safety records and pedestrian program activities. SPECIAL CITATION FOR OUTSTANDING PEDESTRIAN PROGRAM ACTIVITIES This special citation gives recognition to communities with outstanding pedestrian safety program activities, which include an evaluation of their accident records system, specific pedestrian control legislation, enforcement of pedestrian and driver behavior, traffic engineering service for pedestrians, community traffic safety coordination, school traffic safety and public information and education. SPECIAL CITATION FOR OUTSTANDING PEDESTRIAN PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT Cities showing significant improvement in pedestrian program activities compared to the previous year's performance are eligible for this award. SPECIAL CITATION FOR OUTSTANDING PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT RECORD This special citation gives recognition to communities with outstanding pedestrian death and injury records. The award is based on an evaluation of the pedestrian death and injury rates, rate comparisons, percentage of total traffic deaths and injuries and fatality =free record. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ACHIEVEMENT AND CITATION The Pedestrian Safety Achievement Award is given to a community that has gone at least ten consecutive years without a pedestrian death. The Pedestrian Safety Citation Award is given to communities that have gone less than ten consecutive Y ears without a pedestrian death. Both awards are earned in single-year increment s. NOTE: Only the highest award is given to a particular community per year. For instance, a community would receive only the Award for Excellence even though it may have qualified for the Award of Merit or a Special Citation. 1990 AAA PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION PROGRAM WINNER'S FACT SHEET 2565 CITIES AND 25 STATES REPORTING POPULATION GROUP uTn_ �5,ppp -Sp ono NO. OF CITIES REPORTING 41n CITY P1ML 65 C,eQ(J E STATE � � AWARD PSC - GRAND AWARD WINNERS Among All States ................ ............................... .State of Wisconsin Cities Over 500,000 Population .................... ...............San Jose, California Cities 50,000 to 500,000 Population ........ ........................Henrico Co., Virginia Cities Under 50,000 Population ......................... ............Rocklin,,California Your City's % Score Score Leading Score in Group Earned Total Program & Record Score �q % Northbrook, IL 960 Pedestrian Death & Injury Score � X Four cities tied with 100% 40 edestrian Program Activities Score _ % Northbrook, IL 93.4% edestrian Death Rate Group Pedestrian Death Rate Pedestrian Injury Rate ff Group Pedestrian Injury Rate 47 (Pedestrian death and injury rates are based on per 100,000 population.) ABBREVIATIONS FOR AWARDS: GA GRAND AWARD AE : AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE AM AWARD OF MERIT SCPAR : SPECIAL CITATION FOR OUTSTANDING PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT RECORD SCPPA SPECIAL CITATION FOR OUTSTANDING PEDESTRIAN PROGRAM ACTIVITIES SCPPI SPECIAL CITATION FOR OUTSTANDING PEDESTRIAN PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT PSA : PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ACHIEVEMENT (10 or more years without a pedestrian fatality) PSC PEDESTRIAN SAFETY CITATION (under 10 years without a pedestrian fatality) Brooklyn Center, MN k i 1990 AAA PEDESTRIAN SAFETY PROGRAM APPRAISAL This is a follow -up report to your participation in the 1990 AAA Pedestrian Protection Program. Review the fol- lowing data carefully. This Appraisal Report will enable you to measure your 1989 pedestrian program perform- ance with standards established for communities in your population group as well as with your program rating for the previous year. Your Pedestrian Program Performance Profile and Recommendations for Improvements are included at the end of this report. Use this information in establishing priorities for strengthening your pedestrian safety program. OVER -ALL PEDESTRIAN PROGRAM RATING Your over -all pedestrian safety program rating is based on an evaluation of two major areas -0) your city's pedestrian death and injury record and (2) your pedestrian program performance. Group 430 Cities Reporting in the Performance Your City's Score 25,000 - 50,000 Population Group Standard Score' 1988 1989 (Percent of Total Possible Score) Total Over -All Score 67 76 70 L Pedestrian Death & Injury Record 99 81 Score 86 II. Pedestrian Safety Program Total Score 61 61 63 'Croup Performance Standard is the score which represents the 70th percentile level in each population group. i FORM NO. 6031 (07/90) L Brooklyn Center, mN 1. A. PEDESTRIAN DEATH AND INJURY RECORD Your pedestrian death and injury record is evaluated in terms of: 1. Your 1989 death and injury rates per 100,000 population compared to standards established for your group. 2. Your 1989 death and injury rates compared to the previous 3 -year average rates for your city. 3. Percentage of your total traffic deaths and injuries represented by pedestrians, for cities over 50,000 population: OR the consecutive years with a fatality -free record, for cities under 50,000 population. SUMMARY OF YOUR PEDESTRIAN DEATH AND INJURY RECORD 1986 1987 1988 1989 Pedestrians Killed in your City 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians Injured in your City 22 9 5 14 All Cities in Your Your City Population Group 3 -Year Average 1989 Pedestrian Death Rate (Per 100,000 Population) 1,7 0.0 0 Pedestrian Injury Rate (Per 100,000 Population) 47 12 - 48- 41 11. PEDESTRIAN PROGRAM PERFORMANCE Your pedestrian program rating is based on an evaluation of your activities in seven basic areas: Group Your City's Score PEDESTRIAN PROGRAM AREAS Performance Standard Score 1988 1989 (Percent of Total Possible Score) Accident Records 100 100 100 Legislation 100 0 0 Enforcement 40 36 33 Traffic Engineering 72 67 64 Safety Program Coordination 73 67 67 School Traffic Safety 86 90 90 Public Information & Education 40 28 44 A detailed Comparison for each phase of your pedestrian program is presented on the following pages. s 2 L Brooklyn Center, MN B. ACCIDENT RECORDS Performance Your 1989 Standard Performance 1. Were complete pedestrian accident records maintained on: a. Time, sex and age of pedestrians killed? . ............................... YES YES b. Time, sex, and age of pedestrians injured? ............................. YES YES 2. Vehicle movements in intersection fatal and injury accidents? ........ YES YES 3. Pedestrian actions in intersection fatal and injury accidents? .......... YES YES 4. a. Pedestrian actions by age in fatal accidents? ........................... YES YES b. Pedestrian actions by age in injury accidents? ......................... YES YES C. LEGISLATION 1. Does your community have a law or ordinance, in effect, that speci- fies pedestrian rights and duties in traffic? .... ............................... YES NO a. If not, please submit state law concerning pedestrians ............. Submitted D. ENFORCEMENT 1. Pedestrian arrests and /or citations written for: a. Crossing against signal ......................... ............................... Anv Score /Full Credit NO b. Crossing not at intersection and /or failing to yield right -of -way . Any Score /Full Credit NO Driver arrests to citations issued for: a. Violating pedestrians' right -of -way ......... ............................... Any Score /Full Credit 3 b. Parking in restricted school areas '9.0 NO .......... ............................... 2. Is it your policy to perform Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Level tests if any adult pedestrians are killed? ........ ............................... YES YES 3. Are pedestrian rights and duties included in your police recruit and in- service training program? ....................... ............................... YES YES a. If yes, how many hours are devoted to pedestrian rights and du- ties in your: (1) Recruit Training ............... ............................... 4 Hrs. z ............... (2) In- service Training .......................... ............................... 4 Hrs. 4. Do you have access to a special pedestrian violators school? OR are NO pedestrian violators assigned to TRAFFIC violators school? ............. YES NO Does instruction include pedestrian safety regulations? ................. YES E. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 1. Does your city have a traffic engineer with a professional engineering FULL license? Part Time TIME a. If not full time, how many days of service or counsel did your city have from a licensed traffic engineer? '11.0 2. Were studies conducted last year on: a. Pedestrian intersection accidents? ......... ............................... YES NO b. Nighttime pedestrian accidents? YES NO ........... ............................... c. Other pedestrian traffic problems? ........ ............................... YES YES Copies of sample studies submitted? ........... ............................... YES NO ' Per 100,000 Population 3 L Brooklyn Center, M E. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING (continued) Performance Your 1989 Standard Performance 3. How close to crosswalks are motorists permitted to park in your 20 FT community? ............................................. ............................... 20 Ft. 4. Pedestrian traffic control facilities: a. % of total intersections with marked crosswalks ........... 90 ........... 100 b. % of total signalized intersections with warranted pedestrian 90 signals .............................. 95 ................ ............................... c. % of total arterial street mileage with street lighting meeting IES Standards ......................... ... 100 15 -20 .............. ............................... d. % of total miles of urban streets with sidewalks on both sides of the street ........................... 95 10 ................ ............................... 5. % of pedestrian signs, signals, and markings, conforming to the Man- ual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Street and Highways ..... 100 98 6. Does your city require off- street parking for new construction in res- idential areas? ........................ YES YES .................. ............................... 7. Does your city require sidewalks in: a. New residential development? .............. ............................... YES NO b. New commercial development? ............ ............................... YES YES c. Around new school development? ......... ............................... YES YES F. SAFETY PROGRAM COORDINATION Government: 1. Name and title of local government official responsible for pedestrian Name & Title safety Given YES .......................... ............................... 2. Does your city have provisions for safeguarding municipal employ- ees who are required to work in traffic? ....... ............................... YES YES Civic: 1. Does your city have a citizen TRAFFIC SAFETY ORGANIZATION? ....... YES YES Name of citizen traffic safety organization? ..... ............................... Name Given YES a. This organization has representation from: (1) Business and industry ....................... ............................... YES NO (2) Civic Organization ................ YES NO ........... ............................... (3) Schools YES NO ....................... ............................... (4) Local Government ... YES YES ........................ ............................... b. Are private citizens solicited for participation and involvement in this organization's activities? ........................ ............................... YES YES c. Does this organization have a pedestrian safety subcommittee? ... YES NO (1) If not, are pedestrian activities studied by the committee as a whole? ........................................ ............................... YES G. SCHOOL TRAFFIC SAFETY 1. Name and title of person officially designated to supervise and coordi- Name & Title nate safety education in school Given YES .................... ............................... a. Does this position require formal training in safety education or ac- cident prevention? ............................... ............................... YES YE 4 L Edina, MN G. SCHOOL TRAFFIC SAFETY (Continued) Performance Your 1989 Standard Performance 2. Do your elementary schools use pedestrian safety curriculum materials? YES YES ................................................ ............................... 3. Are school bus safety instructions and emergency evacuation drills provided in your schools? .......................... ............................... YES YES 4. Do your schools use "safest route to school" planning for beginning, students? ................................................ ............................... YES YES 5. Does your police department work with schools in safety patrol, bus patrol or other safety programs? ................. ............................... YES YES 6. Do you have an official committee responsible for uniform applica- tion of school crossing protection measures? ............................... YES YES 7. Percent of eligible public, parochial, and private elementary schools with student safety patrols and /or bus patrols 100 100 8. Percent of high schools offering a minimum standard driver educa- tion program: a. Public ............................. 100 100 ................... ............................... b. Private and Parochial 10 0 NA ........................... ............................... 9. How many hours of training in school bus operation do your school bus drivers receive? a. Recruit training ................................... ............................... 30 Hrs. NR b. In- service training ............................... ............................... 18 Hrs. NR H. PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION 1. Are citizens informed through your local news media and /or publi- cations of: a. Pedestrian hazards and safe pedestrian practices? ................... YES YES b. Pedestrian control regulations in effect in your city? ................ YES YES 2. Do you distribute, for general information, a summary of pedestrian rights and duties in traffic? ......................... ............................... YES NO Copy submitted? ...................................... ............................... YES NO 3. Do you provide special pedestrian safety programs for senior citizens? ... YES NO 4. Have you conducted any pre - school child (ages 3 -5) pedestrian safety activities? ................................................ ............................... YES YES 5. Score given for evaluation of description of pedestrian programs car- 100 Possible ried out last year, including sample program materials submitted ... Points 40 5 L Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 1990 PROGRAM PERFORMANCE PROFILE NEEDS INSUFFICIENT OUTSTANDING MORE INFORMATION PEDESTRIAN PROGRAM AREAS EFFORT GOOD ATTENTION PROVIDED Accident Records Legislation Enforcement Traffic Engineering x Safety Program Coordination x School Traffic Safetv x Public Education }{ Congratulations to Brooklyn Center for your record of five consecutive years without a pedestrian death. However the increase in pedestrian injuries in your community indicates that improvement in the area of pedestrian safety can still be made. To help strengthen your safety program, a year -round public information and education campaign should be planned to keep local residents aware of the need for alertness in traffic. Many traffic education programs are aimed at instructing school -age children. Don't neglect adult groups when planning or implementing an overall pedestrian safety campaign. You should focus attention on responsible pedestrian behaviors in off - street locations such as shopping center parking lots, private driveways and so forth. Pedestrians have been killed or injured by vehicles traveling at speeds as low as 5 miles per hour. Because youngsters under 14 are a major component of your pedestrian accident problem, improve school traffic safety programming wherever possible. AAA appreciates your community's interest in pedestrian safety and supports your effort. 6 f G` MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 14, 1991 REGULAR SESSION CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Johnson was out of town and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 31, 1991 Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Holmes to approve the minutes of the January 31, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Bernards and Ainas. APPLICATION NOS. 91003 AND 91004 (Frances Lunacek) Following the Chairpersons's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first two items of business, a request to rezone from R5 to R1 a 41' x 132' strip of land belonging to the property at 5211 Xerxes Avenue North and a request for preliminary plat approval to transfer the 41' x 132' strip of land from the property at 5211 Xerxes to the property at 5201 Xerxes Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 91003 and 91004 attached). Commissioner Sander arrives at 7:39 p.m. Chairperson Malecki asked whether the fence would stay and whether it would be on the R1 or R5 property. The Secretary answered that the property line would basically follow the fence line. He stated that he would recommend that it be on the R5 property since it appears to belong to the complex. In response to another question from Chairperson Malecki, the Secretary stated that the property line could be moved slightly to keep the fence on the R5 property. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Steve Graffunder, an attorney representing Frances Lunacek, stated that he had nothing to add and would answer questions of the Commission. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki regarding the fence, Mr. Graffunder stated that 2 -14 -91 1 he thought the fence should be on the R1 property. The Secretary noted that, on the other two lots with 12 unit buildings, the fence continues on the apartment property. He suggested that it might be more appropriate for the fence to be on the apartment property since it seems to have served as a security fence for the apartments in the past. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the apartment dwellers have used the vacant land that is the subject of the rezoning. Mr. Graffunder responded in the negative. He stated that the land had always been used by Mrs. Lunacek as part of her single family property. Commissioner Bernards stated that open area for apartments has been a concern of the Commission recently. He asked whether the apartment building at 5211 Xerxes Avenue North would stand on its own as far as land area is concerned. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Ainas stated that he believed the application was so minor that it did not have to go to a neighborhood advisory group. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 91003 and 91004) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing on both the rezoning application and the preliminary plat application and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding those applications. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing on Application Nos. 91003 and 91004. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Holmes asked whether a separate condition was needed as far as the fence. The Secretary stated that he did not think a condition was really necessary at all and that the fence is really a civil matter between the single family property and the apartment property. Commissioner Bernards asked whether there was any need to refer, in the resolution recommending approval, to the fact that the application was not being referred to the neighborhood group. The Secretary stated that he felt that the comments of Commissioner Ainas were sufficient. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -3 Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 91003 SUBMITTED BY FRANCES LUNACEK The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Lowell Ainas, and the motion passed unanimously. 2 -14 -91 2 ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 91004 (Frances Lunacekl Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 91004, 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. 3. Approval of Application No. 91004 is subject to approval of rezoning Application No. 91003. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Mr. Louis Sullivan, of the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group then spoke briefly to the Commission. He stated simply that the application had been well presented. OTHER BUSINESS a) Comprehensive Plan Amendment The Secretary then explained the next item of business to the commission, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding the I -2 area of land in the southwest portion of the City. He noted that a planned unit development was sought by Twin View Development, Inc. under Application No. 90028 and that that application is before the City Council. He noted that the City's PUD Ordinance requires that a PUD be in an area designated for redevelopment. He explained that the amendment would be to Figure 15 and Table 14 concerning Area #18 which would include all of the area of land in the I -2 zone within the City. The Secretary stated that it would be necessary to amend the Plan in the future when there may be other redevelopments that involve planned unit developments. He stated that he would recommend approval of the Plan Amendment even if the Twin View Development, Inc. rezoning were denied. He then reviewed the draft resolution point by point with the Commission. Chairperson Malecki asked whether the land would still be zoned I -2 after the Plan Amendment. The Planner responded in the affirmative and noted that rezoning of the land is a separate action. Chairperson Malecki asked whether the staff could steer developers towards some alternate use other than I -2 in this area. The Secretary responded that the Planned Unit Development Ordinance could be used to allow for certain variances in the design of a 2 -14 -91 3 l 4 project, but that if the City does not want an industrial use or the underlying zoning of the property, it could change the zoning to something else. He stated that one area of likely change in the future was the Joslyn property south of the Soo Line tracks. He stated that a Planned Unit Development on that property might comprehend both some industrial use and some open space use or other land use. PUBLIC HEARING (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked Mr. Rick Hartmann who was the only one present whether he wished to comment on the Plan Amendment. Mr. Hartmann declined. Chairperson Malecki then 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 regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -2 Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82 -255 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) RELATIVE TO LAND LOCATED IN THE I -2 ZONING DISTRICT The motion for the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Ella Sander and the motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) Flood Plain Ordinance The Secretary then referred the Commission's attention to an attached Flood Plain Ordinance. He noted that this ordinance was considered by the Commission about a year ago, but had not been acted on by the City Council. He reviewed some of the changes in the new model Flood Plain Ordinance and in the version drafted for consideration by the Planning Commission. He pointed out that the definitions in Section 35 -900 would be ones which would be applicable to the entire ordinance, whereas definitions in Section 35 -2120 would be those which were specific to the Flood Plain portion of the ordinance. Commissioner Ainas asked whether the Commission would have more time to review the ordinance or whether action was recommended this evening. The Secretary stated that it was up to the Commission. Commissioner Ainas stated that he had had dealings with the DNR regarding the new model ordinance and that he was ready to recommend approval of the draft ordinance this evening. 2 -14 -91 4 i Commissioner Bernards asked how the new ordinance would affect the Twin View Development at 51st and France Avenues North and the proposed townhouse development by Mr. Charles Thompson. The Secretary answered that there would not be a significant impact on those developments. The Planner pointed out that the new ordinance clarifies some of the language of the old ordinance and makes some additions, but that the provisions are basically the same. He noted the requirement that finished grade be at least at or above the 100 year flood elevation for 15 ft. out from the building. He noted that Mr. Thompson's proposal did not comply with that, but that the requirement was the same under the old ordinance and the new ordinance. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF REVISED FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Bernards to recommend approval of a revised Flood Plain Ordinance. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of upcoming business items for the February 28, 1991 meeting, there was a 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 8:44 p.m. Chairperson 2 -14 -91 5 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91003 Applicant: Frances Lunacek Location: 5201 Xerxes Avenue North Request: Rezoning The applicant requests approval of a rezoning from R5 to R1 of a 41' x 132' strip of land which presently belongs to the apartment property at 5211 Xerxes Avenue North. The land to be rezoned is presently bounded on the north by an access drive serving the three apartments at 5207, 5209 and 5211 Xerxes Avenue North, on the east by Xerxes Avenue North, on the south by the Lunacek residence at 5201 Xerxes, and on the west by the parking lot for the apartments and the bulk of the lot at 5211 Xerxes. Ms. Frances Lunacek is the owner of both the single- family home at 5201 Xerxes and the 12 unit apartment building at 5211 Xerxes. She wishes to rezone from R5 to R1 the portion of the 5211 property which lies to the north of her single - family lot, outside of a fence which belongs to the apartment property. The land to be rezoned would be attached to her single- family lot through replatting (see Application No.91004) and would not become a separate single- family lot. The lot area of the apartment property after the land transfer would be 39,095 sq. ft. The land area requirement of the 12 unit apartment building is only 32,400 sq. ft. Therefore, no lot area variance is sought. Ms. Lunacek has been maintaining the land in question as part of her single- family lot for many years and wishes to make the property line conform more closely with physical realities. Rezoning All rezoning applications are evaluated in light of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning ordinance (attached). The applicant's representative, Mr. Steve Graffunder of Henningson and Snoxell, Ltd., has submitted written arguments addressing these guidelines. A review of those arguments and staff comments follow: (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Applicant: "Yes, the public would benefit because the strip of land which is the subject of this rezoning application would retain its R1 characteristics. In addition, the subject property has been treated as part of an R1 parcel for many years. Rezoning the subject property would make the zoning and use consistent." Staff: We agree that making the zoning and use of a property consistent is generally a good thing as long as both are consistent with comprehensive planning and sound planning principles. The City's Comprehensive Plan makes no reference to this excess strip of land. In theory, the subject land could be counted as land to 2-14-91 14 91 1 Application No. 91003 continued support approximately two more multiple - family units on the R5 property. (It should be noted that, even with the land transfer proposed here, the R5 property will have some excess land and, therefore, the ability to add a couple units.) As single- family zoned land, this land may someday contribute to a separate single - family lot. (It should also be noted that the location of the existing single - family home at 5201 Xerxes would prevent a subdivision without at least a lot width and a lot area variance. If the land were clear, however, there would be adequate frontage and area for two conforming single- family lots in the Rl zone.) Because of the location of the strip of land in question, it seems more appropriate to allow for single- family use of this property rather than multiple- family use. (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Applicant: "Yes, the neighborhood in question is residential. The properties to the north, east, and south of Ms. Lunacek's residence are zoned R1. The properties directly to the west are zoned R5." Staff: We agree. The neighborhood along this stretch of Xerxes is essentially single - family. The R5 strip of land is really part of an access which serves three multiple - family buildings with frontage on Brooklyn Boulevard and partially on the entrance ramp to Highway 100. Multiple family zoning adjacent to high- traffic corridors is common to serve as a buffer use. The strip of land in question is functionally a part of a single- family area. It is not really needed to serve the access drive to the three multiple - family properties. (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? A licant: "Since the primary permitted use in the R1 district is, of course, one - family dwellings, all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district can be contemplated for development of the subject property." Staff: We have indicated above that the new R1 parcel created by this rezoning and plat would have the potential to be subdivided. That is not proposed at this time. All the applicant seeks is to continue to maintain the land in question as part of her single - family property which she has done for many years. This is certainly in keeping with the R1 designation. (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? 2 -14- 91 2 Application No. 91003 continued Applicant: "To the best of the applicant's knowledge, there have not been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area." Staff: There have been no significant changes in recent years. The physical reality that underlies this rezoning is that the fence for the apartment complex does not enclose all the land within the property. Part of the apartment property adjacent to the Lunacek residence has been maintained with and functions as part of the single - family property. That longstanding reality is one of the reasons behind the rezoning application. (e) In the case of City initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Applicant: "Not applicable." Staff: Not applicable. (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? Applicant: "As far as the applicant knows, there are no ordinance development restrictions which the proposed zoning district could not bear." Staff: The land transfer and rezoning will still leave the R5 property with adequate land to meet the land area requirements for the existing 12 unit building. The width of the R5 arm of land extending out to Xerxes would be reduced from 79.43' to 38.4 We do not regard this "arm" of land to constitute the lot width of the R5 parcel. It serves as an access drive for three apartment buildings on separate parcels, all of which meet the R5 lot width requirement of at least 100 The new R1 parcel will be quite large and, if the existing home were removed, could be subdivided into two single family lots and meet R1 zone requirements. With the existing house in place, a new lot would be about 60' in width and would not meet width or area requirements for an R1 lot. The policy on lot variances has generally been that two of the three lot requirements should be met. It, therefore, appears unlikely that a future subdivision of the lot would be approved as long as the existing house remains. In any case, the applicant has expressed no interest in such a future subdivision. As proposed, the resulting R1 single - family lot would exceed all R1 standards. 2 -14 -91 3 Application No. 91003 continued (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Applicant: "The strip of land which is the subject of this rezoning application is, by itself, too small for any of the uses permitted in the present zoning district, although the overall parcel of which the strip of land is currently a part is generally not unsuitable for the uses permitted in the present zoning district." Staff: Although the strip of land in question is not needed by the existing R5 parcel to meet land area requirements, it is not viable as a separate R5 parcel because it does not meet R5 lot width requirements. Nor could it support a separate building because of its configuration. We agree, however, that the land could be included in the R5 lot and thereby support some sort of expansion to the existing multiple family building. (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 interest of the community? Applicant: "Given the small parcel of land which is the subject of this rezoning application, the proposed rezoning would result in only a very slight expansion of the current R1 property. The rezoning would be in the best interest of the community and surrounding neighborhood because it would enable Ms. Lunacek to sell the apartment parcel in the future if she so desired and prevent the purchaser from expanding the use of the property which is the subject of this rezoning application. Instead, the apartment parcel could be sold and the R1 nature of the subject property could be preserved." Staff: This strip of land is not referred to in the City's Comprehensive Plan. There is a lack of developable land in most zoning districts, including the R1 district. Nevertheless, this parcel will not lead to new development of a single - family home in the immediate future. In general, the community's best interests are served when zoning and use are consistent and when property lines reflect physical barriers on the land. The proposed rezoning and plat furthers these objectives. (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interest of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? 2 -14 -91 4 i Application No. 91003 continued Applicant: "For all the reasons stated in Ms. Lunacek's application and stated above, the rezoning application demonstrates merits beyond the interests of only Ms. Lunacek. Rezoning of the subject parcel of property would insure that the R1 character of the property is retained and would continue to conform with the surrounding neighborhood." Staff: The applicant's description of request (attached) basically states what is summarized at the beginning of this report. As to merits, we agree with the applicant's representative that the reasons stated above demonstrate merit beyond the interests of the owner. We can think of no one's interests who are harmed by this proposal. Procedure Generally, rezoning applications are considered at a public hearing and then referred to the relevant neighborhood advisory group for review and comment. A public hearing has been scheduled for the February 14, 1991 meeting and notices have been sent. Because of the minor scope of this rezoning, we recommend that the Commission consider acting on both applications at the February 14, 1991 meeting. A draft resolution is attached for the Commission's consideration. If the Commission chooses to table and refer the application, we would recommend that it obtain the applicant's consent to table the plat as well. These applications should be acted on concurrently. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 2 -14 -91 5 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91 -3 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 91003 SUBMITTED BY FRANCES LUNACEK WHEREAS, Application No. 91003 by Frances Lunacek proposes rezoning from R5 (Multiple Family) to R1 (One- Family Residential) of a 41.03' x 131.98' strip of land south of the access drive to 5211 Xerxes Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on the February 14, 1991 when a staff report and testimony regarding the rezoning request were taken; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning has been reviewed in light of the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35- 208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 91003 submitted by Frances Lunacek be approved in consideration of the following: 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the surrounding land uses in the neighborhood. 2. All permitted uses in the proposed zoning district may be contemplated for the property. 3. The resulting properties will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions of the proposed zoning districts. 4. The resulting zoning and property lines will follow lines of physical barriers and longstanding use of land. 5. In light of the above it is believed that the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings are met in this case and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interests of the community. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -3 Date Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary The motion for 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. Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91004 Applicant: Frances Lunacek Location: 5201 Xerxes Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to replat two adjacent properties at 5201 and 5211 Xerxes Avenue North to allow a transfer of a 41.03' x 131.98' strip of land from the 5211 property to the 5201 property. The 5211 property is zoned R5 and the 5201 property is zoned R1. The strip of land to be transferred is the subject of rezoning application #91003 (to rezone the strip from R5 to R1) . Both parcels are owned by Ms. Frances Lunacek. The subdivision is bounded on the north by a single family home, on the east by Xerxes Avenue North, on the south by a single family residence and a 12 unit apartment building, and on the west by the entrance ramp from Brooklyn Boulevard to Highway 100. The subdivision is a two lot subdivision to be known as Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lunacek Addition. Lot 1, which is the apartment property is to be 39,095 square feet or .897 acres. Lot 2, which is to be the single family lot is 20,171 square feet or .463 acres. The area of the land being transferred from the apartment property to the single family property is 5,415 square feet or .124 acres. There is an existing 5' wide drainage and utility easement along the south side of the "arm" of land belonging to the existing apartment property. This easement lies within the proposed Lot 2 of the preliminary plat and will affect the placement of structures on Lot 2 unless that portion of the easement is vacated. In the area within Lot 2, the easement really serves no practical purpose since there are no utilities or drainage swale within it. However, it is not really necessary to vacate the easement unless and until the property were subdivided in the future to provide for two single family lots. Since there is no intention at present to do this, vacating the easement is not really necessary. It should also be pointed out that the driveway serving the Lunacek residence straddles the existing south property line of Lot 2. This is an existing condition and is a civil matter between Ms. Lunacek and the owner of the parcel to the south which is apparently her son. We would recommend that they execute and file a joint access easement over the area of the existing driveway. Again, however, we do not believe that it is necessary to require such an easement as a condition of final plat approval. 2 -14 -91 1 Application No. 91004 continued The proposed plat appears to be fairly straightforward and complies in all necessary respects with City Ordinances. Approval is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. Approval of application #91004 is subjected to approval of rezoning application #91003. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 2 -14 -91 2 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91 -2 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82 -255 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) RELATIVE TO LAND LOCATED IN THE I -2 ZONING DISTRICT 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 Plan at page 98 (Table 14 and 15 designates Area #18 as an area for Light Industrial Land Use; and WHEREAS, the City's Planned Unit Development ordinance (Section 35 -355) requires that Planned Unit developments may only be in areas designated for redevelopment in the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the entire I -2 zoned area of the City is in need of redevelopment to one degree or another including the I -2 area north of the Soo Line tracks and west of France Avenue North; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 35 -202 of the City Ordinances the Commission has held a duly called public hearing on a draft Comprehensive Plan amendment at its January 31, 1991 and February 14, 1991 meetings and has taken testimony relevant to the draft amendment; and WHEREAS, the Commission has considered the draft amendment in light of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planned Unit Development ordinance, and the need for flexibility in bringing about a redevelopment of the I -2 area in the future. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 35 -202 of the City Ordinances, that City Council Resolution No. 82 -255 (Comprehensive Plan) be amended to designate the entire I -2 zoning district of the City as part of Area #18 of the Land Use Plan and that the recommended use for Area #18 on Table 14 be amended to read: "Redevelopment as Planned Unit Development and /or Light Industrial ", based upon the following findings: 1. There are many obsolete buildings in the I -2 zoning district which may not be suitable for new industrial uses in the future. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -2 2. Many sites in the I -2 district lack sufficient parking and greenstrips and do not meet required setbacks. 3. The future upgrading of Highway 100 in the area to freeway status will change the nature of the area contained in the I -2 zoning district. 4. A planned unit development designation will give the City and private property owners and developers the flexibility to approach redevelopment in the I- 2 area of the City in a manner that will most enhance the neighborhood as well as individual properties. 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: Area No. 18 on Figure 15 shall be expanded to include the I -2 area north of the Soo Line tracks and west of France Avenue North; and No. 18 of Table 14 on page 98 of the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Land Use Plan be changed from "Light Industrial" to "Redevelopment as Planned Unit Development and /or Light Industrial." Date Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary 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 2/25/91 Agenda ftem Number 1—e-AZ�Ll REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 90028 and Planning Commission Application No. 90029 Submitted by Twin View Development, Inc. DEPT. APPROVA E RONALD A. WARREN, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND INSP -- � MANAGERS REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached • Planning Commission Application No. 90028 is a request for a rezoning and site and building plan approval to rezone from I -2 to PUD /R -1 and Open Space the 17 acre parcel of land located westerly of France Avenue at approximately 51st Avenue North. Planning Commission Application No. 90029 is a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide the above mentioned property into 25 single family lots and 2 open space lots. Both of these items were considered by the City Council at their meeting on February 11, 1991 and were tabled pending consideration by the City Council of a comprehensive plan amendment which is scheduled for February 25, 1991. In reviewing these applications the City Council has requested the staff to provide additional information relative to other considerations. First of all with regard to a comprehensive plan amendment, the City Council's attention is directed to the Planning Commission minutes of February 14, 1991 at which time the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding a comprehensive plan amendment and recommended through Planning Commission Resolution 91 -2 that the comprehensive plan be amended. This amendment involves establishing the areas currently zoned I -2 in the southwest portion of the city as a redevelopment area for planned unit developments and /or light industrial development. This area includes the property that is under consideration in the Twin View Development. This matter was first set on for public hearing by the Planning Commission at their January 31, 1991 meeting. However, the notice was published only 8 days in advance of the hearing instead of the 10 days required by ordinance and the matter was therefore continued until February 14 and was republished to meet the 10 day requirement. Request for Council Consideration Planning Commission Application No. 90028 and 90029 Page 2 • It is recommended that the City Council adopt a recommended resolution amending the comprehensive plan concurrent with the Planning Commission's recommendation. We would strongly recommend that this amendment be undertaken even if the City Council is not disposed to favorably approve Application No. 90028. The reason for this is that in order to use the Planned Unit Development tool, areas must be designated for redevelopment in the city's comprehensive plan. It is likely, in the future, that the City Council may wish to consider the use of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance to address redevelopment issues in these particular areas. With respect to other information requested by the City Council, the city attorney has prepared a memorandum addressing questions raised regarding the propriety of the notice given to the public regarding the Twin View Development rezoning proposal. The city attorney has also commented regarding the city's responsibility to publicize or notify future residents of the potential problems at the Joslyn property and the city attorney has commented regarding the authority the City Council might have to require certain architectural features under the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. Also at the Council's request we have attached a list of development projects undertaken by Mr. Rick Hartman, the applicant in this matter and we have attached copies of the 11 house plans which will become part of this Planned Unit Development. City Assessor, Mark Parish, has responded to the City Council's request for various market information regarding property values in the area and cost/benefit considerations. This memorandum is also attached for the Council's consideration. • Questions have been raised regarding the density of this proposed development. I believe it should be pointed out that the proposed subdivision which goes along with this Planned Unit Development concept provides lots which meet the minimum lot width requirements of the ordinance. With the exception of 2 lots that are slightly less than the 9,500 square feet required for an interior lot, all of the lots meet the minimum area requirements of the city's zoning ordinance. The Planned Unit Development also proposes much in the way of open space dedication. This fact coupled with the subdivision which generally meets all of the requirements for standard size lots does not appear to make an overly dense development given community and neighborhood standards. I do not believe it would be appropriate to require further alterations to the plat to make lots bigger when this area will meet community standards for residential lots. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution amending City Council Resolution 82 -255 (Comprehensive Plan) and also adopt a resolution approving Planning Commission Application No. 90028. It is further recommended that the City Council approve Planning Commission Application No. 90029 (Preliminary Plat) subject to the 5 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission on page 13 of their January 31, 1991 minutes. MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager and Members of the City Council FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and InspectionC�{.��.1. DATE: February 25, 1991 SUBJECT: February 11, 1991 City Council Minutes In reviewing the February 11, 1991 City Council minutes, I came across a matter that I believe needs clarification and correction. Paragraph two on page 16 relating to Application No. 90028, indicates that the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group recommended against the rezoning from I -2 to R -1. The Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group did, in fact, favor the rezoning if the development plan was revised to meet R -1 lot width requirements (see Planning Commission Resolution No. 91 - 1). One of the Advisory Group members, Charlie Gellerman, withheld his comments at the neighborhood meeting, but expressed opposition to the proposal in writing on January 16, 1991. The Neighborhood Advisory Group did not recommend against the rezoning as the minutes indicate, only one of the three members in attendance objected. The minutes should be corrected to reflect this. 40 ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 91004 (Frances Lunacek) Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 91004, 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. 3. Approval of Application No. 91004 is subject to approval of rezoning Application No. 91003. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Mr. Louis Sullivan, of the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group then spoke briefly to the Commission. He stated simply that the application had been well presented. OTHER BUSINESS /a) Comprehensive Plan Amendment The Secretary then explained the next item of business to the Commission, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding the I -2 area of land in the southwest portion of the City. He noted that a planned unit development was sought by Twin View Development, Inc. under Application No. 90028 and that that application is before the City Council. He noted that the City's PUD Ordinance requires that a PUD be in an area designated for redevelopment. He explained that the amendment would be to Figure 15 and Table 14 concerning Area #18 which would include all of the area of land in the I -2 zone within the City. The Secretary stated that it would be necessary to amend the Plan in the future when there may be other redevelopments that involve planned unit developments. He stated that he would recommend approval of the Plan Amendment even if the Twin View Development, Inc. rezoning were denied. He then reviewed the draft resolution point by point with the Commission. Chairperson Malecki asked whether the land would still be zoned I -2 after the Plan Amendment. The Planner responded in the affirmative and noted that rezoning of the land is a separate action. Chairperson Malecki asked whether the staff could steer developers towards some alternate use other than I -2 in this area. The Secretary responded that the Planned Unit Development Ordinance could be used to allow for certain variances in the design of a 2 -14 -91 3 project, but that if the City does not want an industrial use or the underlying zoning of the property, it could change the zoning to something else. He stated that one area of likely change in the future was the Joslyn property south of the Soo Line tracks. He stated that a Planned Unit Development on that property might comprehend both some industrial use and some open space use or other land use. PUBLIC HEARING (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked Mr. Rick Hartmann who was the only one present whether he wished to comment on the Plan Amendment. Mr. Hartmann declined. Chairperson Malecki then 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 regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -2 Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82 -255 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) RELATIVE TO LAND LOCATED IN THE I -2 ZONING DISTRICT The motion for the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Ella Sander and the motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) Flood Plain Ordinance The Secretary then referred the Commission's attention to an attached Flood Plain Ordinance. He noted that this ordinance was considered by the Commission about a year ago, but had not been acted on by the City Council. He reviewed some of the changes in the new model Flood Plain Ordinance and in the version drafted for consideration by the Planning Commission. He pointed out that the definitions in Section 35 -900 would be ones which would be applicable to the entire ordinance, whereas definitions in Section 35 -2120 would be those which were specific to the Flood Plain portion of the ordinance. Commissioner Ainas asked whether the Commission would have more time to review the ordinance or whether action was recommended this evening. The Secretary stated that it was up to the Commission. Commissioner Ainas stated that he had had dealings with the DNR regarding the new model ordinance and that he was ready to recommend approval of the draft ordinance this evening. 2 -14 -91 4 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91 -2 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82 -255 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) RELATIVE TO LAND LOCATED IN THE I -2 ZONING DISTRICT 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 Plan at page 98 (Table 14 and 15 designates Area #18 as an area for Light Industrial Land Use; and WHEREAS, the City's Planned Unit Development ordinance (Section 35 -355) requires that Planned Unit developments may only be in areas designated for redevelopment in the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the entire I -2 zoned area of the City is in need of redevelopment to one degree or another including the I -2 area north of the Soo Line tracks and west of France Avenue North; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 35 -2G2 of the City Ordinances the Commission has held a duly called public hearing on a draft Comprehensive Plan amendment at its January 31, 1991 and February 14, 1991 meetings and has taken testimony relevant to the draft amendment; and WHEREAS, the Commission has considered the draft amendment in light of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planned Unit Development ordinance, and the need for flexibility in bringing about a redevelopment of the I -2 area in the future. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 35 -202 of the City Ordinances, that City Council Resolution No. 82 -255 (Comprehensive Plan) be amended to designate the entire I -2 zoning district of the City as part of Area #18 of the Land Use Plan and that the recommended use for Area #18 on Table 14 be amended to read: "Redevelopment as Planned Unit Development and /or Light Industrial ", based upon the following findings: 1. There are many obsolete buildings in the I -2 zoning district which may not be suitable for new industrial uses in the future. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -2 2. Many sites in the I -2 district lack sufficient parking and greenstrips and do not meet required setbacks. 3. The future upgrading of Highway 100 in the area to freeway status will change the nature of the area contained in the I -2 zoning district. 4. A planned unit development designation will give the City and private property owners and developers the flexibility to approach redevelopment in the I- 2 area of the City in a manner that will most enhance the neighborhood as well as individual properties. 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: Area No. 18 on Figure 15 shall be expanded to include the I -2 area north of the Soo Line tracks and west of France Avenue North; and No. 18 of Table 14 on page 98 of the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Land Use Plan be changed from "Light Industrial" to "Redevelopment as Planned Unit Development and /or Light Industrial." Date Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary 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 AMENDING CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82 -255 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) RELATIVE TO LAND LOCATED IN THE I -2 ZONING DISTRICT 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 Plan at page 98 (Table 14 and 15 designates Area #18 as an area for Light Industrial Land Use; and WHEREAS, the City's Planned Unit Development ordinance (Section 35 -355) requires that Planned Unit developments may only be in areas designated for redevelopment in the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the entire I -2 zoned area of the City is in need of redevelopment to one degree or another including the I -2 area north of the Soo Line tracks and west of France Avenue North; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 35 -202 of the City Ordinances the Planning Commission has held a duly called public hearing on a draft Comprehensive Plan amendment at its January 31, 1991 and February 14, 1991 meetings and has taken testimony relevant to the draft amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of a Comprehensive Plan amendment by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 91 -2 on February 14, 1991; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered the draft amendment in light of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planned Unit Development ordinance, and the need for flexibility in bringing about a redevelopment of the I -2 area in the future. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center pursuant to Chapter 35 -202 of the City Ordinances, that City Council Resolution No. 82 -255 (Comprehensive Plan) be amended to designate the entire I -2 zoning district of the City as part of Area #18 of the Land Use Plan and that the recommended use for Area #18 on Table 14 be amended to read: "Redevelopment as Planned Unit Development and /or Light Industrial ", based upon the following findings: 1. There are many obsolete buildings in the I -2 zoning district which may not be suitable for new industrial uses in the future. RESOLUTION NO. 2. Many sites in the I -2 district lack sufficient parking and greenstrips and do not meet required setbacks. 3. The future upgrading of Highway 100 in the area to freeway status will change the nature of the area contained in the I -2 zoning district. 4. A planned unit development designation will give the City and private property owners and developers the flexibility to approach redevelopment in the I- 2 area of the City in a manner that will most enhance the neighborhood as well as individual properties. 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: Area No. 18 on Figure 15 shall be expanded to include the I -2 area north of the Soo Line tracks and west of France Avenue North; and No. 18 of Table 14 on page 98 of the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Land Use Plan be changed from "Light Industrial" to "Redevelopment as Planned Unit Development and /or Light Industrial." Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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. 90028 SUBMITTED BY TWIN VIEW DEVELOPMENT INC. WHEREAS, Application No. 90028 submitted by Twin View Development, Inc. proposes rezoning from I -2 (General Industry) to Planned Unit Development /Rl (One Family Residential) and 0 -1 (Public Open Space) of 17.5 acres of land west of France Avenue North and south of the existing 51st Avenue North right -of -way; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on December 6, 1990 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and site and building plans were received; and WHEREAS, the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group met to consider the matter on January 9, 1991 at the City Hall and recommended approval of the PUD application with some revisions to the development plans and plat; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission resumed consideration of the matter on January 31, 1991, received a staff report, a draft Comprehensive Plan amendment, revised development plans, and further testimony during a continued public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 90028 at its January 31, 1991 meeting by Planning Commission Resolution 91 -1; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly called public hearing at its February 11, 1991 and February 25, 1991 regular meetings at which testimony regarding the proposal was taken; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered the rezoning and site and building plan request in light of all testimony received, the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance in light of the provisions of the City's Planned Unit Development ordinance, contained in Section 35 -355 and in light of a Comprehensive Plan amendment relating to the I -2 zoned land in the city and other comments relative to this property in the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 90028, submitted by Twin View Development, Inc., be approved in light of the following considerations: RESOLUTION NO. 1. The rezoning will allow for the addition of single family homes to the Southwest Neighborhood and to the City generally. This will benefit the City by offsetting the trend of a declining population and will add stability to a neighborhood which has substantial areas devoted to less permanent uses. 2. The rezoning will provide a land use which is consistent with the adjacent single family neighborhood. The proposed open space is also consistent with the adjacent lakes and is appropriate given the land's topography. 3. The industrial uses in the area for the most part no longer meet community standards and it, therefore, seems inappropriate to add more industrial use to an area that is in need of redevelopment. 4. The development of the property will, for the most part, conform with City ordinance standards except for the following: a) Variation from the front setback requirement permitting a 25' front yard setback along the north side of the proposed 51st Avenue North is acceptable given the location of garages and available off - street parking, and in light of the benefit of preserving as many existing trees as possible, and such variance is hereby approved. b) All approved platted lots shall be deemed to meet minimum lot size requirements. 5. The subject property cannot be efficiently used for industrial purposes because of its location, configuration and topography. Although usable for industrial purposes, such use carries with it the potential for negative impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood. 6. The rezoning will result in expansion of the Ri district which presently has little vacant and developable land. 7. The rezoning of the land in question to PUD /R1 and Open Space will benefit the surrounding single family neighborhood and provide the community with land that can be put to recreational use to benefit the neighborhood and the community. RESOLUTION NO. 8. In light of the above considerations it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 are met and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interests of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that approval of Application No. 90028 be subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. The storm drainage system shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and proposed grading and filling must be approved by the U. S. Corps of Engineers prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Curb and gutter of a type approved by the Director of Public Works shall be provided along,51st Avenue North. 5. Sod shall be installed in all yards abutting a public street. Rear yards shall be seeded. 6. The landscape plan shall be revised to indicate at least three coniferous or shade trees per lot along the south sides of Lots 1 through 13 of the southerly block to provide effective screening of the Murphy Warehouse property. Coniferous trees shall be not less than 5' in height and shade trees shall be not less than 2 in diameter, at time of planting. 7. The applicant shall construct a buffer treatment in the south 40' of Lots 1 through 13 of the southerly block to consist of not less than a 2' high berm (as measured from the north edge of the Murphy Warehouse property) and not less than a 6' high wood, vertical board, opaque fence. 8. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and executed prior to the issuance of any permits to include, but not limited to, provisions relating to the following: RESOLUTION NO. a) Allowable setbacks within the subdivision. b) The range of building plans approved for use in the subdivision. No building plan shall provide for less than 960 sq. ft. on the main level. C) Landscape improvements within the subdivision. d) Buffer improvements adjacent to the Murphy Warehouse property. e) Provision of paved driveways prior to final inspections. f) Financial guarantees to insure the completion of approved site improvements on each lot within the subdivision. g) Requirement of a landscape package to be provided to each dwelling unit within the subdivision. h) Donation of the outlots to the City for public purposes. 9. Building permits for this project shall not be issued until the plat contained in Application No. 90029 has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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. RAYMOND B . DRAKE QUALITY HOMES STANDARD FEATURES Lot City water & sewer in and paid Blacktop street Blacktop drive Insulated foundation — - _ _ Waterproofing Draintiled foundation _ Fireplace header Textured hardboard siding - — -- R -44 ceiling — ®� R -21 walls Thermo wood patio door � "' 3/4 bath h rough-in on lower level sy ' Natural gas heating �,,., 40 gallon hot water heater Electric smoke detectors Range hood Dishwasher Garbage disposal lontreal 992 SO. FT. Custom oak kitchen cabinets Double compartment stainless steel kitchen sink Vanity mirror .... �] f Formica vanity top - ,--- Ceramic file bath tub area BDPM. BDflM. Formica kitchen countertops DINING KITCHEN FUTURE BDRM. �� -�r_�I UTILITY RM.� L" 1 Princeton oak trim r LIN DINETTE l Carpet W anc l e owanc e CLD ._ =___ __ �� �_ I�_� \ Lighting allowance cLD GARAGE Stationary foyer window Insulated exterior doors BATH - LIVING f FUTURE BDRM. ;I FUTURE FAM. RM. CLD 0I . _ ENT flY MAIN FLOOR PLAN LOWER FLOOR PLAN 7001 -78th Avenue No. c®un (D 1r Brooklyln Park, MN 55445 l # (612) 566 -4111 r ealty i nc. 1 W a REALTOR ° 01.0M'UN.rr "�•�"•• RAYMOND B., DRAKE QUALITY HOMES STANDARD FEATURES Lot City water & sewer in and aid r ��� „i✓. ,t ��, '"`;'.'�>���`,! — y �.l "'-'!�NT> Blacktop street p Blacktop drive v Ir^ Insulated foundation A Waterproofing - - -- — Draintiled foundation = Fireplace header Textured hardboard siding - _ R -44 ceiling 1 �l ' ” LPL rz ' Triple gla zed windows ii LL y Thermopane wood patio door Floor truss construction •.i . ul `'" I Iu ��M'�� , (// X� Bay window Brick front Wu. I(1'l14 u4iu114ka1l . i r.li wal w• • � �yll ° 3/4 bath rough -in on lower level Vaulted ceiling Skylight Natural gas heating Brittany 1000 SQ. FT. 40 gallon hot water heater Electric smoke detectors Range hood Dishwasher Garbage disposal °EtR Custom oak kitchen cabinets Double compartment stainless steel kitchen sink i Angled staircase LIVING DINING Vanity mirror FUTURE FAM. PM. I Medicine cabinet it clD j Cultured marble or formica vanity top Ceramic file bath tub area Wood handrail and spindles GARAGE DINETTE — T Formica kitchen countertops SENTRY ❑ I� r-77.1-1 UTILITY RM Princeton oak trim CELG L1 ;, D Suspended indirect kitchen lighting LIN DLD 10 x 10 redwood deck Vinyl flooring allowance STR. BDRM. BDPM. i Carpet allowance ii FUTURE BDRM. Lighting allowance UPPER FLOOR PLAN LOWER FLOOR PLAN 7001-78th Avenue No. o0 u n s e Brookiyin Park, MN 55445 realt ° (612) 566 -4111 y inc. " REALTOR" op oRTUNITOT ���•��Y•• RAYMOND B DRAKE QUALITY HOMES STANDARD FEATURES Lot p q City water & sewer in and paid Blacktop street -c o Blacktop drive Insulated foundation Waterproofing - Draintiled foundation - -_ Fireplace header R-44 ceiling Nboard sid p in g R -21 walls Triple glazed windows V - � Thermopane wood patio door Floor truss construction Bay window _y = Brick front 3/4 bath rough -in on lower level Vaulted ceiling \ Skylight Natural gas heating 40 gallon hot water heater B ordeaux Iii 1200 SQ. FT . Rangechoodke detectors Dishwasher Garbage disposal -� Custom oak kitchen cabinets RE CD Double compartment stainless steel kitchen sink Angled staircase °� - - -�- Walk through bath °RPWLSR Vanity mirror lUAM. <CI' LOORM LIVING i °iUAE iPM. RM. oRT. lTN LEYEL Medicine cabinet DINING Cultured marble or formica vanity top Ceramic tile bath tub area Wood handrail and spindles °L ` ", UTILITY IM 1 Formica kitchen countertops MSTP. RRRM. FUTURE P°RM =n r { II }} �1 (_ Princeton oak trim Suspended indirect kitchen lighting ENiAY� I' 10 x 10 redwood deck Master bedroom walk -in closet GARAGE Vinyl flooring allowance Carpet allowance Lighting allowance UPPER FLOOR PLAN LOWER FLOOR PLAN 7001-78th Avenue No. ao u Brooklyln Park, MN 55445 realty inc. 6' ` 5 (66 -4111 REALTOR" o:a.Uft;; — RAYMOND B. DRAKE QUALITY HOMES STANDARD FEATURES 1 1�k � Lot City water & sewer in and paid r + 'f; Blacktop street v , =r %i Blacktop drive Insulated foundation -,,, , _- — -- - - -- — >; ✓� ' Waterproofing Draintiled foundation Fireplace header Textured hardboard siding R -44 ceiling + j R -21 walls Triple glazed windows Thermopane wood patio door •, , ,1 I^ ,' �:+ Floor truss construction Bay window Brick front • . +� r„ , ",. w 1 3/4 bath rough in on lower level Vaulted ceiling Skylight Natural gas heating Bordeaux Il 1063 SQ . FT. El gallon hot water heater Electric smoke detectors Range hood r -- Dishwasher Garbage disposal Custom oak kitchen cabinets Double compartment stainless steel kitchen sink ciG ,.°' �.., .. _....... _. ... -. Angled staircase a°nM LIVING GRAWLSea Walk through bath EumxErue em GvT IINI[VEL Vanity mirror ! Medicine cabinet > 'L' I 111!.1 Cultured marble or formica vanity top M sTe eonM NiJRE BGPM Ip -- � _ - UTILITY AM Ceramic file bath tub area . ` - - Wood handrail and spindles LIN __ I ". Formica kitchen countertops ¢Hier GINEne Princeton oak trim - — Suspended indirect kitchen lighting 10 x 10 redwood deck GARAGE — — Master bedroom walk -in closet Vinyl flooring allowance Carpet allowance Lighting allowance UPPER FLOOR PLAN LOWER FLOOR PLAN 7001-78th Avenue No., Brooklyln Park, MN 55445 1'eC9�t = (612-) 566 -4111 y 1110. EQUAL IgUS.wG 0 10 REALTOR' ORROATUtlrt ww�._• M• RAYMOND B. DRAKE QUALITY HOMES STANDARD FEATURES Lot City water & sewer in and p aid J1 .,qj Blacktop street Blacktop drive IVQ ✓I ON _ _ - �� Insulated foundation Waterproofing Draintiled foundation 'W Fireplace header - t' Textured hardboard siding ig Non X11; R 44 ceiling mum 11 R-21 walls Triple glazed windows 7 Thermopane wood patio door Floor truss construction Bay window Brick front 3/4 bath rough-in on lower level Skylight Natural gas heating 40 gallon hot water heater Calais 111 1180 SO. FT. Electric smoke detectors Range hood Dishwasher Garbage disposal Custom oak kitchen cabinets BORM. DORM FUTURE FAM AM FUTURE ADAM. Double compartment stainless steel kitchen sink LIVING CLO I Walk through bath Vanity mirror L', Medicine cabinet -- 5 Cultured marble or formica vanity top D UN UTILITY AM. Ceramic file bath tub area ININ. MSTR BORM DECK T _ j D �r F Wood handrail and spindles 0 � Formica kitchen countertops CRAWL SP a Princeton oak trim CLO OFF 4TH LEVEL Suspended indirect kitchen lighting ENTRY 10 x 10 redwood deck f 1 Master bedroom walk-in closet DINETTE GARAGE Vinyl flooring allowance Carpet allowance Lighting allowance UPPER FLOOR PLAN LOWER FLOOR PLAN A 7001-78th Avenue No. Co U S e Brooklyin Park, MN 55445 (61 rep 11 inc. W REALTOR " OPPO TUNITY RAYMOND B. DRAKE QUALITY HOMES wvvvvvvy wvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv �yy wvvvvvvvv vv�wvv�wvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv� STANDARD FEATURES Lot City water & sewer in and paid Blacktop street Blacktop drive V Insulated foundation Waterproofing Draintiled foundation - Fireplace header Textured hardboard siding R -44 ceiling R-21 walls y Triple glazed windows f Thermopane wood patio door _n ti Floor truss construction Bay window Brick front 3/4 bath rough -in on lower level Skylight Natural gas heating 40 gallon hot water heater Calais II 1028 SQ. FT. Electric smoke detectors Range hood Dishwasher Garbage disposal Custom oak kitchen cabinets -- — - — Double compartment stainless steel kitchen sink GLO CLD r ;I Walk through bath LIVING RDflM. i FUTURE FAM. RM. � FUTURE RDRM. Vanity mirror L I I Medicine cabinet \ ` - r Cultured marble or formica vanity top ceramic tile bath tub area DECK DINING '1 EM MSTR. RDRM. _ _ )� �I UTILITY RM. Wood handrail and spindles Formica kitchen countertops Princeton oak trim f = "L ' Suspended indirect kitchen lighting ENTRY DRAWL sr M 10 X 10 redwood deck oRr aTN LEVEL Master bedroom walk -in closet DINETTE GARAGE t Vinyl flooring allowance Carpet allowance Lighting allowance UPPER FLOOR PLAN LOWER FLOOR PLAN CIO 0 Elm 7001-78th Avenue No. Brooklyln Park, MN 55445 6 �6 4111 re 1 +y 1110. ( ° t REALTOR" oPPOn• �""'•• A � �... - RAYMOND B DRAKE QUALITY HOMES STANDARD FEATURES `y Lot y City water &sewer in and paid Blacktop street Blacktop drive Insulated foundation Waterproofing - rai tiled foundation D n _ Fireplace header Textured hardboard siding R -44 ceiling t� _. - x. , � -- — _� — � �. 9 R -21 walls e -� -- ' ��' � s � ' ' ^' �Y H , "��� Triple glazed windows i mss, '7 Thermopane wood patio door Floor truss construction Bay window Brick front 3/4 bath rough -in on lower level Skylight Natural gas heating 40 gallon hot water heater Marseilles H 1090 SO. FT. Rangechood ke detectors Dishwasher Garbage disposal _ — 1 Custom oak kitchen cabinets Y DECK Double compartment stainless steel kitchen sink Walk through bath �mHEiiE T Vanity mirror -- I LAAWL $A or , Medicine cabinet { oA .TN LEVEL l Cultured marble or formica vanity top DINING LIV'ND FUTURE FAM. AM. Ceramic tile bath tub area Wood handrail and spindles GARAGE r Formica kitchen countertops a0 \ Errflr 11 }_ii j Princeton oak trim Suspended indirect kitchen lighting I v f_-? DDAM I� . ___= 10 x 10 redwood deck — - , - Z_ - - 'J, Master bedroom walk -in closet LD © II Master bedroom dressing table cLO UTILITY AM ;; FUTURE ADAM Vinyl flooring allowance MSTA. GUAM. -- I� Carpet allowance - _ -- -- Lighting allowance UPPER FLOOR PLAN LOWER FLOOR PLAN 7001-78th Avenue No. c® u t s i r Brookivin Park, MN 55445 re Aa it1c. (6 -4111 Y REALTOR" 0110MTu` -1 '��•�"" RAYMOND B. DRAKE QUALITY HOMES �- STANDARD FEATURES r Lot add City water & sewer in and paid y top I street °I B lacktop Blacktop drive Insulated foundation ® Waterproofing I _ - -_ — - ELI ®® _ Draintiled foundation wi. �d 1>10 Fireplace header 1 i 01! Textured hardboard siding R - 44 ceiling R - 21 walls 1 , �® .� i Triple lazed windows le p III II ...p 9 E9. ..r L7 i9 F9 d9 3 0 x -•�, tom �� I P P Thermo pane wood patio door ; .t3N q ° Floor truss construction _ _ - �� v' ,�- � — 'i- x- w..;.,,.� ��..� `- x . � �.:.. �,..,. -�.'•: � Bay window Brick front I'u 3/4 bath rough in on lower level Skylight Natural gas heating Marseilles III 1186 SO. FT. El gallon hot water heater Electric smoke detectors Range hood Dishwasher Garbage disposal oecK Custom oak kitchen cabinets Double compartment stainless steel kitchen sink DINETTE Walk through bath � CRAWL SP or Vanity mirror I J� DINING DIVING I Dvi. 4T H LEVEL Medicine cabinet - AM RM J, EAM AM Cultured marble or formica vanity top GARAGE Ceramic tile bath tub area I t I �. LL0 ENTRY 1 ll� Wood handrail and spindles ,q i Formica kitchen countertops Princeton oak trim ,N ^ - -- Suspended indirect kitchen lighting „„ 10 x 10 redwood deck GILD cio cEO w Master bedroom walk -in closet Master bedroom dressing table OTmTY ;{ FUTUREDDAM Vinyl flooring allowance MDTR. DORM. DORM. ; -_, ii Carpet allowance Lighting allowance UPPER FLOOR PLAN LOWER FLOOR PLAN 7001 -78th Avenue No. counselor Brooklyln Park, MN 55445 1 re y into (6 11 RFAITOR `o ° ova ESN, °? "RAYMOND B. DRAKE QUALITY HOMES STANDARD FEATURES Lot " — City water & sewer in and paid Blacktop street - -- Blacktop drive Insulated foundation _ Waterproofing µms. Draintiled foundation .., 4 ___ Fireplace header •'® — - — Textured hardboard siding R -44 ceiling R -21 walls Thermopane wood patio door r4� r w 3/4 bath rough-in on lower level Natural �•,�,,� � gas heating 40 gallon hot water heater Electric smoke detectors Range hood Dishwasher Garbage disposal Vdvn ouve ' 962 SO. FT. Custom oak kitchen cabinets Double compartment stainless steel kitchen sink Vanity mirror Formica vanity top CLn Ceramic tile bath tub area BDRM. BDRM. FUTURE BDRM. a FUTURE BDRM. Formica kitchen countertops Princeton oak trim c Vinyl flooring allowance BATH cLb Carpet allowance (, 0 — Lighting allowance IImo�- Stationary foyer window DINING � Insulated exterior doors KITCHEN UTILITY RM. n FUTURE FAM. RM. — DINETTE L _ J GARAGE - -- i CLD LIVING ENTRY � r r ` MAIN FLOOR PLAN LOWER FLOOR PLAN 7001-78th Avenue No. Brooklyln Park, MN 55445 • (61iw- 41 11 real in REALTOR" OW011i N � --•��• � RAYMOND D RAKE QUALITY HOMES ���������. ����������������������: ������������������������������������������������������������� •���������:��: STANDARD FEATURES Lot City water & sewer in and paid - - Blacktop street -- — - — Blacktop drive Insulated foundation Waterproofing Draintiled foundation Fireplace header I III�IUI I ' Iliil l _ k Textured hardboard siding Elf! I � �> ` " "' E� R -44 ceiling I o' I II °` AdP� - III' VV � R 21 walls Triple glazed windows L 1 „I,n Thermopane wood p atio door —# =y Floor truss construction E \ � 4if� '.'nc \ mo w �c•" - ti Bay window ^ngYL0 " MOW, 4-111o �� h u,. . ..... �I. n'�Ipi I q,n qih Brick front ',II' or�dlti(�TIIII01r.hilPn��� h aUllUnp„ u .,,,,,� •�i,�, 3/4 bath rough -in on lower level l Vaulted ceiling Skylight Natural gas heating Normandy III 1176 SQ. FT. 40 gallon hot water heater Electric smoke detectors Range hood Dishwasher NEGfl gHET7E Garbage disposal Custom oak kitchen cabinets 4' Double compartment stainless steel kitchen sink �..� Angled staircase P°NM BGflM. ! PINING � � I I I- n UTILITY Vanity mirror s J I TO NM FUTURE ROAM. FUTURE FA Medicine cabinet M- flM. I "° -' - - - -- Cultured marble or formica vanity to IIN , �� - - -- Y P , ❑N Ceramic tile bath tub area DYING MStB.9GflM. FUTURE B°NM Wood handrail and spindles _r rc . GLO Formica kitchen countertops - -- Princeton oak trim ENTRY "° Suspended indirect kitchen lighting 10 x 10 redwood deck Vinyl flooring allowance Carpet allowance `" " "GE Lighting allowance UPPER FLOOR PLAN LOWER FLOOR PLAN �. :\ �\ \ \� \. ��.��\., off\\ \�., \ \�, '� `\ �. \ \ >•; > \�\ �.� M\ \ ���, \� . \ \\'.:': •�., �\ \ \� 7001- 78th Avenue No. co n ®� Brooklyln Park, MN 55445 (612) 566 -4111 realty inc. +� REALTOR" oiio iTV41TY ter^• RAYMOND B . DRAKE QUALITY HOMES V STANDARD FEATURES �� - -- — —_ — - -- -- —_ - - Lot �.-••� - � � — A City water &sewer in and paid Blacktop street �O — — - -- - Blacktop drive _... Insulated foundation t� Waterproofing Draintiled foundation header Fireplace t Textured hardboard siding L t R -44 ceiling -- L112U I -- R -21 walls Triple glazed windows Li EI Thermopane wood patio door Floor truss construction Bay window Brick front 3/4 bath rough -in on lower level Vaulted ceiling - -�- Skylight Normandy II 1000 SO. FT. 40 g a l l gas heating 40 alon hot water heater Electric smoke detectors Range hood p Dishwasher pl x Garbage disposal L Custom oak kitchen cabinets D;Nfft[ Double compartment stainless steel kitchen sink ao �� - Angled staircase oiNwa mwn Rn I T FUTURE 81011M Vanity mirror Medicine cabinet _ F UTURE ` "" N " Cultured marble or formica vanity top Ceramic tile bath tub area uviNa I rnsrn nRRM li Emu � I Wood handrail and spindles Fite:. cla Formica kitchen countertops - Princeton oak trim ENTRY . I;LII fl Suspended indirect kitchen lighting - 10 x 10 redwood deck _ Vinyl flooring allowance �R Carpet allowance Lighting allowance UPPER FLOOR PLAN LOWER FLOOR PLAN 7001 -78th Avenue No. co u s o r Brooklyln Park, MN 55445 ... realt (612) 566 -4111 y i I REALTOR o :o�iu + r: ��•r`r'� 1 HOLMES & GRAVEN CHARTERED Alturnevs at 1st 470 PIIIa0ur7 f.ntar. Mlnnespoll.. Mlnn.act4 5S407 RosExr A. ALSO (615)337.9300 JULIE A. LA»LER AAr'I. n. Ra3:RTCCHI RONALD H . BATTY F&CIIM119 {611) 337.9310 JOHN M . 1.. LEfIves e.�R. jiL M Yte MARY J. DRESDEN R0 IIAT J, Lmrw I STEPHIS J. B!'IL'L A%jk K. Mot I.eT R01ERT C. CARLSON DANIEL R. Sif.j so% CHRISTINE M, fHALE SARRAR L D . JbRTY.00 JOHN B. DEAN W'RITER'S DIRECT DIAL MARY FRANC LS SRALA MARY C. DORRINS JEiiREY i:NG JAMBS M. STROMMEN \TF.iANIF N. r.AI.TV STEVEN M. TA11EN DAvin L. CRAVEN JAMES J. THOMSOY. JR. CORRINE A. HUNE 337 -9215 LARRY M. WERTHEIM JAMES S. HOI.MES BONVIE L. WILKI \v DAVID J. K EINNEDY — JowN R. LARYON 01 P01 WELLINGTON H. LAW RosERT L. DA17DSO% JOHN C. HOEZC 'HI.ER February 21, 1991 Mr. Gerald Splinter City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 53430 Re: Twin View Development Dear Jerry: This letter addresses the legal issuer; wilivil have been raised in connection with the consideration of the various applications for the Twin View Development. I. Notice of Public Hearing on Rezoning. The firm. yueation relates to the adequacy of notice of the public hearing on the rezoning application. Minnesota Statutes 9 462.367 specifies the procedure for adopting and amending zoninit or nencesiu� er state law. Subdivision 3 of that nevtion provides: "No zoning ordinance or amendment thereto shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by the planning agency or by the governing body. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days prior to the day of the hearing. When an amendment involves changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property to which the amendment relates. r-or the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any appropriate recvrda to determine the names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible person and shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defeats in the notice, shall not invalidate the Proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this subdivision has been made." T©© Loa 'ON N3nua9 o SSWOOH SSIbT T&'Tc "Ca Mr. Gerald Splinter February 21, 1991 Page 2 Therefore, the requirement of state law is met if ten days notice is given on one public hearing held by either the planning commission or the city council. Tt is my understanding that more than ten days published notice and mailed notice was given for the formal public hearing on the Twin View Development rezoning application. There may have been other hearings or meetings, such as neighborhood meetings which were conducted on less than ten days notice. However, neither such hearing nor tiny specified period of notice of such hearings is required by law. Therefore, in my opinion, tho fact that adequate notico was given of the formal hearing on the rezoning application before the planning commission is adequate compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 9 482.357, Subd. 3. It was also assortQd that the City is subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes S 394.26, SUbd. 2. However, that subdivision applies to county, rather than city zoning procedures, and therefore is not applicable in thin case. The Brooklyn Cuntur City Ordinances Section 33 -210 provides the procedure for consideration of rezoning applications. This Section also requires ten days mailed and published notice prior to the hearing of the matter before the planning commission. Therefore, the procedure set forth in the ordinance are also consistent with thel requirements of state law. . II. Notice of Public Hearing on Plan Amendment. Minnesota Statutes S 462.355, requires ten days published notice of a hearing before the planna g commie on on a proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan as well. The application of Twin View Development involves an amendment to the comprehensive plan. Therefore, there must also be compliance with the statutory notice provisions for such an amendment. However, I do not believe that there has been any 'assertion that the statutory requirements relating to amendment of the plan have not been met. III. Applicability of Administrative Procedures Act. It was also asserted during the evwicil's vvrialdcratiou of this matter that hearings conducted on the Twin Lakes Development are subject to the Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act. While it is true that the Minnesota Adminiatratiee Procedures Act seta forth certain procedural guidelines for certain types of hearings, it simply doeo not apply to municipal public hearings on rezoning applications. IV. Zoning Requirements Based on Aesthetic Considerations. At the Council hearings, I was asked to provide an opinion on the extent to which the City Council could regulate aesthetic factors in a planned unit rezoning. In general, any zoning regulation must serve a legitimate public purpose such as conserving propery values, encouraging the moat appropriate use of land, or protecting the public health, safety, welfare or morals. The action of the City Council cannot be arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or discriminatory. The zoning ordinance will be found to be invalid if the court finds that there is no substantial rclatioriship between the challenged restriction and a legitimate public purpose. The courts have said on a number of occasions that zoning ordinances are not valid if they are enacted primarily in adherence to the aesthetic concepts of some municipal planning commission. Pearce v. Village of Edina (1982) 283 Minn. 553, 118 NW2d 659; Golden. City of St. Louis ar Minn. 46, 122 NW2d l C00 2100 '0N tl3nUaS 3 S3W10H SS:bT T&'Tc"Co o Mr. Gerald Splinter February 21, 1991 Page 3 570. Therefore, the City Council could not impose obligations which had no legitimate publics purpose other than that, its the view of the City Council, the development would look botter if it complied with tho rostriotions than If it did not. For example, the City Council could not generally require that all houses in a development, including a PUD Development, should be painted green. However, it is not improper for the City Council to take aesthetic matters into consideration. The courts have ruled that if a zoning ordinance is othewise valid, the more fact that aesthetic factors were significant factors in motivating the zoning decision will not invalidate the decision. Nae le Outdoor Advertising Co. v, Village of Minnetonka (1968) 281 Minn. 492, 162 N.W. d 206. Therefore, if a zoning ordinance has as its purpose the protection and preservation of property values and the prevention of deterioration and blight, the fact that the result will also be more attractive, in the view of the City Council, will not invalidate a legitimate ordinance. Beyond the general principles quoted above, there is little guidance for the City Council on this issuo in the reported Minnesota cases. It aooms to me that the result of applyinj these principles to a planned unit development is that the City Council may have somewhat more authority to impose conditions relating to aesthetic matters then it would in its other zoning distriots. For example, in single family residential zoning distriota generally, the City Council does not impose restrictions relating to architectural style, exterior materials, or colors, and it probably would not have the legal authority to do so. However, there may be cases in which the nature of a specific planned unit development requires the protection of the public interest in ways which would not be permissible in a typical single family rsidential district. For example, if the City Council were to approve a planned unit development for a cluster development, or a townhouse building with zero lot line construction, it would probably be retwonable for the City Council to provide that the buildings which were attached, or in very close proximity to each other, have some uniformity of architectural treatment. The City Council might even require that all units with a common exterior have the same exterior treatment or coloring. This might be done on the theory that property values would be adversely affected if various units in the same structure had different architectural styles or exterior materials. However, It does not necessarily follow that the City Council can specify one satiafactory architectural treatment solely for aesthetic reasons. For example, in the case of cluster development or ccro lot lizie construction, ultbough it may be permissible to specify that all units be painted the same color, it may not be permissible to require that all of the units be painted green. Likewise, it may be permissible to specify that all unite be constructed of the same building aterials on the outside of the buildin • however, a court m view it 8 B: � Bh as arbitrary f the City Council permitted stucco but prohibited the use of cedar shakes or Y Y Pe P a painting treatment of earthtones. for a purely aethetic reasons. Since the City Council does not regulate color, exterior building materials or architectural styles in other residential developments, it would probably not be able to enforce such a restriction in a planned unit development unless there were something about the nature of the planned unit development which created a need for some additional protection, over and above the protection provided in other residential districts. One example would be the cluster development or zero lot line development described above. However, in the case of a residential development which is essentially the same as a normal R -1 single family residential development, it would be difficult to 200 L00'011 N3nUdS ^ o S3W70H 9S :bT T6 /T0/00 Mr. Gerald Splinter February 21, 1991 Page 4 justify a more stringent requirement on architectural standards merely beeause the rezoning was sought under the authority of the planned unit development ordinance rather than a simple rezoning to single family residential zoning. V. Environmental Concerns. Finally, you have asked whether the City has any obligation to notify prospective buyers of Twin View Development Properties of the existing environmental problems the City a t ot o bliga tion nearby Joslyn site. I do not believe that y hr�s an y 0 ga tion to provide such n oti c e to prospective buyers, nor does the City have any right to require the landowner to notify prospective buyers of such problems. The City has not taken any action to regulate such matters of private contract as the sale of residential real estate in the City. Such matters have been left to rWdation by the legislature. If the City Council wished, it would be posaible to adopt ordinances regulating the nature of disclosure which must be given to prospective buyers Some other cities have attempted to provide some measure of consumer protection in residential real estate transactions. However, I would not recommend that such action be taker until as the additional overh nand anal adm ative such action b the y need for au Y expense which would be involved in administering such a program. If you have any questions on any of the above matters, please give me a call. Very truly yours, Charles L. Le Pe v ere CLLtrsr B A2 91 -016 T©© Boo 'ON N3Nn JS o S3W70H L5 bT T6%TO %OO Ju �•Cc r-t ALI ct>_ PA r a te. i ....� � _.rte'• .n_ �.. .-.d_. _.�:_ _ .. _ _ .. I =�fa ti I V led .. _ r, 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter City Manager FROM: Mark P. Parish REVISED City Assessor DATE: February 19, 1991 RE: Twin View Development Market Values Cost /Benefit Considerations Concerning the questions raised at the February 11th meeting of the City Council, the following table lists the average value and typical range in value for several surrounding areas (please refer to attached maps). AREA AVERAGE VALUE RANGE West of France $75,500 $60,000 - $130,000 East of France $68,500 $60,000 $110,000 Lakeshore $125,000 $100,000 - $200,000 Neighborhood Area 9 $74,000 $60,000 - $140,000 Neighborhood Area 10 $67,000 $55,000 - $110,000 Please note that lakeshore properties are excluded from the other areas. If the homes in those areas which are on Twin Lake were included, the "average" value of the neighborhood would increase by $5,000 - $10,000. While I am not aware of a recent study of the cost of City Services on a per parcel basis, it is a generally accepted fact that it is more costly to service commercial, industrial, and apartment properties than it is to service residential or vacant land. This is primarily due to increased fire and police costs. Absent an independent cost analysis, I considered the increased City tax projected to be paid by the developed site. This amounts to slightly less than $3300, or $130 per home. The City would have one additional street to maintain and twenty -five additional residences to serve. My conclusion is that this development would "break- even" in terms of costs versus revenues. This conclusion is based on the fact that many costs initially 2/14/91 G. Splinter Page 2 would be paid by the developer and /or owners of the new homes. Specifically, the street, utilities, and inspections fees would be paid by the users. Furthermore, the City has all the current costs of services to approximately 8000 single family residences, the incremental cost of an additional twenty -five would be negligible. Although the preceding paragraph refers to "increased City tax projected to be paid by the site," the total tax revenue received by the City would be unchanged Rather than a development paying new dollars above and beyond the existing tax receipts, the community's Tax Base is broadened which results in slightly lower taxes being paid by the existing parcels. While the increased population resulting from residential development is utilized in determining state -paid Local Government Aid (LGA), Homestead & Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA), and in setting the levy limits, the impact of a twenty -five home subdivision would be minimal. As any development on the site would not result in new revenue to the City, I believe it is important to consider costs to service the potential uses. Absent specific cost projections at this date, I can only comment generally. As was previously discussed, I believe the City could reasonably accommodate the increased cost to serve a residential use. Depending on the actual use, or user, of a permitted use under the I -2 zoning, the costs to serve could vary greatly. It is not possible to predict whether or not those costs could be accommodated by the City without shifting priorities or resources. Not only might an industrial use have a higher cost of service, it would also likely have an adverse impact on values of the neighboring residential homes. The market has demonstrated a two or three percent decrease in value of homes located adjacent to commercial /industrial properties. As values decline, the tax base shrinks, resulting in higher tax rates. In conclusion, it is my opinion that the proposed development will be beneficial to the community by strengthening the tax base without incurring significant additional service costs and by complementing, not detracting from, the existing residential neighborhood. IL I 1 1 1 Y Ye t OF 1 "Ibok poll � r �I , w•4 t 1 . � '''I I w �1I .... x too E •. I tw U ji . ,. �••• i� �11Ull�f��tntt'i, Rfill � • �A .�... I at Mu �. j � ! � t I • 1 , , \ ,•� tt111 t11 /11 ,,\� � • 1 • II � ". ''•`•../ 7Y • • yr• ..r • • •.. • •• 1 • :•••�• .�••• ►' ', i .,I'l • . • • • •• r ' / ►` ` t , • � 1, t 1 � • • v 4 j� • ( !t y ad � f(� • l tiff • ••�..�• i �� � ` r �_ { �. �i11iJ 111' `J �► . • ••• : •. N �: tl "YIUAllI�il X11 , . l y x )i 111 r A Wiwi I • I� w x, ` ; � � : °3 1 • ' � i •�. ..,•,,.,,, ,,,•••�• . � � (I w so "o I [TA ' �( • r • In t W 11+� M � i• ., •� 1 J ?� "al I u.r ./ r r r • .1 _. 16- Feb -91 m p p REVENUE /COST ANALYSIS TWIN VIEW DEVELOPMENT FRANCE AVE N @ 51 st AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER As Vacant Land Description As Proposed If Industrial (25 homes @ $85,000 each) $210,000 Market Value $2,125,000 $2,125,000 $10,395 Tax Capacity $25,500 $103,438 Percentage Percentage Percentage 20.00% $2,217 County Tax $7,119 26.18% $22,062 20.00% 10.60% $1,175 City Tax $4,457 16.39.4 $11,693 10.60.4 3100% $3,658 School District $13,902 51.12% $36,403 33.00% 4.30,4 $477 Miscellaneous $1,717 6.31% $4,743 4.30% 32.10% $3,559 Fiscal Disparity Pool $0 0.00.5 $35,410 32.10% 100.00% $11,086 Total Tax $27,194 100=% $110,311 100.00% Parcel's Total Increase . $16,109 $99,225 r City portion Increase . $3,282 $10,518 City Revenue Increase $0.00 $0.00 Impact on Tax Base - $15,105 $93,043 Tax Impact to SFD ($0.64) ($3.94) note: Assumes a $74,000 home In Brooklyn Center, this is the tax change resulting from the broadened tax base. NOTES: These estimates are based upon projected market values. Tax rates and breakdowns are estimates only, and are based on rates and percentages from taxes payable in 1990. CAUTION: This analysis does NOT take change in population resulting from Residential development into account, which would have an impact on HACA, LGA, and levy limits. Furthermore, no adjustment has been made for the developments impact on the surrounding neighborhood values. I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2/25/9 Agenda Item Number v • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application Nos. 91003 and 91004 - Frances Lunacek DEPT;AP;PROVA Ronal A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X ) • Planning Commission Application No. 91003 is a request for rezoning from R5 (Multiple Family Residential) to R1 (Single Family Residential) of a 41' x 132' strip of land belonging to the property at 5211 Xerxes Avenue North, just south of the access drive to the property. This application was considered by the Planning Commission, at its February 14, 1991 regular meeting. Minutes, information sheets, a copy of Planning Commission Resolution No. 91 -3 regarding recommended disposition of the application, a City Council Resolution regarding disposition of the application, an ordinance amending Chapter 35 regarding zoning classification of certain land and a map of the area are attached for the Council's review. Planning Commission Application No. 91004 is a request for preliminary plat approval to transfer a 41' x 132' strip of land from the property at 5211 Xerxes to the property at 5201 Xerxes Avenue North. Minutes, information sheet, and a copy of the preliminary plat are attached for the Council's review. Recommendation These applications were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its February 14, 1991 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 FEBRUARY 14, 1991 REGULAR SESSION CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Johnson was out of town and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 31 1991 Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Holmes to approve the minutes of the January 31, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: / Commissioners Bernards and Ainas. / APPLICATION NOS. 91003 AND 91004 (Frances Lunacek) VVV Following the Chairpersons's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first two items of business, a request to rezone from R5 to R1 a 41' x 132' strip of land belonging to the property at 5211 Xerxes Avenue North and a request for preliminary plat approval to transfer the 41' x 132' strip of land from the property at 5211 Xerxes to the property at 5201 Xerxes Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 91003 and 91004 attached). Commissioner Sander arrives at 7:39 p.m. Chairperson Malecki asked whether the fence would stay and whether it would be on the R1 or R5 property. The Secretary answered that the property line would basically follow the fence line. He stated that he would recommend that it be on the R5 property since it appears to belong to the complex. In response to another question from Chairperson Malecki, the Secretary stated that the property line could be moved slightly to keep the fence on the R5 property. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Steve Graffunder, an attorney representing Frances Lunacek, stated that he had nothing to add and would answer questions of the Commission. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki regarding the fence, Mr. Graffunder stated that 2 -14 -91 1 he thought the fence should be on the R1 property. The Secretary noted that, on the other two lots with 12 unit buildings, the fence continues on the apartment property. He suggested that it might be more appropriate for the fence to be on the apartment property since it seems to have served as a security fence for the apartments in the past. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the apartment dwellers have used the vacant land that is the subject of the rezoning. Mr. Graffunder responded in the negative. He stated that the land had always been used by Mrs. Lunacek as part of her single family property. Commissioner Bernards stated that open area for apartments has been a concern of the Commission recently. He asked whether the apartment building at 5211 Xerxes Avenue North would stand on its own as far as land area is concerned. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Ainas stated that he believed the application was so minor that it did not have to go to a neighborhood advisory group. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos 91003 and 91004) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing on both the rezoning application and the preliminary plat application and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding those applications. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing on Application Nos. 91003 and 91004. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Holmes asked whether a separate condition was needed as far as the fence. The Secretary stated that he did not think a condition was really necessary at all and that the fence is really a civil matter between the single family property and the apartment property. Commissioner Bernards asked whether there was any need to refer, in the resolution recommending approval, to the fact that the application was not being referred to the neighborhood group. The Secretary stated that he felt that the comments of Commissioner Ainas were sufficient. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -3 Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 91003 SUBMITTED BY FRANCES LUNACEK The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Lowell Ainas, and the motion passed unanimously. 2 -14 -91 2 ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 91004 (Frances Lunacek) Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 91004, 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. 3. Approval of Application No. 91004 is subject to approval of rezoning Application No. 91003. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas Mann and Holmes. voting against: none. The motion passed. Mr. Louis Sullivan, of the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group then spoke briefly to the Commission. He stated simply that the application had been well presented. OTHER BUSINESS a) Comprehensive Plan Amendment The Secretary then explained the next item of business to the Commission, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding the I -2 area of land in the southwest portion of the City. He noted that a planned unit development was sought by Twin View Development, Inc. under Application No. 90028 and that that application is before the City Council. He noted that the City's PUD Ordinance requires that a PUD be in an area designated for redevelopment. He explained that the amendment would be to Figure 15 and Table 14 concerning Area #18 which would include all of the area of land in the I -2 zone within the City. The Secretary stated that it would be necessary to amend the Plan in the future when there may be other redevelopments that involve planned unit developments. He stated that he would recommend approval of the Plan Amendment even if the Twin View Development, Inc. rezoning were denied. He then reviewed the draft resolution point by point with the Commission. Chairperson Malecki asked whether the land would still be zoned I -2 after the Plan Amendment. The Planner responded in the affirmative and noted that rezoning of the land is a separate action. Chairperson Malecki asked whether the staff could steer developers towards some alternate use other than I -2 in this area. The Secretary responded that the Planned Unit Development Ordinance could be used to allow for certain variances in the design of a 2 -14 -91 3 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91003 Applicant: Frances Lunacek Location: 5201 Xerxes Avenue North Request: Rezoning The applicant requests approval of a rezoning from R5 to R1 of a 41' x 132' strip of land which presently belongs to the apartment property at 5211 Xerxes Avenue North. The land to be rezoned is presently bounded on the north by an access drive serving the three apartments at 5207, 5209 and 5211 Xerxes Avenue North, on the east by Xerxes Avenue North, on the south by the Lunacek residence at 5201 Xerxes, and on the west by the parking lot for the apartments and the bulk of the lot at 5211 Xerxes. Ms. Frances Lunacek is the owner of both the single- family home at 5201 Xerxes and the 12 unit apartment building at 5211 Xerxes. She wishes to rezone from R5 to R1 the portion of the 5211 property which lies to the north of her single - family lot, outside of a fence which belongs to the apartment property. The land to be rezoned would be attached to her single - family lot through replatting (see Application No.91004) and would not become a separate single- family lot. The lot area of the apartment property after the land transfer would be 39,095 sq. ft. The land area requirement of the 12 unit apartment building is only 32,400 sq. ft. Therefore, no lot area variance is sought. Ms. Lunacek has been maintaining the land in question as part of her single - family lot for many years and wishes to make the property line conform more closely with physical realities. Rezoning All rezoning applications are evaluated in light of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance (attached). The applicant's representative, Mr. Steve Graffunder of Henningson and Snoxell, Ltd., has submitted written arguments addressing these guidelines. A review of those arguments and staff comments follow: (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Applicant: "Yes, the public would benefit because the strip of land which is the subject of this rezoning application would retain its R1 characteristics. In addition, the subject property has been treated as part of an R1 parcel for many years. Rezoning the subject property would make the zoning and use consistent." Staff: We agree that making the zoning and use of a property consistent is generally a good thing as long as both are consistent with comprehensive planning and sound planning principles. The City's Comprehensive Plan makes no reference to this excess strip of land. In theory, the subject land could be counted as land to 2 -14 -91 1 Application No. 91003 continued support approximately two more multiple- family units on the R5 property. (It should be noted that, even with the land transfer proposed here, the R5 property will have some excess land and, therefore, the ability to add a couple units.) As single - family zoned land, this land may someday contribute to .a separate single - family lot. (It should also be noted that the location of the existing single- family home at 5201 Xerxes would prevent a subdivision without at least a lot width and a lot area variance. If the land were clear, however, there would be adequate frontage and area for two conforming single - family lots in the R1 zone.) Because of the location of the strip of land in question, it seems more appropriate to allow for single- family use of this property rather than multiple- family use. (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Applicant: "Yes, the neighborhood in question is residential. The properties to the north, east, and south of Ms. Lunacek's residence are zoned R1. The properties directly to the west are zoned R5." Staff: We agree. The neighborhood along this stretch of Xerxes is essentially single- family. The R5 strip of land is really part of an access which serves three multiple- family buildings with frontage on Brooklyn Boulevard and partially on the entrance ramp to Highway 100. Multiple family zoning adjacent to high- traffic corridors is common to serve as a buffer use. The strip of land in question is functionally a part of a single- family area. It is not really needed to serve the access drive to the three multiple - family properties. (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Applicant: "Since the primary permitted use in the R1 district is, of course, one - family dwellings, all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district can be contemplated for development of the subject property." Staff: We have indicated above that the new R1 parcel created by this rezoning and plat would have the potential to be subdivided. That is not proposed at this time. All the applicant seeks is to continue to maintain the land in question as part of her single - family property which she has done for many years. This is certainly in keeping with the R1 designation. (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? 2 -14 -91 2 Application No. 91003 continued Applicant: "To the best of the applicant's knowledge, there have not been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area." Staff: There have been no significant changes in recent years. The physical reality that underlies this rezoning is that the fence for the apartment complex does not enclose all the land within the property. Part of the apartment property adjacent to the Lunacek residence has been maintained with and functions as part of the single- family property. That longstanding reality is one of the reasons behind the rezoning application. (e) In the case of City initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Applicant: "Not applicable." Staff: Not applicable. (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? Applicant: "As far as the applicant knows, there are no ordinance development restrictions which the proposed zoning district could not bear." Staff: The land transfer and rezoning will still leave the R5 property with adequate land to meet the land area requirements for the existing 12 unit building. The width of the R5 arm of land extending out to Xerxes would be reduced from 79.43' to 38.4 We do not regard this "arm" of land to constitute the lot width of the R5 parcel. It serves as an access drive for three apartment buildings on separate parcels, all of which meet the R5 lot width requirement of at least 100'. The new R1 parcel will be quite large and, if the existing home were removed, could be subdivided into two single family lots and meet R1 zone requirements. With the existing house in place, a new lot would be about 60' in width and would not meet width or area requirements for an R1 lot. The policy on lot variances has generally been that two of the three lot requirements should be met. It, therefore, appears unlikely that a future subdivision of the lot would be approved as long as the existing house remains. In any case, the applicant has expressed no interest in such a future subdivision. As proposed, the resulting R1 single- family lot would exceed all R1 standards. 2 -14 -91 3 Application No. 91003 continued (g) Is the sub property e 7 p p y g nerally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size . P , configuration, topography or location? Applicant: "The strip of land which is the subject of this rezoning application is, by itself, too small for any of the uses permitted in the present zoning district, although the overall parcel of which the strip of land is currently a part is generally not unsuitable for the uses permitted in the present zoning district." Staff: Although the strip of land in question is not needed by the existing R5 parcel to meet land area requirements, it is not viable as a separate R5 parcel because it does not - meet R5 lot width requirements. Nor could it support a separate building because of its confi uration. We agree, however, g g r, that the land could be included in the R5 lot and thereby support some sort of expansion to the existing multiple family building. (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 interest of the community? Applicant: "Given the small parcel of land which is the subject of this rezoning application, the proposed rezoning would result in only a very slight expansion of the current R1 property. The rezoning would be in the best interest of the community and surrounding neighborhood because it would enable Ms. Lunacek to sell the apartment parcel in the future if she so desired and prevent the purchaser from expanding the use of the property which is the subject of this rezoning application. Instead, the apartment parcel could be sold and the R1 nature of the subject property could be preserved." Staff: This strip of land is not referred to in the City's Comprehensive Plan. There is a lack of developable land in most zoning districts, including the R1 district. Nevertheless, this parcel will not lead to new development of a single- family home in the immediate future. In general, the community's best interests are served when zoning and use are consistent and when property lines reflect physical barriers on the land. The proposed rezoning and plat furthers these objectives. (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interest of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? 2 -14 -91 4 Application No. 91003 continued Applicant: "For all the reasons stated in Ms. Lunacek's application and stated above, the rezoning application demonstrates merits beyond the interests of only Ms. Lunacek. Rezoning of the subject parcel of property would insure that the R1 character of the property is retained and would continue to conform with the surrounding neighborhood." Staff: The applicant's description of request (attached) basically states what is summarized at the beginning of this report. As to merits, we agree with the applicant's representative that the reasons stated above demonstrate merit beyond the interests of the owner. We can think of no one's interests who are harmed by this proposal. Procedure Generally, rezoning applications are considered at a public hearing and then referred to the relevant neighborhood advisory group for review and comment. A public hearing has been scheduled for the February 14, 1991 meeting and notices have been sent. Because of the minor scope of this rezoning, we recommend that the Commission consider acting on both applications at the February 14, 1991 meeting. A draft resolution is attached for the Commission's consideration. If the Commission chooses to table and refer the application, we would recommend that it obtain the applicant's consent to table the plat as well. These applications should be acted on concurrently. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 2 -14 -91 5 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91 -3 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 91003 SUBMITTED BY FRANCES LUNACEK WHEREAS, Application No. 91003 by Frances Lunacek proposes rezoning from R5 (Multiple Family) to R1 (One- Family Residential) of a 41.03' x 131.98' strip of land south of the access drive to 5211 Xerxes Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on the February 14, 1991 when a staff report and testimony regarding the rezoning request were taken; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning has been reviewed in light of the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35- 208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 91003 submitted by Frances Lunacek be approved in consideration of the following: 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the surrounding land uses in the neighborhood. 2. All permitted uses in the proposed zoning district may be contemplated for the property. 3. The resulting properties will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions of the proposed zoning districts. 4. The resulting zoning and property lines will follow lines of physical barriers and longstanding use of land. 5. In light of the above it is believed that the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings are met in this case and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interests of the community. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -3 Date Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary The motion for 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.91003 SUBMITTED BY FRANCES LUNACEK WHEREAS, Application No. 91003 by Frances Lunacek proposes rezoning from R5 (Multiple Family) to R1 (One- Family Residential) of a 41.03' x 131.98' strip of land south of the access drive to 5211 Xerxes Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on the February 14, 1991 when a staff report and testimony regarding the rezoning request were taken; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 91003 by the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 91 -3; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly called public hearing on the matter at its February 25, 1991 meeting when the Planning Commission's recommendation and public testimony were received; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning has been reviewed in light of the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35- 208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 91003 submitted by Frances Lunacek is hereby approved in consideration of the following: 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the surrounding land uses in the neighborhood. 2. All permitted uses in the proposed zoning district may be contemplated for the property. 3. The resulting properties will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions of the proposed zoning districts. 4. The resulting zoning and property lines will follow lines of physical barriers and longstanding use of land. 5. In light of the above it is believed that the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings are met in this case and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interests of the community.. RESOLUTION NO. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for 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. M CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of March, 1991 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the zoning classification 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 CLASSIFICATION 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 -1140. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R5). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (R5) Multiple Family Residence District zoning classification: Lots [1 through] 2 and 3, Block 1, R. R. McChesney and Sons 2nd Addition. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91004 Applicant: Frances Lunacek Location: 5201 Xerxes Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to replat two adjacent properties at 5201 and 5211 Xerxes Avenue North to allow a transfer of a 41.03' x 131.98' strip of land from the 5211 property to the 5201 property. The 5211 property is zoned R5 and the 5201 property is zoned R1. The strip of land to be transferred is the subject of rezoning application #91003 (to rezone the strip from R5 to R1). Both parcels are owned by Ms. Frances Lunacek. The subdivision is bounded on the north by a single family home, on the east by Xerxes Avenue North, on the south by a single family residence and a 12 unit apartment building, and on the west by the entrance ramp from Brooklyn Boulevard to Highway 100. The subdivision is a two lot subdivision to be known as Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lunacek Addition. Lot 1, which is the apartment property is to be 39,095 square feet or .897 acres. Lot 2, which is to be the single family lot is 20,171 square feet or .463 acres. The area of the land being transferred from the apartment property to the single family property is 5,415 square feet or .124 acres. There is an existing 5' wide drainage and utility easement along the south side of the "arm" of land belonging to the existing apartment property. This easement lies within the proposed Lot 2 of the preliminary plat and will affect the placement of structures on Lot 2 unless that portion of the easement is vacated. In the area within Lot 2, the easement really serves no practical purpose since there are no utilities or drainage swale within it. However, it is not really necessary to vacate the easement unless and until the property were subdivided in the future to provide for two single family lots. Since there is no intention at present to do this, vacating the easement is not really necessary. It should also be pointed out that the driveway serving the Lunacek residence straddles the existing south property line of Lot 2. This is an existing condition and is a civil matter between Ms. Lunacek and the owner of the parcel to the south which is apparently her son. We would recommend that they execute and file a joint access easement over the area of the existing driveway. Again, however, we do not believe that it is necessary to require such an easement as a condition of final plat approval. 2 -14 -91 1 Application No. 91004 continued The proposed plat appears to be fairly straightforward and complies in all necessary respects with City Ordinances. Approval is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. Approval of application #91004 is subjected to approval of rezoning application #91003. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 2 -14 -91 2 1■ ■� ■ ■!■a • • �. i■ 0 1110011M - - wm SCHOOL ..© 6 �■0 ■0//1100 �`••a`� • �. 6 ,i ii 00000000r��I111� /s X0000000 W M :;�Illilil: � :� � �• /111111111 . yin milli MIN Ime R � J / w. � Q T. of �NNARK AR 1p ah a5M / v sn..rra h h b b b sC JJ ut1 m . -., .. E• � vl• iau 1 .7 rrN orl h� OWNER /SUBDIVIDER •- Sj �, 20 0 20 40 Frances M. lung c.M 5)01 res •.• SCALE W 1 FEET M. I., MN 551]0 a53 A 5 5� EAST JQ 111 SCALE 1 IN . I6 FEET 6 a 192.86 Q SURVE YO R /DESIGNER L.ld SDESIGNER 9s° 3 Z 1 ^B• BEARING NOTE: Ch—. 5urre Inc 00/ 33 BASIS OF " BEARINGS IS THIS FLAT, Cn THE 65,n Ave 54 55..tie W . EY AND SOUS Bro.Mlyn Pork, NN 551<] PLAT OF RA - CMESN S e 6\ r ]NO ADDITION yh h TO B EAR S69.0637'E ' w W LKA o a•nm•• 5/9 n.na by ap- Inch I, , with A 5 _ plostic cup " atump •d lane c b .il nzsv •rnvr o` WEST n� � I • • round t r., m•n... n ° O d dnvt .YED d.n.ba tl ,l ° Hron d— . I— nrdrant C.B m•Na atcn .Halo F d•not.e uHea• a� m n cn11, unw c f —I c" 16500 30 OT 1, BLOCN o;• ml cu r •a..m.nt — - 134.98 d•noi•e uro and un Hn i .. d. 3.00 -- __ 39,096.963 50 FT OR O ACRES . .B ZDNED RS OT 2, BLOCK 1, . 20,170.552 SO. FT. OR 0.%3 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION Let 1, Blow 1, A McCHESNEY AND AGO SONS ]NO AGTIO A. A, according t. tn• / b b h \ 6 ? N Ire.c.• M .n.c•w �� JO MS. a. P1.1 .1 1-- M.r..1, H.—Nn I Sa P < <m C.unt MIn ...1. 1,.— am / ° F '•^`• eSTat ap M. Eaat 165.00 feet of tn• 5.v1n 100.{] 1••t .1 M. —N, 661.65 N ZONED R7 f O met .1 In. Nortn•a•t Ouuri•r .r / -- - - -__ -- I „`, •D N c. IO, mp III R—g• H .... pin 3L uxpe e N 33 r County. Nmn•sam. ' \ Rdssele Mu. S \ - - - -- \ r— — T -- 253.34 134.98 .. 2N I D � AVE. \, c 8 9-57-09-E 165. 0 0.0 " �. v / ®, i Hr.as p ATE " 'N.1 \\ fE 1.— i BF C:I \ o THr R x c iiisoi• "A r / x6H x " ASr u�rL x JOM nisi � I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by m• z SicC d r n a h I dal Y or under Y direct supervision a Ir am a 0 m I d b d that m w m v, m i .red m Land Surveyor under the laws of the Stnl• I r of rft t „ ^m �.°os I 1 ��. .,, of Minnesota. A N Marvin' 6. Lovlsin, Land Surveyor -' „( :', ` 95A Minnesota License No. 17259 `W i i oat•: �J..e.. ts. t190 G I r CHERRIER LAND SURVEYORS, INC. I! 1 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LANDS I 1' n IMri' u 88TH AVENUE NORTH HRO0RLYN' R, PAR' YINNF A yy m � t Y n •r. . fP ; , i H,I.,,,ul ielD '4f4LSMt j i0 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2/25/9 Agenda Rem Number • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 82 -1 (Flood Plain Management) and Adopting a New Flood Plain Management Ordinance Consistent with State and Federal Regulations DEPT. APPROVAL: ._ . of A Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning nd Ins ection 9 P 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 memorandum from the planning staff to the Planning Commission regarding a new Flood Plain Ordinance. This item had been reviewed with the Planning Commission approximately one year ago, but a final form had not been brought back to the Commission for their consideration and recommendation. Basically this new Flood Plain Ordinance amendment is a housekeeping matter which would repeal our current Flood Plain Ordinance and adopt a new Flood Plain Ordinance which would be consistent with Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidelines. The memo and attachment explain the various differences or changes from the existing Flood Plain Ordinance. The Planning Commission again considered this ordinance amendment at its February 14, 1991 meeting and recommended approval of the the revised Flood Plain Ordinance following discussion. Their recommendation can be found on pages 4 and 5 of their February 14, 1991 meeting. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council have a first reading on this ordinance amendment which would repeal the current Flood Plain Management Ordinance and adopt a new Flood Plain Management Ordinance consistent with State and Federal regulations. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Planning Staff DATE: February 14, 1991 SUBJECT: New Flood Plain Ordinance Attached is a copy of an updated flood plain ordinance which was reviewed by the Commission approximately a year ago and was recommended for approval. The City Council has not yet considered the ordinance and it was felt that it would be appropriate for the Commission to reconsider the ordinance before it is brought to the City Council for action. The new flood plain ordinance is based on a model flood plain ordinance that has been worked out between the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The major changes that have been included in the new model ordinance are as follows: 1. The definition of "basement" was expanded to include all below grade areas enclosed on all four sides. 2. Provisions were included to regulate the placement of travel trailers and travel vehicles. (This is omitted from our ordinance). 3. Changes were made in the application of wet or dry floodproofing techniques for accessory structures and substantial improvement to primary structures. 4. Changes were made requiring replacement manufactured homes to be properly elevated and anchored. (Manufactured homes are to be treated the same as site built homes under the proposed ordinance). 5. Changes were made to incorporate specific enforcement procedures for dealing with ordinance violations. 6. Minor grammatical changes were also incorporated to clarify confusing language. One change to the local ordinance not mentioned above is the addition of a General Flood Plain District in addition to the Floodway and Flood Fringe districts in the old ordinance. General Flood Plain districts are areas where a precise determination of the flood plain boundary must be made based on accurate surveying and hydraulic data which does not yet exist. The proposed ordinance amendment will take some flood plain related definitions out of the general definitions section of the Zoning Ordinance (35 -900) and put them into a special definitions portion of the new flood plain ordinance (35- 2120). At the same time, some Memo Page 2 February 14, 1990 general definitions will be added to the general definitions section (35- 900). An explanation of the 1988 changes to the model ordinance are contained in a summary attached. Please note that the numbering system of the proposed ordinance is oriented to our Zoning Ordinance numbering scheme, not that of the model ordinance. If you have any questions regarding the new flood plain ordinance, please contact Gary Shallcross at 569 -3300. Explanation of 1988 Changes in the Sample Floodplain Zoning Ordinance for a 3 - District, Two - Map* Q Local Government Unit 9? 1 l Section 1 : No Changes - 21Zv Section 2: Primary change was to definitions in Section 2.8. It was felt that a ding efinitions of Conditional Use and variance would make the ordinance more understandable (the definitions provided are consistent with the proposed definitions to be provided in the consolidated planning and zoning statute under considerations). These two definitions are optional. A definition of "Basement" was added to essentially deal with enclosed, below grade areas such as crawl spaces or non - residential below grade enclosed areas. If these types of below grade spaces are allowed for new construction /additions, then this definition must be added along with the standards contained in Sections 5.42 and 5.43. Sect 3: The compliance language was moved warn against the more common mistakes and ov ersi h to Section 3.0 and. nd expanded to build' is t made b Ong code officials. This language is not mandatorytbutestrongly local recommended. 2t Section 4.0: The format of this section was uses are permitted or conditional) revised to more clearly state which standard i s for each. This new format p is m recommended h but p not c required. Other changes to this section include: - Provisions for regulating travel trailers and travel vehicles consistent with FEMA's new standards (also see Section 9.3). If the community allows travel vehicles not me�ting the exemptions in Section 9.31, then the language in Section 4.37 included in their ordsnancefr --- and 9 - or something similar must be al�o,3� U � - Section 4.0, and specifically 43 was amended to recommend a maximum 10 -year flood heig t for agricultural levees that protected crops only. 1 �IU.4� - Section 4.4 was amended to require a long-t development plan for uses requiring storage for significant ul of materials in the floodway. This language is recommended for communities having to deal with long -term dredge spoil operation, sand and gravel businesses, etc. 214U. 4 - Section 4.4 was amended to cl arify which accessory structures can be wet - flood, in lieu of dry flccd proofing. If a community's existing ordinance presently alicws *e!- `loodproofed accesso language in Sections 4.22 ar.d of 1978 3-Di s ry structures (see t ..45 must be includedrinthemordinanceance), the language now provided it *Similar changes apply to other lcca' government units with variations on this ordinance type. 5 2` Section 5.0: The format of this Section was revised and the major clarification proved-e are as below:. sC, - Sectionci_ 41'was provided to specifically cite "construction" and "use of space' standards for elevated buildings not in fill and are required when this construction technique is allowed. z tso.�t� -As mentioned in Comment #2 above, the language in Section - 5:42 - is required when below grade, enclosed spaces are allowed. 5o.� - d ,� -F94A has specific fill compaction standards for iss ance of/ LOMR's and FEMA does not require these specific development andarOs"to be stated on a building permit. The language in Sections 5.54 and 7.3 was included as a warning for_th_s.e_whomay b e � tin LO I a traction is complete. 1� Section 6.0 The case -by -case floodway /flood fringe determination procedure was moved up to this section where it more logically belongs and Section 6.0 was also revised to have the City Council /County Board approve the final floodway alignment. This language is recommended but optional. Z1 6 Section 7.0: As previously mentioned in Section FEMA LOMR standards are cited as a warning for new construction. This language is optional but recommended. �-� similar 8 I f s required. the community allows on -site sewer and water, then language o Section 9.0: The language in Sections 9.1 -9.2 must be included where necessary dv ��x tclearly require replacement manufactured homes outside of floodway to be properly elevated to the RFPE and that sufficient over - the -top or ground anchors be provided. For the discussion in Section 9.3 for travel trailer /vehicles, see c,e(-` comments for Section 4.0 above. Section 10.37: Technically under FEMA standards the language and notice in �`��• 1T._T must accompany local variances_ As noted earlier, the case -by -case analysis for the General Flood Plain District was moved to Section 6.0. Section 11.0 Section 11.0 was revised to clarify that non "substantial" 26 improvements can be either "wet" or "dry" flood proofed and that "substantial" �- improvement must be dry flood proofed or elevated to RFPE. This is the minimum acceptable language. Section 12.0 This Section was amended to incorporate specific enforcement procedures and options for dealing with violators. Language similar to this must be incorporated where there is a documented pattern (more than one) of local ordinance enforcement deficiencies. project, but that if the City does not want an industrial use or the underlying zoning of the property, it could change the zoning to something else. He stated that one area of likely change in the future was the Joslyn property south of the Soo Line tracks. He stated that a Planned Unit Development on that property might comprehend both some industrial use and some open space use or other land use. PUBLIC HEARING (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked Mr. Rick Hartmann who was the only one present whether he wished to comment on the Plan Amendment. Mr. Hartmann declined. Chairperson Malecki then 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 regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -2 Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82 -255 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) RELATIVE TO LAND LOCATED IN THE I -2 ZONING DISTRICT The motion for the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Ella Sander and the motion passed unanimously. ISCUSSION ITEMS a) Flood Plain Ordinance The Secretary then referred the Commission's attention to an attached Flood Plain Ordinance. He noted that this ordinance was considered by the Commission about a year ago, but had not been acted on by the City Council. He reviewed some of the changes in the new model Flood Plain Ordinance and in the version drafted for consideration by the Planning Commission. He pointed out that the definitions in Section 35 -900 would be ones which would be applicable to the entire ordinance, whereas definitions in Section 35 -2120 would be those which were specific to the Flood Plain portion of the ordinance. Commissioner Ainas asked whether the Commission would have more time to review the ordinance or whether action was recommended this evening. The Secretary stated that it was up to the Commission. Commissioner Ainas stated that he had had dealings with the DNR regarding the new model ordinance and that he was ready to recommend approval of the draft ordinance this evening. 2 -14 -91 4 Commissioner Bernards asked how the new ordinance would affect the Twin View Development at 51st and France Avenues North and the proposed townhouse development by Mr. Charles Thompson. The Secretary answered that there would not be a significant impact on those developments. The Planner pointed out that the new ordinance clarifies some of the language of the old ordinance and makes some additions, but that the provisions are basically the same. He noted the requirement that finished grade be at least at or above the 100 year flood elevation for 15 ft. out from the building. He noted that Mr. Thompson's proposal did not comply with that, but that the requirement was the same under the old ordinance and the new ordinance. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF REVISED FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Bernards to recommend approval of a revised Flood Plain Ordinance. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of upcoming business items for the February 28, 1991 meeting, there was a 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 8:44 p.m. Chairperson 2-14-91 14 91 5 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 25th day of March , 1991, at 7:15 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider a new Flood Plain Management Ordinance. 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 BY REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 82 -1 (FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT) AND ADOPTING A NEW FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE CONSISTENT WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center does ordain as follows: Section 1. Section 35 -2100 through Section 35 -2190 inclusive of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 2. Chapter 35 of the Brooklyn Center Ordinances is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -900. DEFINITIONS. Accessory Use or Structure - a use or structure on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use or structure. Basement - means any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or base subgrade (below ground level) on all four sides, regardless of the depth of excavation below ground level. [Flood - a temporary increase in the flow or stage of a stream or in the stage of a stream or in the stage of wetland or lake that results in the inundation of normally dry areas. Flood Frequency - the frequency for which it is expected that a specific flood stage or discharge may be equalled or exceeded. Flood Fringe - that portion of the flood plain outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term "floodway fringe" used in the Flood Insurance Study for the City of Brooklyn Center. -1- Flood Plain - the areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. Flood- Proofing - a combination of structural provisions, changes, or adjustments to properties and structures subject to flooding, primarily for the reduction or ddlimination of flood damages. Floodway - the bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions of the adjoining flood plain which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood discharge.] [Obstruction - any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, watercourse, or regulator flood plain which may impede, retard, or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water.] [Reach - a hydraulic engineering term used to described a longitudinal segment of a stream or river influenced by a natural or man -made obstruction. In an urban area, the segment of a stream or river between two consecutive bridge crossings would most.typically constitute a reach. [Regional Flood - a flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100 -year recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in the Flood Insurance Study.} Special Use - means a specific type of structure or land use listed in the Zoning Ordinance that may be allowed but only after an in -depth review procedure and with appropriate conditions or restrictions as provided in the official zoning controls or building codes and upon a finding that: (1) certain standards as detailed in the Zoning Ordinance are or will be met and (2) the structure and /or land use are compatible with the existing neighborhood. Structure - anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the ground or on -site utilities including, but not limited to, buildings, factories, sheds, detached garages, cabins, manufactured [mobile] homes, and other similar items. -2- Variance - means a modification of a specific permitted development standard required in an official control including this ordinance, to allow an alternative development standard not stated as acceptable in the official control but only as applied to a Particular property for the purpose of alleviating a hardship or unique circumstance as defined in Section 35 -240. Section 35 -2100. FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT. Section 35 -2110. STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION FINDINGS OF FACT AND PURPOSE. 1. Statutory Authorization The Legislature of the State of Minnesota has, in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 104 and Chapter 368.01, delegated the responsibility to local governmental units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center Minnesota does ordain as follows: 2. Findings of Fact a. The flood hazard areas of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, are subject to periodic inundation which results in potential loss of life, loss of Property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary Public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. b. Methods of Use to Analyze Flood Hazards. This ordinance is based upon a reasonable method of analyzing flood hazards which is consistent with the standards established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 3. Statement of Purpose It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and to minimize those losses described in Section 35- 2110.2a by provisions contained herein. Section 35 -2120. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 1. Lands to which Ordinance Applies -3- This ordinance shall apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of the City of Brooklyn Center shown on the Official Zoning Map and /or the attachments thereto as being located within the boundaries of the Floodway, Flood Fringe, or General Flood Plain Districts. 2. Establishment of Official Zoning Map The Official Zoning Map together with all materials attached thereto is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The attached material shall include the Flood Insurance Study for the City of Brooklyn Center prepared by the Federal Insurance Administration dated August 17, 1981, and the Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps and Flood Insurance Rate Maps therein, all as amended by the attached Amendment No. 1, prepared by Barr Engineering. The Official Zoning Map shall be on file in the Office of the City Clerk and the Zoning Administrator, 3. Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be an elevation no lower than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the flood plain that result from designation of a floodway. 4. Interpretation a. In their interpretation and application, the Provisions of this ordinance shall be held to be minimum requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of the City and shall not be deemed a limitation or repeal of any other powers granted by State Statutes. b. The boundaries of the zoning districts shall be determined by scaling distances on the Official Zoning Map. Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of the district as shown on the Official Zoning Map, as for example where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions and there is a formal appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator, the Board of Adjustment shall make the necessary interpretation. All decisions will be based on elevation on the regional (100 year) flood profile and other available technical data. Persons -4- I contesting the location of the district boundaries shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the Board of Adjustment and to submit technical evidence. 5. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions It is not intended by this ordinance to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this ordinance shall prevail. All other ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only. 6. Warning and Disclaimer of Liability This ordinance does not imply that areas outside the flood Plain districts or land uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding or flood damages. This ordinance shall not create liability on the part of the City of Brooklyn Center or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder. 0 7. Severability If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby. 8. Definitions Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this ordinance shall be interpreted so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage and so as to give this ordinance its most reasonable application Equal Degree of Encroachment - a method of determining the location of floodway boundaries so that flood plain lands on both sides of a stream are capable of conveying a proportionate share of flood flows. Flood - a temporary increase in the flow or stage of a stream or in the stage of a wetland or lake that results in the inundation of normally dry areas -5- Flood Frequency - the frequency for which it is expected that a _specif is flood stage or discharge may be equalled or exceeded. _Flood Fringe - that portion of the flood plain outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term "floodway fringe" used in the Flood Insurance Study for the City of Brooklyn Center. Flood Plain - the beds proper and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. Flood- Proofing - a combination of structural provisions, changes, or adjustments to properties and structures subject to flooding, primarily for the reduction or elimination of flood damages. Floodway - the bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions of the adjoining flood plain which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood discharge. Obstruction - any dam, wall wharf, embankment levee dike Pile, abutment, projection excavation channel modification culvert, building wire fence, stockpile refuse fill structure, or matter in, along across or projecting into any channel watercourse, or regulatory flood plain which may impede retard or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water. Reach - a hydraulic engineering term to describe a longitudinal segment of a stream or river influenced by a natural or man -made obstruction. In an urban area the segment of a stream or river between two consecutive bridge crossings would most typically constitute a reach. Regional Flood - a flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100 -year recurrence interval Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in the Flood Insurance Study. Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation - The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be an elevation no lower than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the flood plain that result from designation of a floodway. -6- Section 35 -2130. ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS 1. Districts a. Floodway District The Floodway District shall include those areas designated as f loodway on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map adopted in Section 35- 2120.2. b. Flood Fringe District The Flood Fringe District shall include those areas designated as floodway fringe on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map adopted in Section 35- 2120.2 c. General Flood Plain District The General Flood Plain District shall include those areas designated as unnumbered A Zones on the Flood Insurance Rate Map adopted in Section 35- 2120.2 2. Compliance No new structure or land shall hereafter be used and no structure shall be located extended converted or structually altered without full compliance with the terms of this ordinance and other applicable regulations which apply to uses within the jurisdiction of this ordinance Within the Floodway, Flood Fringe and General Flood Plain Districts all uses not listed as permitted uses or special uses in Sections 35 -2140, 2150 and 2160 that follow, respectively, shall be prohibited. In addition a caution is provided here that: a. New manufactured homes and replacement manufactured homes are subject to the general provisions of this ordinance b. Modifications, additions structural alterations or repair after damage to existing nonconforming structures and - g g. g nonconforming uses of structures or land are regulated by the general provisions of this ordinance and specifically Section 35 -2200. c. As -built elevations for elevated or flood proofed structures must be certified by ground surveys and flood Proofing techniques must be designed and certified by a registered professional engineer or architect as specified in the general provisions of this ordinance and -7- specifically as stated in Section 35 -2190 of this ordinance. Section 35 -2140. FLOODWAY DISTRICT FW . ( L 1. Permitted Uses a. General farming, pasture, grazing, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, truck farming, forestry, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting. b. Industrial - Commercial loading areas, parking areas, and airport landing strips. c. Private and public golf courses, tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges, picnic grounds, boat launching ramps, swimming areas, parks, wildlife and nature preserves, game farms, fish hatcheries, shooting preserves, target ranges, trap and skeet ranges, hunting and fishing areas, and single or multiple purpose recreational trails. d. Residential lawns, gardens, parking areas, and play areas. 2. Standards for Floodway Permitted Uses a. The use shall have a low flood damage potential. b. The use shall be permissible in the underlying zoning district if one exists. c. The use shall not obstruct flood flows or increase flood elevations and shall not involve structures fill obstructions, excavations or storage of materials or equipment. 3. Special Uses a. Structures accessory to the uses listed in Section 35- 2140.1 above and the uses listed in subsection b through g below. b. Extraction and storage of sand, gravel, and other materials. c. Marinas, boat rentals, docks, piers, wharves, and water control structures. d. Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmission lines, and pipelines. -8- e. Storage yards for equipment, machinery, or materials. f. Placement of fill. c Structural works for flood control such as levees dikes and floodwalls constructed to any height where the intent is to protect individual structures and levees or dikes where the intent is to protect agricultural crops for a frequency flood event equal to or less than the 10 -year frequency flood event. 4. Standards for Floodway Special Uses a. All Uses. No structure (temporary or permanent) , fill (including fill for roads and levees), deposit, obstruction, storage of materials, or equipment, or other uses may be allowed as a Special Use that will cause any increase in the stage of the 100 -year or regional flood or cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected. b. All floodway Special Uses shall be subject to the Procedures and standards contained in Section 2190.4 of this ordinance. c. The special use shall be permissible in the underlying zoning district of one exists. d. Fill 1. Fill, dredge spoil and all other similar materials deposited or stored in the flood plain shall be Protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching riprap or other acceptable method. 2. Dredge spoil sites and sand and gravel operations shall not be allowed in floodway unless a long -term site development plan is submitted which includes an erosion /sedimentation prevention element to the plan. 3. As an alternative, and consistent with Subsection 2 immediately above, dredge spoil disposal and sand and gravel operations may allow temporary, on -site storage of fill or other materials which would have caused an increase to the stage of the loo -year or regional flood but only after the City has received an appropriate plan which assures the removal of the materials from the floodway based upon the flood warning time available. The Special Use Permit must -9- be title registered with the property in the Office of the County Recorder. e. Accessory Structures 1. Accessory structures shall not be designed for human habitation. 2. Accessory structures, if permitted, shall be constructed and placed on the building site so as to offer the minimum obstruction to the flow of flood waters. a. Whenever possible, structures shall be constructed with the longitudinal axis parallel to the direction of flood flow, and, b. So far as practicable, structures shall be placed approximately on the same flood flow lines as those of adjoining structures. C. Accessory structures shall be elevated on fill or structurally dry flood proofed in accordance with the FP -1 or FP -2 flood proofing classifications in the State Building Code. As an alternative, an accessory structure may be flood proofed to the FP -3 or FP -4 flood proofing classification in the State Building Code provided the accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment does not exceed 500 square feet in size, and for a detached garage, the detached garage must be used solely for parking of vehicles and limited storage. All flood proofed accessory structures must meet the following additional standards, as appropriate: 1. The structure must be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure and shall be designed to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls; and 2. Any mechanical and utility equipment in a structure must be elevated to or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation or Properly flood proofed. f. Storage of Materials and Equipment -10- 1. The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. 2. Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed if readily removable from the area within the time available after a flood warning and in accordance with a plan approved by the City of Brooklyn Center. _q. Structural Works for Flood Control that will change the course, current or cross section of protected wetlands or public waters shall be subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statute, Chapter 105. Community -wide structural works for flood control intended to remove areas from the regulatory flood plain shall not be allowed in the floodway. h. A levee, dike or floodwall constructed in the floodwav shall not cause an increase to the 100 -year or regional flood and the technical analysis must assume equal conveyance or storage loss on both sides of a stream. SECTION 35 -2150: FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF) 1. Permitted Uses: Permitted Uses shall be those uses of land or structures listed as Permitted Uses in the underlying zoning use district(s). If no pre - existing, underlying zoning use districts exist, then any residential or non residential structure or use of a structure or land shall be a Permitted Use in the Flood Fringe provided such use does not constitute a public nuisance. All Permitted Uses shall comply with the standards for Flood Fringe "Permitted Uses" listed in Section 35- 2150.2 and the standards for all Flood Fringe "Permitted and Special Uses" listed in Section 35- 2150.5. 2. Standards for Flood Fringe Permitted Uses: a. All structures, including accessory structures, must be elevated on fill so that the lowest floor including basement floor is at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. The finished fill elevation for structures shall be no lower than one (1) foot below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and the fill shall extend at such elevation at least fifteen (15) feet beyond the outside limits of the structure erected thereon. -11- b. As an alternative to elevation on fill, accessory structures that constitute a minimal investment and that do not exceed 500 square feet for the outside dimension at ground level may be internally flood proofed in accordance with Section 2140.4e2.c). c. The cumulative placement of fill where at any one time in excess of one - thousand (1,000) cubic yards of fill is located on the parcel shall be allowable only as a Special Use, unless said fill is specifically intended to elevate a structure in accordance with Section 35- 2150.2a. d. The storage of any materials or equipment shall be elevated on fill to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. e. The provisions of Section 35- 2150.5 of this Ordinance shall apply. 3. Special Uses: Any structure that is not elevated on fill or flood proofed in accordance with Section 35 -2150 2a -b or any use of land that does not comply with the standards in Section 35- 2150.5 shall only be allowable as a Special Use. An application for a Special Use Permit shall be subject to the standards and criteria and evaluation procedures specified in Sections 35- 2150.4 and 35- 2190.4 of this Ordinance. 4. Standards for Flood Fringe Special Uses: a. Alternative elevation methods other than the use of fill may be utilized to elevate a structure's lowest floor above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. These alternative methods may include the use of stilts, Pilings, parallel walls, etc., or above - grade, enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages. The base or floor of an enclosed area shall be considered above -grade and not a structure's basement or lowest floor if: 1) the enclosed area is above -grade on at least one side of the structure; 2) is designed to internally flood and is constructed with flood resistant materials; and 3) is used solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage. The aboved -noted alternative elevation methods are subject to the following additional standards: Ll Design and Certification - The structure's design and as -built condition must be certified by a registered Professional engineer or architect as being in compliance with the general design standards of the State Building Code and, specifically, that all -12- electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities must be at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation or be designed to prevent flood water from entering or accumulating within these components during times of flooding. Specific Standards for Above - grade, Enclosed Areas - Above- grade, fully enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages must be designed to internally _flood and the design plans must stipulate: jal The minimum area of openings in the walls where internal flooding is to be used as a flood proofing technique. When openings are placed in a structure's walls to provide for entry of flood waters to equalize pressures, the bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one -foot above grade. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of flood waters. That the enclosed area will be designed of flood resistant materials in accordance with the FP -3 or FP -4 classifications in the State Building Code and shall be used solely for building access, parking of vehicles or storage. ;b. Basements, as defined by Section 35 -900 of this Ordinance, shall be subiect to the following: -Llj_ Residential basement construction shall not be allowed below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. Non - residential basements may be allowed below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation provided the basement is structurally dry flood proofed in accordance with Section 35- 2150.4c of this Ordinance. c. All areas of non residential structures including basements to be placed below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be flood proofed in accordance with the structurally dry flood proofing classifications in the State Building Code. Structurally dry flood proofing must meet the FP -1 or FP -2 flood proofing classification in the State Building Code and this shall require making the structure watertight with the walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of -13- buoyancy. Structures flood proofed to the FP -3 or FP -4 classification shall not be permitted. d. When at any one time more than 1,000 cubic yards of fill or other similar material is located on a parcel for such activities as on -site storage, landscaping, sand and gravel operations, landfills, roads, dredge spoil disposal or construction of flood control works, an erosion[ sedimentation control plan must be submitted. The plan must clearly specify methods to be used to stabilize the fill on site for a flood event at a minimum of the 100 -year or regional flood event. The plan must be prepared and certified by a registered Professional engineer. The plan may incorporate alternative Procedures for removal of the material from the flood plain if adequate flood warning time exists. e. Storage of Materials and Equipment: 1. The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or Potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. 2. Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed if readily removable from the area within the time available after a flood warning and in accordance with a plan approved by the City of Brooklyn Center. f. The provisions of Section 35- 2150.5 of this Ordinance shall also apply. 5. Standards for All Flood Fringe Uses: ,a. All new principal structures must have vehicular access at or above an elevation not more than two (2) feet below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. If a variance to this requirement is granted, the Board of Adjustment must specify limitations on the period of use or occupancy of the structure for times of flooding and only after determining that adequate flood warning time and local flood emergency response procedures exist. b. Commercial Uses - accessory land uses, such as yards, railroad tracks, and parking lots may be at elevations lower than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. However, a permit for such facilities to be used by the employees or the general public shall not be granted in the absence of a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area would be -14- inundated to a depth greater than two feet or be subject to flood velocities greater than four feet per second upon occurrence of the regional flood. c. Manufacturing and Industrial Uses - measures shall be taken to minimize interference with normal plant operations especially along streams having protracted flood durations. Certain accessory land uses such as yards and parking lots may be at lower elevations subject to requirements set out in Section 35- 2150.5b above. In considering permit applications, due consideration shall be given to needs of an industry whose business requires that it be located in flood plain areas. d. Fill shall be properly compacted and the slopes shall be Properly protected by the use of riprap. vegetative cover or other acceptable method. The Federal Emery__ Management Agency (FEMA) has established criteria for removing the special flood hazard area designation for certain structures properly elevated on fill above the 100 -year flood elevation - FEMA's requirements incorporate specific fill compaction and side slope protection standards for multi - structure or multi -lot developments. These standards should be investigated prior to the initiation of site preparation if a change of special flood hazard area designation will be requested. e. Flood plain developments shall not adversely affect the hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining flood plain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system where a floodway or other encroachment limit has not been specified on the Official Zoning Map. f. All manufactured homes must be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system that resists flotation collapse and lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not to be limited to, use of over - the -top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable state or local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. SECTION 35 -2160 GENERAL FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICT 1. Permissible Uses: a. The uses listed in Section 35- 2140.1 of this Ordinance shall be permitted uses. b. All other uses shall be subject to the floodway /flood fringe evaluation criteria pursuant -15- to Section 35- 2160.2 below. Section 35 -2140 shall apply if the proposed use is in the Floodway District and Section 35 -2150 shall apply if the proposed use is in the Flood Fringe District. 2. Procedures for Floodway and Flood Fringe Determinations Within the General Flood Plain District. a. Upon receipt of an application for a Special Use Permit for a use within the General Flood Plain District, the applicant shall be required to furnish such of the following information as is deemed necessary by the Zoning Administrator for the determination of the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and whether the proposed use is within the Floodway or Flood Fringe District. 1. A typical valley cross - section showing the channel of the stream elevation of land areas adjoining each side of the channel, cross - sectional areas to be occupied by the Proposed development, and high water information. 2. Plan (surface view) showing elevations or contours of the ground; pertinent structure fill, or storage elevations; size, location, and spatial arrangement of all proposed and existing structures on the site; location and elevations of streets; photographs showing existing land uses and vegetation upstream and downstream; and soil type. 3. Profile showing the slope of the bottom of the channel or flow line of the stream for at least 500 feet in either direction from the proposed development. J2. The applicant shall be responsible to submit one copy of the above information to a designated engineer or other expert person or agency for technical assistance in determining whether the proposed use is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe District and to determine the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. Procedures consistent with Minnesota Regulations 1983, Parts 6120.5000 - 6120.6200 shall be followed in this expert evaluation. The designated engineer or expert is strongly encouraged to discuss the proposed technical evaluation methodology with the respective Department of Natural Resources' Area Hydrologist prior to -16- commencing the analysis. The designated engineer or expert shall: 1. Estimate the peak discharge of the regional flood. 2. Calculate the water surface profile of the regional flood based upon a hydraulic analysis of the stream channel and overbank areas. 3. Compute the floodway necessary to convey or store the regional flood without increasing flood stages more than 0.5 foot. A lesser stage increase than .5' shall be required if, as a result of the additional stage increase, increased flood damages would result. An equal degree of encroachment on both sides of the stream within the reach shall be assumed in computing floodway boundaries. C. The Zoning Administrator shall present the technical evaluation and findings of the designated engineer or expert to the City Council. The City Council must formally accept the technical evaluation and the recommended Floodway and /or Flood Fringe District boundary or deny the permit application. The City Council, prior to official action, may submit the application and all supporting data and analyses to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Natural Resources or the Planning Commission for review and comment. Once the Floodway and Flood Fringe Boundaries have been determined, the City Council shall refer the matter back to the Zoning Administrator who shall process the permit application consistent with the applicable provisions of section 35 -2140 and 2150 of this Ordinance. -17- SECTION 35 -2170 SUBDIVISIONS 1. Review Criteria: No land shall be subdivided which is unsuitable for the reason of flooding, inadequate drainage water supply or sewage treatment facilities. All lots within the flood plain districts shall contain a building site at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. All subdivisions shall have water and sewage treatment facilities that comply with the provisions of this Ordinance and have road access both to the subdivision and to the individual building sites no lower than two feet below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. For all subdivisions in the flood plain, the Floodway and Flood Fringe boundaries, the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and the required elevation of all access roads shall be clearly labelled on all Preliminary plat drawings. 2. Floodway /Flood Fringe Determinations in the General Flood Plain District: In the General Flood Plain District applicants shall provide the information required in Section 35- 2160.2 of this Ordinance to determine the 100 -year flood elevation, the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries and the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation for the subdivision site. 3. Removal of Special Flood Hazard Area Designation: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established criteria for removing the special flood hazard area designation for certain structures properly elevated on fill above the 100 -year flood elevation. FEMA's requirements incorporate specific fill compaction and side slope protection standards for multi - structure or multi -lot developments. These standards should be investigated prior to the initiation of site preparation if a change of special flood hazard area designation will be requested. SECTION 35 -2180 PUBLIC UTILITIES RAILROADS ROADS AND BRIDGES 1. Public Utilities. All public utilities and facilities such as gas, electrical, sewer, and water supply systems to be located in the flood plain shall be flood - proofed in accordance with the State Building Code or elevated to above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. 2. Public Transportation Facilities. Railroad tracks roads and bridges to be located within the flood plain shall comply with Sections 35 -2140 and 35 -2150 of this Ordinance. Elevation to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be provided where failure or interruption of these transportation facilities would result in danger to the public health or -18- safety or where such facilities are essential to the orderly functioning of the area. Minor or auxiliary roads or railroads may be constructed at a lower elevation where failure or interruption of transportation services would not endanger the public health or safety. 3. On -site Sewage Treatment and Water Supply Systems: Where public utilities are not provided: 1) On -site water supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems; and 2) New or replacement on -site sewage treatment systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters and they shall not be subject to impairment or contamination during times of flooding. Any sewage treatment system designed in accordance with the State's current statewide standards for on -site sewage treatment systems shall be determined to be in compliance with this Section. SECTION 35 -2181 MANUFACTURED HOMES. Manufactured homes shall conform to the definition contained in Section 35 -900 of this ordinance and shall also be subject to the provisions of Section 35 -530 regarding buildings in the Rl and R2 districts For the purposes of flood plain regulation, manufactured homes shall be subject to the same restrictions as site built homes. SECTION 35 -2190 ADMINISTRATION 1. Zoning Administrator: A Zoning Administrator designated by the City Manager shall administer and enforce this Ordinance. If the Zoning Administrator finds a violation of the provisions of this Ordinance the Zoning Administrator shall notify the person responsible for such violation in accordance with the procedures stated in Section 35 -2210 of the Ordinance. 2. Permit Requirements: ;a. Permit Required. A Permit issued by the Zoning Administrator in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance shall be secured prior to the erection addition, or alteration of any building, structure or Portion thereof; prior to the use or change of use of a building, structure, or land; prior to the change or extension of a nonconforming use; and prior to the Placement of fill, excavation of materials or the storage of materials or equipment within the flood plain. -19- b. Application for Permit. Application for a Permit shall be made in duplicate to the Zoning Administrator on forms furnished by the Zoning Administrator and shall include the following where applicable: plans in duplicate drawn to scale, showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the lot; existing or Proposed structures, fill, or storage of materials; and the location of the foregoing in relation to the stream channel. ma c. State and Federal Permits. Prior to granting a Permit or processing an application for a Special Use Permit or Variance, the Zoning Administrator shall determine that the applicant has obtained all necessary State and Federal Permits. d. Certificate of Zoning Compliance for a New, Altered, or Nonconforming Use. It shall be unlawful to use, occupy, or permit the use or occupancy of any building or premises or part thereof hereafter created, erected, changed, converted, altered, or enlarged in its use or structure until a Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall have been issued by the Zoning Administrator stating that the use of the building or land conforms to the requirements of this Ordinance. a. Construction and Use to be as Provided on Applications, Plans, Permits, Variances and Certificates of Zoning Compliance. Permits, Conditional Use Permits, or Certificates of Zoning Compliance issued on the basis of approved plans and applications authorize only the use, arrangement, and construction set forth in such approved plans and applications, and no other use arrangement, or construction. Any use, arrangement or construction at variance with that authorized shall be deemed a violation of this Ordinance, and punishable as provided by Section 35- 2210 of this Ordinance. f. Certification. The applicant shall be required to submit certification by a registered professional engineer, registered architect or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. Flood- proofing measures shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or registered architect. a. Record of First Floor Elevation. The Zoning Administrator shall maintain a record of the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new -20- structures and alterations or additions to existing structures in the flood plain. The Zoning Administrator shall also maintain a record of the elevation to which structures or alterations and additions to structures are flood - proofed. 3. Board of Adjustment: a. Rules. The Board of Adjustment shall adopt rules for the conduct of business and may exercise all of the powers conferred on such Boards by State law. 'b. Administrative Review. The Board shall hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement or administration of this Ordinance. C. Variances. The Board may authorize upon appeal in specific cases such relief or variance from the terms of this Ordinance as are consistent with the provisions of Section 35 -240 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the granting of such variance, the Board of Adjustment shall clearly identify in writing the specific conditions that existed consistent with the criteria specified in Section 35 -240 which justified the granting of the variance. No Variance shall have the effect of allowing in any district uses prohibited in that district, permit a lower degree of flood Protection than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation for the particular area, or permit standards lower than those reguired by State law. d. Hearings. Upon filing with the Board of Adjustment of an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator, or an application for a variance, the Board shall fix a reasonable time for a hearing and give due notice to the parties in interest as specified by law. The Board shall submit by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the application for proposed Variances sufficiently in advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the hearing_ .'e. Decisions. The Board shall arrive at a decision on — such appeal or Variance within 48 days of referral to the Board. In passing upon an appeal, the Board may, so long as such action is in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance, reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or modify the order, requirement, decision Is -21- or determination of the Zoning Administrator or other public official. It shall make its decision in writing setting forth the findings of fact and the reasons for its decisions. In granting a Variance, the Board may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards such as those specified in Section 35- 2190.4, which are in conformity with the purposes of this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions and safeguards,_ when made a part of the terms under which the Variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Ordinance punishable under Section 35 -2210. A copy of all decisions granting Variances shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such action. J. Appeals. Appeals from any decision of the Board may be made, and as specified in this Community's Official Controls and also Minnesota Statutes. g. Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping. The Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant for a variance that: 1) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage and 2) Such construction below the 100 -year or regional flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all variance actions. A community shall maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification _ for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its annual or biennial report submitted to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program. 4. Special Uses. The City Council shall hear and decide applications for Special Uses permissible under this ordinance. Applications shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Inspections who shall forward the application to the Planning Commission for consideration. a. Hearings. Upon filing with the Planning & Inspection Dept. an application for a Special Use Permit, the Dir. of Planning &Insp. shall submit by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the application for proposed Special Use sufficiently in advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the hearing. b. Decisions. The City Council shall arrive at a decision on a Special Use within 48 days of a recommendation by -22- the Planning Commission. In granting a Special Use Permit the City Council shall prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards, in addition to those specified in Section 35- 2190.4f, which are in conformity with the purposes of this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Special Use Permit is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Ordinance punishable under Section 35 -2210. A copy of all decisions granting Special Use Permits shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such action. ,�. Procedures to be followed by the City Council in Passing on Special Use Permit Applications Within all Flood Plain Districts. (11 Require the applicant to furnish such of the following information and additional information as deemed necessary by the City Council for determining the suitability of the particular site for the proposed use. jal Five Sets of Plans drawn to scale showing the nature location dimensions and elevation of the lot, existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, flood - proofing measures, and the relationship of the above to the location of the stream channel. jbbi Specifications for building construction and materials, flood - proofing, filling, dredging, grading, channel improvement, storage of materials, water supply and sanitary facilities. j21 Transmit one copy of the information described in subsection 1. to a designated engineer or other expert person or agency for technical assistance, where necessary, in evaluating the proposed project in relation to flood heights and velocities, the seriousness of flood damage to the use, the adequacy of the plans for protection, and other technical matters. j31 Based upon the technical evaluation of the designated engineer or expert, the City Council shall determine the specific flood hazard at the site and evaluate the suitability of the proposed use in relation to the flood hazard. -23- d. Factors Upon Which the Decision of the City Council P Y Shall Be Based. In passing upon Special Use Permit applications, the City Council shall consider all relevant factors specified in other sections of this Ordinance, and: _C11 The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. -Ca The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others or they may block bridges, culverts or other hydraulic structures. (3) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary conditions. 1.I The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner. 1U The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. ,LZ The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location. LL The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use. _(8) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in the foreseeable future. S9 The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and flood plain management program for the area. L 10 1 The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles. 11 The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site. -LI2 Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of this Ordinance. Time for Acting on Application. The City Council shall act on an application in the manner described above within 48 days from receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission on the application, except that where additional information is required pursuant to Section 35- 2190.4d of this Ordinance. The City Council shall render a written decision within 30 days from the receipt of such additional information. -24- f. _Conditions Attached to Special Use Permits. Upon consideration of the factors listed above and the purpose of this Ordinance, the City Council shall attach such conditions to the granting of Special Use Permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this Ordinance. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: (1)_ Modification of waste treatment and water supply facilities. Limitations on period of use, occupancy, and operation. (3) Imposition of operational controls, sureties, and deed restrictions. JAI Requirements for construction of channel modifications, compensatory storage, dikes, levees, and other protective measures. 5 Flood- proofing measures, in accordance with the State Building Code and this Ordinance. The applicant shall submit a plan or document certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the flood - proofing measures are consistent with the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and associated flood factors for the particular area. SECTION 35 -2200 NONCONFORMING USES IN THE FLOOD HAZARD ZONES 1. A structure or the use of a structure or premises which was lawful before the passage or amendment of this Ordinance but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance may be continued subject to the following conditions: a. No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity. b. Any alteration or addition to a nonconforming structure or nonconforming use which would result in increasing the flood damage potential of that structure or use shall be protected to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation in accordance with any of the elevation on fill or flood proofing techniques ( i.e. FP -1 thru FP -4 floodproofing classifications) allowable in the State Building Code, except as further restricted in Subsection C below. C. The cost of any structural alterations or additions to any nonconforming structure over the life of the structure shall not exceed 50 percent of the market -25- value of the structure unless the conditions of this Section are satisfied. The cost of all structural alterations and additions constructed since the adoption of the Community's initial flood plain controls must be calculated into today's current cost which will include all costs such as construction materials and a reasonable cost placed on all manpower or labor. If the current cost of all previous and proposed alterations and additions exceeds 50 percent of the current market value of the structure, then the structure must meet the standards of Section 35 -2140 or 35 -2150 of this Ordinance for new structures depending upon whether the structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe, respectively. d. If any nonconforming use is discontinued for 12 consecutive months, any future use of the building premises shall conform to this Ordinance. The assessor shall notify the Zoning Administrator in writing of instances of nonconforming uses which have been discontinued for a period of 12 months. e. If any nonconforming use or structure is destroyed by any means, including floods, to an extent of 50 percent or more of its market value at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance. The applicable provisions for establishing new uses or new structures in Sections 35 -2140 2150 or 2160 will apply depending upon whether the use or structure is in the Floodway, Flood Fringe or General Flood Plain District, respectively. SECTION 35 -2210 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION 1. Violation of the provisions of this Ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of Variances or Special Uses) shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law. 2. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the City of Brooklyn Center from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. Such actions may include but are not limited to: a. In responding to a suspected ordinance violation, the Zoning Administrator and the City may utilize -26- the full array of enforcement actions available to it including but not limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions, after - the -fact permits, orders for corrective measures or a request to the National Flood Insurance Program for denial of flood insurance availability to the guilty party. The community must act in good faith to enforce these official controls and to correct ordinance violations to the extent possible so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. b. When an ordinance violation is either discovered by or brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, the Zoning Administrator shall immediately investigate the situation and document the nature and extent of the violation of the official control. As soon as is reasonably possible, this information will be submitted to the appropriate Department of Natural Resources' and Federal Emergency Management Agency Regional Office along with the Community's plan of action to correct the violation to the degree possible. C. The Zoning Administrator shall notify the suspected Party of the requirements of this Ordinance and all other Official Controls and the nature and extent of the suspected violation of these controls. If the structure and/or use is under construction or development, the Zoning Administrator may order the construction or development immediately halted until a proper permit or approval is granted by the Community. If the construction or development is already completed, then the Zoning Administrator may either (1) issue an order identifying the corrective actions that must be made within a specified time period to bring the use or structure into compliance with the official controls, or (2) notify the responsible party to apply for an after - the -fact permit /development approval within a specified period of time not to exceed 30 -days. ''d. If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the Zoning Administrator within the specified period of time, each additional day that lapses shall constitute an additional violation of this Ordinance and shall be prosecuted accordingly. The Zoning Administrator shall also, upon the lapse of the specified response period, notify the -27- landowner to restore the land to the condition which existed prior to the violation of this Ordinance. SECTION 35 -2120 AMENDMENTS The flood plain designation on the Official Zoning Map shall not be removed from flood plain areas unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that the area has been filled to or above the elevation of the regional flood and is contiguous to lands outside the flood plain. Special exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the Commissioner of Natural Resources if he determines that, through other measures, lands are adequately protected for the intended use. All amendments to this Ordinance, including amendments to the Official Zoning Map, must be submitted to and approved by the Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to adoption. Changes in the Official Zoning Map must meet the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Technical Conditions and Criteria and must receive prior FEMA approval before adoption. The Commissioner of Natural Resources must be given 10 -days written notice of all hearings to consider an amendment to this Ordinance and said notice shall include a draft of the ordinance amendment or technical study under consideration. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) -28- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2/25/91 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Discussion Item - Controlling Driveway Widths and Paving in Front Yards and Yards Abutting a Public street ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: �L� C4 Ronald X Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: r . fi r No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X ) • On the February 25, 1991 City Council agenda is a discussion item related to the possibility of developing' regulations for residential areas which would attempt to control driveway widths and paving of yards abutting public streets. Attached is a copy of a memo to the City Manager regarding concerns with a recently adopted Nuisance Ordinance which might be considered to encourage paving of yards well beyond what the City Council might favor. This ordinance restricts parking in front yards and yards abutting public streets to driveways and paved or graveled extensions of driveways. The ordinance limits this paving or driveway extension to not more than 50% of the yard. Besides possibly encouraging people to pave or utilize too much of their front yards for parking and storing vehicles, trailers, etc., the provision could also be used for allowing excessively wide driveways. For instance, a typical single family- residential lot with a minimum width of 75' could have a driveway opening at the street of 37.5 A corner lot with a depth of 120 could possibly have a 60' wide driveway. As the memo suggests, we believe it would be appropriate to adopt an ordinance rovision p limiting the width of driveways at the street line or property line to some maximum width such as 24 This would help control one problem. a SUMMARY EXPLANATION Driveway Widths and Paving Page 2 However, this leads to other potential problems and concerns relating to other aesthetic and property maintenance matters. 0 Should we consider reducing urther the 500 limit on paving in g P g yards abutting streets? There are within the city some 50' and even 40' wide lots. The 50% limit might be restrictive to the smaller lot and may be excessive on the standard size or larger lot. An "eyeball survey" of the city's residential areas will show a wide variety of ways people have paved yards to accommodate parking and turnaround areas in their yards. We seem committed to trying to limit car, snowmobile, recreation vehicle and other authorized vehicle parking to driveways and paved or improved extensions of driveways. But how much becomes too much? Should we consider a maximum amount of paving beyond a normal driveway width and percentage of yard coverage combined? This subject has also lead to other questions and concerns. The 7 r q engineering department has suggested that if we establish minimum driveway widths on the boulevard portion of the street right -of- way, that perhaps we should establish also a requirement for paved or improved driveway aprons across the boulevard portion of the right -of -way to prevent undermining of the roadway, especially in • areas with sidewalks. The City does not require improved driveways on residential lots other than on multiple family residential developments. Should we consider such a requirement for single - family and two - family residential lots? If so, when do we start to enforce such a requirement? General discussion of these subjects by the City Council is encouraged to see if there is interest in pursuing any of the above, or perhaps other suggestions as well. i MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and InspectiA - -AZZ�_J SUBJECT: Yard Coverage Ordinance DATE: January 16, 1991 As follow -up to our January 2, 1991 meeting, you have requested me to review a City Council raised concern regarding a recently adopted Nuisance Ordinance provision that limited authorized driveways and paved or graveled extensions thereof to not more than 50% of a front yard or a yard area abutting a public street. The City Council was concerned that this provision might lead, or encourage, people to pave or utilize too much of these yards for the purpose of parking and storing vehicles, trailers, recreation vehicles, snowmobiles and other types of vehicles. We had discussed the possibility of limiting driveway widths in residential areas as a means of controlling this problem. I have discussed such a suggestion with Mark Maloney, City Engineer, who is looking at a possible maximum driveway width at a street line. He has not as yet suggested such a dimension, but does agree that limiting a driveway width in a residential area would be a positive thing. I suggest that we consider amending Chapter 25 of the City Ordinances which deals with streets and highways, specifically at Section 25 -501 which deals with the construction of private driveways and sidewalks, to add a subdivision c which would allow, driveways in residential areas to be no greater than 24' in width. Mark may wish. to modify this suggested width based on his expertise, and I certainly would have no problem with such a modification. I've also had Gary Shallcross contact a few communities in the area to see if they regulate the amount of yard area which can be paved or hard surfaced or regulate driveway widths. Attached is a copy of the results of his quick survey. I believe restricting driveway widths at the street line would have a positive effect of limiting the amount of hard surfaced area being utilized within a particular yard. The question is whether or not we want to go further in attempting to control this matter. . rt K January 9, 1991 RESIDENTIAL PAVING LIMITATIONS CITY LIMITATION Brooklyn Park Maximum width of driveway of 30'. Most park on paved surface. At least 5' from property line. Can't expand more than 10' in any direction. No restriction on rear yard. Require permit for driveway, but don't enforce. Crystal Driveway opening 22' maximum (don't rigidly enforce). 50' from intersection; 40' apart; 1 opening per lot. Can't widen driveway toward principal structure. Opening must be at least 3' from side lot line. Enforced on complaint basis. Permit for opening into concrete curb, not into bituminous. Columbia Heights Golden Valley No restrictions on driveway size. No written restriction on driveway openings. Handle on case -by -case basis. They do issue permits for driveway openings. Maple Grove No specific driveway width. Maximum width across boulevard is 24' without Engineering Department approval. Thinks a permit required for driveway opening. New Hope Only one driveway. Must be 5' from property line. 40' from intersection. Maximum driveway curb cut is 24 Concrete driveway must be 5 thick, 6 Class 5 gravel base. Cars must be parked on hard surface. Robbinsdale 22' wide curb opening. No limit on driveway. Engineering Department issues permits on curb cut. St. Louis Park No limit on size of driveways. Can't park on lawn. Driveway must lead to garage or parking space. No permit system for driveways. Public Works issues permit for curb opening. 22' maximum width. ,t Section 25 -417 69 -1/2 AVENUE NORTH (PART) - EHERSON LANE. That portion of 69 -1/2 Avenue North between Dupont Avenue North and Emerson Avenue North is hereby renamed, and shall be known as Emerson Lane North, effective January 2, 1976. Section 25 -418 T.H. 169, KNOWN AS LYNDALE AVENUE, (PART) - WEST RIVER ROAD. That portion of T.H. 169, known as Lyndale Avenue, from FI -94 to the North Corporate Limits (73rd Avenue North) is hereby renamed, and shall be known as West River Road effective January 2, 1977. CONSTRUCTION OF PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS Section 25 -501 WHEN AUTHORIZED. Property owners are hereby authorized to construct driveways and sidewalks traversing the boulevard connecting onto the streets owned by the City of Brooklyn Center subject to the following conditions: a. Such construction work must be done at the expense of the property owner and no such construction work shall impair or damage the street. b. The granting of permission by the council for this purpose shall give the owner no right or claim against the City if and when the City shall regrade the streets and shall otherwise improve or maintain said streets so that if following any construction or maintenance work on the streets, the property owner is required to reconstruct the driveway 0 or sidewalk as a consequence thereof, he shall not be entitled to any reimbursement by the City. l Section 25 -601 PREAMBLE. Whereas, freeway interchanges are unable to safely and expeditiously carry the flow of traffic and many motorists are i attempting to find alternate routes through residential streets resulting in motorists making U -turns in public streets, on the boulevards, and in private driveways, as well as creating traffic congestion in areas where streets and traffic patterns are not designed for the many vehicles using the roadways, the stopping and turning movements, and the unorthodox driving maneuvers which occur. NOW, THEREFORE, the city council of the City of Brooklyn Center finds that an emergency ordinance is necessary to preserve the y P public peace , p e and safety P . y as follows Section 25 -602 PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY. The city manager is hereby authorized to regulate or prohibit vehicular or pedestrian traffic upon any street, alley, boulevard, parking lot open to the public, or other public way or public property for such period of time as shall be necessary for the purposes stated herein. The prohibition or regulation of vehicular or pedestrian traffic shall be by written order of the city manager, and Y g shall be valid only the he placement of appropriate signs, signals, barricades, or, in the alternative, until appropriate traffic control personnel have been dispatched to the scene, or, in the alternative, until other appropriate warning devices or methods have been implemented. Such regulations or prohibitions shall be for the following purposes: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7 '5 9 / Agenda hem Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: ICE ARENA STUDY ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title ***************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ************************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached } Early in 1990, the City Council reviewed a list of capital project priorities developed by various city commissions and city staff. A group of interested Brooklyn Center citizens requested the Park and Recreation Commission add an ice arena to their list of projects to be considered. The proposal was to build an ice arena on the Brooklyn Center High School campus and the project costs would • be shared, in some undetermined fashion, between the City and the School District. The City Council subsequently approved a list of capital projects to be evaluated and included the ice arena in that listing. Among other projects in the listing were senior center in conjunction with the community center expansion, certain park improvement projects and land purchases for parks, expansion or rejuvenation of both fire stations, expansion of the police department /city hall and other capital projects. The Council authorized various studies on these projects including architectural and planning studies for building expansion and park projects. The Council discussed the ice arena project briefly at that time and stated at some point in time they would like to consider some type of financial analysis on the ice arena project as to determine its financial feasibility. Recently the Brooklyn Center School District was encouraged by a group of citizens to evaluate the proposed ice arena project. Superintendent Rossi and I discussed the feasibility of some kind of joint effort for a preliminary report on the ice arena project. Because we have conducted similar studies with Maxfield and Associates I asked them to present a proposal for doing a preliminary financial analysis on the ice arena project. We also received a proposal solicited by the citizen's group supporting the ice arena project from Independent Consulting Engineers Inc. The Maxfield proposal indicates a cost of $7,200 and the Independent Consulting Engineers proposal cost is $9,400. The Independent Consulting Engineers proposal is more comprehensive in that it includes site analysis, facility needs and amenities and accurate construction cost estimates in addition to the financial feasibility analysis contained in the Maxfield proposal. I have enclosed a copy of a letter from Superintendent Rossi of Brooklyn Center School District indicating the District's support of the Maxfield proposal and an offer to fund one -half of the cost of option 1 of the proposal ($7,200). RECOMMENDATION: If the City Council believes an ice arena project should be considered further as a part of our overall capital improvements project evaluation then a study or analysis of this type is warranted. It is unfortunate this type of project comes to us at a time when the City's budget is under considerable duress. The Council has conducted preliminary analysis on most of the other projects to be considered in our capital projects program. Because of budget problems most all of these capital projects have been put on hold pending resolution of our budget concerns. If the Council believes a preliminary analysis on this project should be conducted your action would be to direct the staff to prepare an resolution for consideration at a subsequent meeting. This resolution would transfer funds for the city's share of the cost of the study from the contingency fund to an appropriate account, authorize the City Manager to negotiate a cost sharing agreement with School District #286, and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to -sign a contract for the study. • Telephone 561 -2120 Brooklyn Center Independent School District No. 286 6500 Humboldt Avenue North - Brookkln Center, Minnesota 55430 OFFICE: OF THE SUPERINTENDENT February 12, 1991 Mr. Gerald Splinter, Citv Manager 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Jerry: Lust evening our Board of Education discussed participation with the city on an ice arena market analysis and financial review study proposed by the Maxfield Research Group. The motion to approve financial participation of up to 50 percent of the cost, providing Option 1 is selected, was approved unanimously. There were rather strong feelings expressed that the credibility of the study could not be questioned if, in fact, all components were gathered, researched and analyzed by the independent consultants. At this point it appears that the other proposals and /or options would require further board evaluation. Thanks for your efforts! Sincerely, Douglas M. Rossi Superintendent of Schools DMR:bmp cc: Robert Spies, Board Chair Ron Stave, Administrative Assistant °A\ EQUAL OPPOR "fl;AI'l'l' El1PLOYF:R" MAXFIELD BE CH Ro January 25, 1991 Mr. Gerald Splinter City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Mr. Splinter; Enclosed is the proposal you requested for a market analysis and financial review for a proposed ice arena in the City of Brooklyn Center, The proposal presents two work program options with both options examining only the supply and operations side of the ice arena market: Option I assumes that we will conduct all research and analysis and option II assumes that we will outline data required for the analysis, but that a city staff person will collect the data. Under Option II, we will only review and analyze the data. We have also included an additional research component which would examine the demand side of ice arena facilities, should the project proceed to that point. Please call me if you have any questions regarding our work program or need any additional information. Thank you again for contacting us to complete this assignment, Sincerely, MAXFIELD RESEARCH GROUP, INC. Lee A. Maxfield President LAM /trm enclosure 612.338.0012 620 KIC:KERN1( :K, 430 FIRST AVENUE NORTH 612.358.0639 FAX MINNEAPOLIS, !v1INNES07A 53401 M �R r UP January 25, 1991 Mr. Gerald Splinter City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Maxfield Research Group, Inc, proposes to provide market research and consulting services examining the supply of ice arenas in the suburban Twin Cities area and reviewing their operations. This study would inventory all arenas in the area and examine in detail the operation of newer arenas. This would include collecting data on size, seating capacity, condition, hours of operation, staffing, fees, ancillary services available (i.e. snack bar), usage by market type (i.e. hockey, open skating etc.), scheduling, staffing, operating costs, etc. This data would then be analyzed in relation to capital costs and profitability. An optional component of research, after completion of this initial work, would involve examining the demand for a public ice arena in Brooklyn Center. The Supply and Operations review is presented with two options: Option I assumes that Maxfield Research Group, Inc. would collect and analyze all data; Option II assumes that Maxfield Research Group, Inc. would request that certain data be collected and that the actual research would be conducted by City staff. Maxfield Research Group would then review and analyze the data, An additional component of this study is the determination of demand for ice facilities in Brooklyn Center. This research would be conducted by Maxfield Research Group, Inc. if deemed necessary by the City of Brooklyn Center based on the results of the initial, research. Demand estimates would be made for the different market segments (user groups) based on recent usage of area facilities, groups turned away because of lack of ice time and expected growth in usage. � al 612- 338.0012 620 KICKERNICK, 430 FIRST AVENUE ,NORTH 612.338.0659 PAX MINN EAPCI,IS, MINNESOTA 55401 z .. Mr. Gera Splinter plinter J'anuar y 25 1991 City of Brooklyn Center Page 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES A. Ice Arena Market Overview I. Inventory existing ice arena facilities in the Twin Cities area. 2. Select comparable facilities based on type of facility and age. 3. Collect data on age and condition of building, seating capacity, ancillary facilities and services, staffing, fees, usage, scheduling, and (when available) gross income and expense data. 4. Interview arena managers regarding market trends, operational problems, N p s, recent /future changes in physical plant or management. Cost if completed by Maxfield Research Group; $ 3,800.00 Cost if completed by City of Brooklyn Center: $ 600,00 81 Ice Arena Supply Analysis /Operations Review 1. Usage /income analysis (including ancillary facilities and services). 2. Expense analysis. 3. Examine forms of ownership, management issues. 4. Develop alternatives for operation of a Brooklyn Center ice arena based on operational data collected. Cost; $ 1,400.00 C. Memorandum Preparation 1. Write report. 2. Type, edit, proof and assemble memorandum. Cost: $ 1,100.00 D. Meetings /Client Contact 1. One (1) research review meeting ( Maxfiold Research Group, Inc. staff). 2, One (1) research review meeting (client). 3, One (1) presentation meeting, Cost: $ 900.00 Total Cost For Staff Time Option I: $ 7,200 00 Total Cost For Staff Time Option II: 24 000 E. Demand Analysis (optional) Maxfield Research Group, Inc, is Available to complete an analysis of demand for ice arena facilities in the City of Brooklyn Center for an additional cost. This research would be conducted after completion U of parts A through D above at the request of the City of Brooklyn Mr. Gerald Splinter January 25, 1991 �✓ City of Brooklyn Center Page 3 Center. This research would examine the need for additional facilities in the city based on current usage of arenas in the area and expected future growth in demand by market segment. COST OF SERVICES The work outlined in the Scope of Services will be performed for Seven Thou- sand Two Hundred Dollars ($7,200) under Option I or Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) under Option Ir, plus the direct costs incurred for travel, tele- phone, graphic preparation, and printing, Any meeting time requested by the Client beyond that set forth in the accompanying task outline will be billed at our normal hourly rates for staff time. A retainer in the amount of Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($9,500) for Option I or Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000) for Option II will be required along with an executed copy of this agreement and before commenc omen, of work by Maxfield Research Group, Inc. The remaining portion shall be payable monthly as costs in excess of the retainer are incurred and billed. COMPLETION TIME The work outlined under the Scope of Services will be completed within forty five (45) days of the execution of this agreement, unless delayed by unexpected emergencies, forces beyond the control of the parties, or by writ- ten agreement of the parties. DISCLAIMER The objective of this research assignment is to gather and analyze as many market components as is reasonable within the time limits and projected staff hours set forth in this agreement. We assume no responsibility for matters legal in character. The property /land assumed to be free and clear of any indebtedness, liens or encumbrances; and good and marketable title and competent management are assumed, unless other- wise stated. an or site plans nsi If buildin plans to 1 include re to be co - d p d in the r ep or t, the a 8 p P � Y ered only approximate and are submitted to assist the reader in visualizing the property. We assume no responsibility for the accuracy of any building or site plans. Certain information and statistics contained in the report, which are the basis for conclusions continued in the report, will be furnished by other independent sources. While we believe this information is reliable, it has not been independently verified by us and we assume no responsibility for its accuracy. U The conclusions in the report are based on our best ,judgments as market re- Mr. Cerald Splinter January 25 1991 t,J City of Brooklyn Center Page 4 search consultants. Maxfield Research Group, Inc. disclaims any express or implied warranty of assurance of representation that the projections or con - elusions will be realized as stated. The result of the proposed project may be achieved, but also may vary due to changing market conditions characteris- tic of the real estate industry, changes in facts that were the basis of con - clusions in this report, or other unforeseen circumstances. In the event payment is not received on a timely basis, Maxfield Research Group, Inc. shall be entitled to a lien against the subject property. This agreement will be construed according to the laws of the State of Minne- sota. ?AnENT All costs including staff time and out -of- pocket expenses billed on a monthly basis shall be payable to Maxfield Research Group, Inc. within fifteen (15) days of receipt of an invoice showing the work completed and the cost of the work. A finance charge of one and one -half percent (1.5 %) per month will be added to the unpaid balance of each invoice not paid within fifteen (15) days. WORK PRODUCT Findings will be presented in memorandum forr^a; and will cover the basic r-ar- ket criteria from which a decision can be made to proceed with the project. TERMINATION This agreement may be terminated upon written notification of either party to the other. In the event of termination, the Client will pay Maxfield Research Group, Inc. for staff hours performed at the firm's normal hourly rates, plus all expenses incurred through the date of termination. If this proposal meats with your approval,, please sign and return one copy to the offices of Maxfield Research Group, Inc, Agreed to this - day of 1991, MAXFI ELD RESEARCH GROUP, INC. CZ'fy OF Tiii00KLYN CENTER Lee A. Maxfield Gerald Splinter i FEE 16 5 61 16:41 E525 EDNIBROOK PAGE.01 NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSSOCIATION EMERGENCY ACTION REQUESTED MEMORANDUM To: North Metro Mayors Association Board Members - Mayors and City Managers /Administrator From: Joseph D. Strauss Sarah M. Nelson Date: February 19, 1991 Subject: Toll Road Issue (4 pages) - ADDITIONAL. INFOI2MATION Reliable sources have reported that Minnesota Toll Road Authority Inc. is aggressively moving forward with a strategy to secure legislation that would allow tolling TH 610/7H 10 Crosstown. What has been reported greatly disturbs me. • They have hired a very capable lobbyist and are using inside lobbing staff capabilities. They have been talking to both key legislators and members of Congress. • They have been in contact with key transportation staff personnel. • They are in the process of implementing a legislative strategy; that is, they intend to include toll road legislation in the Transportation Study Board's "Omnibus Transportation Bill" this session. Hidden away in non - controversial language. They are publicly saying one thing, and privately they are moving ahead aggressively to secure legislation and elicit support that will give them the vehicle to (accomplish making TH 610/TH 10 a toll road. 1119020401 FEB 19 ' a 1 16:42 852 EDIHEROOK PAGE . !7' NVE MUST TAKE ACTION NOW! • Pass resolutions in opposition to having TH 610/TH 10 built as a toll road. Send these resolutions to your legislators, Congressmen, newspaper editors, etc. • Call your local legislator and inform them of your opposition to this attempt to enact toll road legislation for TH 610/TH 10. • Call our Congressional delegation and inform them of your opposition to tolling TH 6101 TH 10 Crosstown. • Contact the Governor and the Commissioner of Transportation and voice your opposition to tolling TH 6101 TH 10 Crosstown. • Send letters to the editor, both your local newspapers as well as the Star/Tribune And St. Paul Pioneer Press. Use the language of our prior press release (attached) as you determine to be most effective. The North Metro Mayors Association has played fair can this issue. We have carefully stated that we do support alternative funding for - future transportation projects. We recognize that the State of Minnesota does not have the funding resources necessary to address all the transportation infrastructure needs of the State. We do not, however, favor turning TH 610/TH 10 into a toll read in order to get it guilt now. Our communities feel that it's our turn for this transportation project. 1119U1U4U1 FED 19 "91 16:4'2 °525 ED I tIBF00 K PAGE . 03 NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION Organized 1485 FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: JOSEPH D. STRAUSS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION 612/493 -5115 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOVEMBER. 28, 1990 NORTHERN COMMUNITIES OPPOSE TOIL ROAD ISSUE The Mayors of Maple Grove, Brooklyn Park, Blaine, Coon Rapids, Spring Lake Park and Anoka County Commissioners have been joined by the North Metro Mayors Associations in opposing the 16 mile toll road proposed last week by the Minnesota Tollway Authority, Inc. The following joint statement was released today by Mayor Elwyn Tinklenberg of Blaine, President of the North Metro Mayors Association. "While the Mayors and Anoka County Commissioners generally support the concept of innovative public /private ventures to construct and operate transportation facilities, they believe that this ro osal skims the cream off an already in -place and programmed P P highway project." "Our communities have waited some 30 years for TH 10 and TH 610 to work its way through various stages of governmental approval. Both projects have now been identified as high priorities for design and construction, with funding committed for TH 10. The need for TH 10 and TH 610 Crosstown is great. It addresses a continuing east -west access problem for our communities. TH 10 and TH 610 needs to be built. It is the highest transportation priority for the communities of the North Metro area. It should be built as part of the total metropolitan transportation system. But = as a toll road." "We are particularly disappointed that the proponents of this idea never bothered to come to the communities directly affected by this proposal. They just simply announced one day that construction of a toll road would begin in the fall of 1991. Their approach to this proposal is presumptuous, and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what the P ublie s reaction would be. 8525 Edinbrook Crossk' g. Suite 5, Brooklyn Pork, Minnesoto 55443 1-1 e•ur rA%j L.An AnA AATA 1119020401 FEB 19 9 91 16:43 8525 EDI IBROOK PAGE.04 "This proposal is unfair to the communities of the North Metro area as major portions of this proposed project have already been paid for in terms of right- away - acquisition, environmental impact statement work, design and initial construction." "We will not permit outsiders to determine the fate of our communities' transportation system. Our voices will be singly focused: TH 10 and TH 610 Crosstown will not be a toll road!" The following communities comprise the North Metro Mayors Association (NMMA): Anoka, Blaine, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Centerville, Champlin, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, Crystal, Dayton, Fridley, Lino Lakes, Minneapolis, New Brighton, New Hope, Ramsey, Robbinsdale, Spring Lake Park -30- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 2 -25 -91 Agenda Item Number 13C ,- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE REQUESTED FUNDING TO NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL DEPT. APPROVAL: Personnel Coordinator Signature -fide ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *************************************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • The City of Brooklyn Center has been a joint powers member of Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council (NWHHSC) since 1975 and has provided financial contributions on a per capita basis along with other member cities since that time. In 1990, the City paid $6,472 to NWHHSC as approved by the NWHHSC executive board, as provided for in the joint powers agreement, and as allocated in the 1990 City of Brooklyn Center annual budget. In 1990, the NWHHSC executive board approved a 1991 contributions level of 33 cents per capita for member cities. Brooklyn Center's requested allocation is $9,431. In the 1991 City of Brooklyn Center budget, the allocation for NWHHSC was approved at the 1990 level of $6,472. Attached is a letter from NWHHSC Executive Director Patricia Wilder indicating receipt of contributions from other joint powers' cities at the 1991 requested funding level. The city council is being asked to approve a resolution that would amend the 1991 budget by increasing the appropriation for NWHHSC by $2,959 (the difference between the requested amount and the appropriated amount). Approval by the city council would acknowledge the City's commitment to the NWHHSC's joint powers agreement. REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Pass a Resolution Amending the 1991 General Fund Budget to Provide Requested Funding to Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE REQUESTED FUNDING TO NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General Fund Budget and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center. has been a joint powers member of Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council since 1975; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to maintain its funding commitment to Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council (NWHHSC) by appropriating funds at the level requested by the NWHHSC executive board as provided in the NWHHSC joint powers agreement; and WHEREAS, $6,472 has been appropriated in Unit 52 of the City of Brooklyn Center 1991 annual budget for NWHHSC; and WHEREAS, the 1991 funding level requested of the City of Brooklyn Center by NWHHSC is $9,431. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: The 1991 General Fund Budget is amended as follows: Increase the Appropriation for the following line item: Northwest Human Services Unit No. 52 Account No. 4420 $2,959.00 Decrease the Appropriation for the following line item: Unallocated Expenses Contingency Unit No. 80, Account No. 4995 $2,959.00 RESOLUTION NO. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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. NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL January 15, 1991 Geralyn Barone City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center, MN. 55430 Dear Geralyn: Thank you for the recent payment of $6,472.00. Per request, I have enclosed an invoice for the balance of the 1991 request in the amount of $2,959.00. In accordance with the joint powers aoreement, the Board votes on a contribution level for all member municipalities. The amount for 1991 was 33 cents per capita. To date, the following municipalities have contributed at the 1991 requested level: allocation Brooklyn Park $18,247.00 Crystal $ 7,541.00 Dayton $ 1,361.00 Golden Valley $ 7,198.00 Hanover $ 101.00 Hassan $ 677.00 Maple Grove $12,471.00 New Hope $ 7,484.00 Osseo $ 905.00 Robbinsdale $ 4,711.00 Ropers $ 242.00 We appreciate Brooklyn Center's support of and all involvement with the human service council and look forward to working together on projects for your residents in 1991. Sincerely, 1 Patricia S. Wilder, NWHHSC Executive Director PSW /vg BROOKLYN CENTER CORCORAN GOLDEN VALLEY MAPLE GROVE PLYMOUTH BROOKLYN PARK CRYSTAL HANOVER NEW HOPE ROBBINSDALE CHAMPLIN DAYTON HASSAN OSSEO ROGERS 7601 Kentucky Avenue N. • Brooklyn Pzirk, MN 55428 (612) 493 -2802 NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL INVOICE TO: Gerald Splinter Geralyn Barone rRuri: Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council DATE: January 4, 1991 TOTAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE NWWHSC 1991 OPERATING BUDGET: Please send check to: Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council 7601 Kentucky Ave. N. Suite 101 Brooklyn Park, MN. 55428 BROOKLYN CENTER CORCORAN GOLDEN VALLEY MAPLE GROVE PLYMOUTH BROOKLYN PARK CRYSTAL HANOVER NEW HOPE ROBBINSDALE CHAMPLIN DAYTON HASSAN OSSEO ROGERS 7601 Kentucky Avenue N. • Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 (612) 493 -2802 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2 -25 -91 Agenda hem Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *************************************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND BROOKLYN PEACEMAKER CENTER, INC. DEPT. APPROVAL: Personnel Coordinator Signatur - title ******************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • The City's 1991 budget has $5,000 allocated for Brooklyn Peacemaker Center Services (Unit 52- Social Services). To date, the City has not yet entered into a 1991 agreement with Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. Attached is an agreement and resolution authorizing the City to do so. The agreement is virtually identical to the terms of the 1990 agreement. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Pass a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into an Agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND BROOKLYN PEACEMAKER CENTER INC. WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has allocated $5,000 in the 1991 budget, Unit 52, Object 4420 for Brooklyn Peacemaker Center Services; WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc., are desirous of renewing an agreement for the provision of services from the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. The Council has reviewed the Agreement Between the City of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. and finds that the execution of the agreement is in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. 3. The City Manager is directed to transmit an executed copy of the agreement to Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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. AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER and BROOKLYN PEACEMAKER CENTER, INC. This Agreement is made the day of 1991, between the City of Brooklyn Center, hereinafter referred to as the City, and the Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc., hereinafter referred to as BPC; In consideration of the covenants set forth herein, the City and BPC agree as follows: Services Provided. BPC, within its financial resources, agrees to provide its full range of professional and volunteer services to the residents of the City including, without limitation, the following: a. Coordination services for citizens of Brooklyn Center needing assistance because of child abuse and domestic abuse. b. Juvenile diversion services for juveniles passing through the juvenile justice system, provided that the records and identity of the juveniles shall be provided to BPC pursuant to Minn. Stat. 260.161. C. Services to establish and maintain peer groups to deal with specific populations, such as troubled youth, who are experiencing conflict and turmoil in their lives. d. Services for referring individuals and families who are experiencing turmoil and conflict in their lives to the appropriate professional counselors. e. Such other services of a similar nature as may be assigned from time to time by the City Manager of the City and as agreed to by the BPC Board of Directors. Limitations and Report. BPC shall not compete with the City or other Social Agencies by providing services which overlap with services provided by the City or other Social Agencies unless such services can be provided more efficiently and effectively by BPC. BPC shall submit an annual report to the City outlining the services provided to the City during the preceding year. Liabilities. The City shall not exercise control of the process, means, or procedures used in providing services hereunder, shall provide no directive to, and shall not interfere with BPC or its employees or volunteers in the performance of the services required P q by this contract. BPC volunteers and employees shall not be considered employees of the City and shall be under the direct control of BPC. BPC agrees to indemnify the City and hold the City harmless from any tort liability, claim, demand or action including legal expenses, arising activities, and BPC shall sin out of BPC activit 11 carr g P g Y a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance, including contractual liability insurance, in an amount approved by the City to cover this agreement. BPC shall provide certificates of insurance to the City ith the signing t agreement. y g g of his ag men It is understood that this insurance requirement does not constitute all of the insurance that may be necessary. L� Duration. The services provided by BPC hereunder shall commence on the 1st day of January, 1991, and continue until December 31, 1991. It is understood between the parties that BPC intends to continue to provide similar services after expiration of this contract, as a volunteer organization. Nothing in this contract shall be construed to mean that the City shall renew this contract in the event that BPC continues to provide such services to the residents of the City Y of Brooklyn Center after expiration of this contract. Payment. The City agrees to pay the sum of Five Thousand ($5,000) Dollars for the services provided hereunder, for the term of the contract. The sum of $5,000 shall be the total obligation of the City under this contract d s a t as Y an hall be payable o BPC follows: $2,500 on March 26, 1991, and $2,500 on July 23, 1991, in order to provide the services required hereunder. In the event that BPC fails to provide the services hereunder, discontinues its operation, or otherwise breaches the contract in any material way, BPC shall refund to the City the amount determined by dividing the number of days remaining under this contract by 365 days and expressing the quotient in percentum and then multiplying the said percentum times the total contract price. In the event the quality of services required by this contract is not acceptable to the City, this agreement may be terminated. Miscellaneous. In an effort to improve the quality of services provided by this agreement, the City and BPC agree to exchange information and ideas, maintain open communication, and respond to all disputes, misunderstandings, and recommendations. The parties agree that this contract is not assignable and that the contract shall become effective upon approval by the BPC Board of Directors and the execution thereof by the President and Corporate Secretary, and upon the approval by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center and execution thereof by the Mayor and City Manager. The City shall be a corporate member of the BPC. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Mayor City Manager BROOKLYN PEACEMAKER CENTER, INC. President Corporate Secretary CITY F TER Council Meeting O BROOKLYN CENTER g Date 2 -25 -91 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING VACATION LEAVE BENEFITS FOR EARLE BROWN HERITAGE CENTER ASSISTANT MANAGER *************************************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Personnel Coordinator Signature - itle MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *************************************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • Earle Brown Heritage Center (EBHC) Assistant Manager Judith Bergeland had been earning vacation leave benefits as an employee of Earle Brown Farm Management. At the time the Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority (EDA) assumed management of EBHC, Ms. Bergeland was earning vacation leave benefits at the rate of three weeks per year. In order to allow Ms. Bergeland to continue earning three weeks of vacation annually, the city council is being asked to pass a resolution that would permit this. She would remain at the three weeks annual accrual rate until such benefits would increase further based on Chapter 17 of the City ordinances. REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Pass a Resolution Authorizing Vacation Leave Benefits for Earle Brown Heritage Center Assistant Manager. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING VACATION LEAVE BENEFITS FOR EARLE BROWN HERITAGE CENTER ASSISTANT MANAGER WHEREAS, the City Council determines it is appropriate to authorize certain vacation leave benefits for Earle Brown Heritage Center Assistant Manager Judith Bergeland based on the facts of her experience and level of vacation leave benefits earned as an employee of Earle Brown Farm Management. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City Manager is. hereby authorized to grant vacation accrual benefits for Earle Brown Heritage Center Assistant Manager Judith Bergeland to be earned at the rate of three weeks per year until such time when additional benefits accrue pursuant to Chapter 17 of the City ordinances. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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 �S p� Agenda hem Number 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO ADJUST FOR ANTICIPATED REDUCTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AIDS (LGA) ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ************************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Attached please find a copy of a proposed resolution listing $145,042 in 1991 budget cuts to accommodate the recent State Legislature and Governor approved LGA reductions to Brooklyn Center. These proposed cuts have been developed in conjunction with department heads and represent reductions in various departments. These budget adjustments include those programs • and funding frozen by the Council as a part of their approval of the 1991 budget. The major program which comes under this category is the forestry program, a total of which amounts to $57,000 in cuts. The following is a summary of the Local Aid cuts: Total 1991 Budget $11,007,585 Total 1991 Local Government $ 1,995,069 LGA as a percent of 1991 Budget 17.76% LGA dollar reduction $ 145,042 LGA reduction as % of 1991 Budget 1.32% RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the City Council give favorable consideration to the proposed list of budget adjustments to accommodate the loss of State Aid funds. J�U (DDD9IBA) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO ADJUST FOR ANTICIPATED REDUCTION OF LOGAL GOVERNMENT AIDS (LGA) ---------------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center does anticipate that its local government aid (LGA) to be received from the State of Minnesota in 1991 will be reduced by $145,042; and WHEREAS, in anticipation of that reduction, the City's operating departments have been asked to review their budgets and suggest budget reductions; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has proposed budget adjustments to the City Council based upon those suggestions; and WHEREAS, the City Council is in agreement with those adjustments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend the 1991 General Fund Budget as follows: 1. Decrease the Following Line Item Appropriations: ----------------------------------------------- City Council: Printing 01- 4350 - 000 -11 $ 350 City Manager's Office: Operating Supplies 01- 4220 - 000 -13 $ 400 Professional Services 01- 4310 - 000 -13 $ 3,650 Medical Services 01- 4314 - 000 -13 $ 1,000 Books and Pamphlets 01 -4417- 000 -13 $ 1,000 Assessor: Part -time Employees 01 -4130- 000 -15 $ 1,000 Finance Department: Professional Services 01 -4310- 000 -16 $ 300 Government Buildings Division: Gas Service 01- 4372 - 000 -19 $ 6,000 Janitorial Service 01 -4421- 000 -19 $ 4,000 Parking Lot Lights 01- 4520 - 000 -19 $ 5,400 Paint Interior, City Garage 01- 4520 - 000 -19 $ 18,300 Police Department: Printed Forms 01- 4212 - 000 -31 $ 1,000 Operating Supplies 01- 4220 - 000 -31 $ 3,000 Clothing 01- 4224 - 000 -31 $ 1,000 Legal Services 01- 4312 - 000 -31 $ 2,100 Employment Advertising 01 -4341- 000 -31 $ 500 Training 01 -4411- 000 -31 $ 2,000 Subscriptions 01 -4413- 000 -31 $ 800 Fire Department: Employees, Part -time 01 -4130- 000 -32 $ 7,795 Training 01 -4411- 000 -32 $ 500 Books and Pamphlets 01- 4417 - 000 -32 $ 500 Clothing 01- 4224 - 000 -32 $ 200 Operating Supplies 01- 4220 - 000 -32 $ 500 Professional Services 01- 4310 - 000 -32 $ 300 RESOLUTION N0. Engineering Division: Operating Supplies 01- 4220 - 000 -41 $ 250 Use of Personal Automobile 01- 4334 - 000 -41 $ 100 Dues and Subscriptions 01- 4413 - 000 -41 $ 275 Books and Pamphlets 01 -4417- 000 -41 $ 100 Overtime, Regular Employees 01 -4112- 000 -41 $ 1,500 Part -time Employees 01 -4130- 000 -41 $ 1,560 Street Maintenance Division: Part -time Employees 01- 4130 - 000 -42 $ 3,700 Waste Disposal 01- 4375 - 000 -42 $ 2,000 Other Contractual Services 01- 4420 - 000 -42 $ 1,000 Professional Services 01 -4310- 000 -42 $ 15,000 Reforestation 01- 4530 - 000 -42 $ 5,000 Traffic Signals: Contractual Repairs 01- 4380 - 000 -44 $ 500 Street Lighting: Other Equipment Repair 01- 4382 - 000 -45 $ 1,500 Planning and Inspection Department: Dues and Subscriptions 01- 4413 - 000 -33 $ 400 Recreation Department: Special Events, Community Center 01- 4220 - 379 -66 $ 2,900 Soccer Program, Salaries, P/T 01- 4130 - 333 -64 $ 3,044 Soccer Program, Oper. Supplies 01- 4220 - 333 -64 $ 456 Soccer Program, Prof. Services 01- 4310 - 333 -64 $ 700 Nature Program, Casual Labor 01- 4318 - 363 -65 $ 300 Nature Program, Oper. Supplies 01- 4220 - 363 -65 $ 150 Skating Rinks Salaries, P/T 01 -4130- 350 -65 $ 1,500 Parks Maintenance Department: Salaries, Full -time 01 -4100- 000 -69 $ 27,087 Athletic Field Supplies 01- 4244 - 000 -69 $ 2,000 Trailway Repair 01- 4246- 000 -69 $ 1,000 Parks Tree Trimming 01- 4427- 000 -69 $ 2,000 Parks Fertilizer Application 01- 4420 - 000 -69 $ 2,000 Parks Directional Signs 01- 4530 - 000 -69 $ 3,325 Garbage Receptacles 01- 4552 - 000 -69 $ 600 Total Line Item Appropriations Reductions $141,542 2. Increase or (Decrease) the Following Estimated Revenues: ------------------------------------------------------- Soccer Program 01- 3582 - 333 -64 ($ 3,000) North View Co -Rec and Dances 01- 3581 - 317 -63 $ 1,000 Sports Programs, Non - Residents 01- 3580 - 304 -62 $ 4,500 Social Hall Rental 01- 3584 - 394 -66 $ 1,000 Net Estimated Revenues Increases $ 3,500 3. Net Budget Reductions $145,042 RESOLUTION NO. 4. Decrease Estimated Revenue From Local Government Aid: ---------------------------------------------------- Local Government Aid (LGA) 01- 3350 - 000 -00 $145,042 Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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 • a r Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION RELATING TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM ( LOGIS): APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT DEPT. APPROVAL: �� W Director of Finance Signature - title r'' .r MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: A.� >� V 4� No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) I have attached a resolution which, if adopted by the City Council, would amend • the LOGIS Joint and Cooperative Agreement. LOGIS (Local Government Information Systems) is the joint powers entity, made up of twenty some cities, which provides data processing for.its member cities. The intent of the amendment is to protect member cities if one or more cities withdraw from the organization without sufficient notice. If the amendment is approved by all member cities, a member who has not given notice of withdrawal on or before June 15 of a given year is obligated for the budgeted revenues and cost sharing charges fixed by the Board for the ensuing fiscal year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the amendment. Under the current LOGIS agreement, if a city withdraws from the organization after the LOGIS annual budget had been approved - the other member cities may have to share a portion of the lost revenue that had been anticipated from the withdrawn city. The prior to June 15 notifica- cation date seems to be a reasonable deadline. It would probably take that long for a withdrawing city to make the conversion to a new system, so it should not cause a hardship for that city. SPECIFIC ACTION REQUIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Adopt the attached resolution amending the Joint Powers Agreement. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION RELATING TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM ( LOGIS): APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BE IT RESOLVED By the City of Brooklyn Center as follows: Section 1. Background: Findings. 1.01. The City is a regular member in good standing of Local Government Information Systems ( LOGIS). The City is a party to the joint and cooperative agreement (Agreement) under which LOGIS was formed and operates. The Agreement has been entered into by the City and the other members pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 (Act). 1.02. The Board of Directors of LOGIS have recommended that certain changes to the Agreement be made. Those changes are embodied in a proposed amendment to the Agreement (Amendment). A form of the proposed Amendment has been reviewed by this Council. The form of the proposed Amendment is on file with the City Clerk. 1.03. Under the Act the Amendment must be approved by all regular members of LOGIS to be effective. 1.04. It is found and determined that it is necessary and desirable for the orderly and efficient operation of LOGIS and the City that the Amendment be adopted. Sec. 2. Approvals: Authorization. 2.01. The form of the Amendment is approved. 2.02. The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Amendment on behalf of the City. The Clerk is authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution and the executed Amendment to the Executive Director of LOGIS. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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. MEM0RANDUN DATE: January 30, 1991 TO: LOGIS Board of Directors FROM: Mike Garris [i"j . SUBJECT: Amendment to LOGIS Joint and Cooperative Agreement On January 17, 1991 the LOGIS Board of Directors passed a resolution recommending an amendment to the LOGIS Joint and Cooperative Agreement. The final step in the process is to have each city approve and adopt this amendment. I have included with this memo three copies each of the proposed amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement and the resolution for submission to your city council. Upon approval, please return two signed copies each of the Resolution and Amendment to my office. I am requesting that all cities adopt this amendment by June 1, 1991. If you have any questions or need additional information, please give me a call. MG:pg Enclosures: AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT The parties to this Amendment No. 1 (Amendment) are governmental units of the State of Minnesota. This Amendment amends certain provisions of the Joint and Cooperative Agreement (Agreement), effective May 1, 1972 which created Local Government Information Systems ( LOGIS) and under which LOGIS operates. The Agreement and the Amendment are made and entered into pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59. Section 1. Article IX, Section 2 of the Agreement is amended in its entirety to read as follows: "Section 2. The annual budget of LOGIS must be adopted in the following manner: (a) annually prior to June 1 the Board will supply each member with a proposed preliminary budget; (b) annually prior to the annual meeting of the Board in July the Board will supply each member with a proposed budget adjusted for withdrawal notifications received pursuant to Article XII; (c) the annual budget must be adopted at the annual meeting of the Board in July. Promptly after adoption of the budget, the Board must mail copies of the budget to the chief administrative officer of each member. Upon adoption of the budget each member is obligated to LOGIS for the budgeted revenues and cost sharing charges fixed by the Board for the ensuing fiscal year in accordance with this Article." Sec. 2. Article XII is amended by adding a new Section 2 to read as follows: 'Section 2. A member who has not given notice of withdrawal on or before June 15 of a given year is obligated for the budgeted revenues and the cost sharing charges fixed by the Board for the ensuing fiscal year in accordance with Article IX." Sec. 3. This Amendment is effective on the date that identical Amendments and resolutions authorizing their execution have been filed in the office of the Executive Director of LOGIS. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned governmental unit has caused this Amendment to be executed on its behalf by its duly authorized officers as of 1991. CITY OF By — -- -- �— Its Mayor By _ Its Filed in the office of the Executive Director of LOGIS this day of 1991. Executive Director �� CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2/25/91 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR LANDSCAPING ON WEST RIVER ROAD BETWEEN 66TH AND 73RD AVENUES NORTH, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -25, CONTRACT 1991 -A ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIRtgTOR OWPUBLIC WORKS } MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: � No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached y,, ) On February 12, seven bids were received and opened for the proposed landscaping of ; West River Road from 66th to 73rd Avenues in accordance with plans and specifications as approved by the City Council on January 14, 1991. Attached hereto is SEH's evaluation and recommendations regarding these bids. In summary: • The lowest bid was submitted by Greenworks, Inc., a contractor who has satisfactorily completed landscape work at the Centerbrook Golf Course, and who is given "good" references by a number of clients for whom they have completed projects in the range of $100,000 to $450,000. • The "Base Bid" by each contractor is for basic landscape materials (seeding, bushes, plants, flowers, mulching, edging, etc.) and for the pine and spruce trees which are specified to be planted "balled and burlapped ". The "Alternate B" bid by each contractor covers the same plantings as "Alternate A except that it allows these plantings to be made on a "bare root" basis instead of "B and B Based on his experience, SEH's landscape architect has expressed a strong preference for using the "B and B'. In contrast, our Park Maintenance staff has had excellent experience with bare root plantings, so long as the planting is completed during the proper time of the year. Because this project was scheduled so as to assure planting during the optimal time of the year (the specifications require completion of all plantings by June 10, 1991) and because the total cost with bare root plantings would be $10,707 lower, City staff recommends acceptance of the bid from Greenworks, Inc., based on their "Base Bid plus Alternate B ", in the total amount of $63,604.26. It is noted that this amount relates to a project budget of $100,000. City Council Action Required A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. • AW ENGINEERS 1 ARCHITECTS NPLANNERS 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE, ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 612 490 -2000 February 20, 1991 RE: BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA WEST RIVER ROAD LANDSCAPING CITY PROJECT NO. 1990 -25 SEH FILE NO: 89160 Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Knapp: Bids were received for the above referenced project on March 12, 1991 at 11:00 a.m. Seven bids were received. Two alternates were included in the bid. Alternate A plus the Base Bid included deciduous trees and shrubs to be balled and burlapped. Alternate B included the Base Bid plus deciduous trees and shrubs to be installed bare root. The following is a summary of the Base Bid and Bid Alternate totals for the seven bids received. Contractor Base Bid + Alt. A Base Bid + Alt. B 1. Greenworks, Inc. $ 74,331.26 $ 63,604.26 2. Natural Green, Inc. $ 79,272.54 $ 71,542.54 3. MN Valley Landscape $ 82,864.40 $ 80,583.40 4. W. B. Miller, Inc. $ 79,679.20 $ 71,640.20 5. North Metro Landscaping $138,752.44 $122,689.44 6. Noble Nursery $ 84,598.04 $ 78,566.04 7. Hoffman & McNamara $102,185.04 $ 99,730.04 Engineer's Estimate $106,555.35 $ 99,405.35 Natural Green, Inc., Minnesota Valley Landscape and Hoffman & McNamara each misinterpreted the Addendum and crossed out the 4" deep shredded hardwood mulch quantity of 30,394 square feet and replaced it with 5,500 square feet. The bids were tabulated utilizing the correct quantity. Attached for your review is the bid tabulation for each item bid. SHORT ELLIOTT ST PAUL, CHIPPEWA FALLS, HENDRICKSON INC. MINNESOTA WISCONSIN Mr. Sy Knapp February 20, 1991 Page #2 The apparent low bidder is Greenworks, Inc. for both Alternate A and Alternate B. We have checked their references and found them capable of completing the work as specified. We therefore recommend award of the contract be made to Greenworks, Inc. C. J. Lilly, SEH's Landscape Architect, recommends that the balled and burlapped alternate be selected to reduce the mortality rate of the landscape materials and promote project success. Bare root materials have a narrower window for planting time and must be handled very carefully to avoid damage.to the roots. Bare root planting materials also usually have slower initial growth due to a smaller established root system. Your maintenance staff, however, has had experience planting bare root trees and feel they can be just as successful. We would be happy to discuss the pros and cons of the alternates with you and the City Council prior to award. Sincerely, Susan M. Mason, P.E. .;; SMM /cih Enclosure cc: All Bidders SNORT ELLIOTT - HENDRICKSON,INt BID TABULATION 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 WEST RIVER ROAD LANDSCAPING CITY PROJECT NO. 1990 -25 SEH FILE 89160 FEBRUARY 13, 1991 GREENWORKS, INC. NATURAL GREEN, INC. MN VALLEY LANDSCAPE W.B. MILLER, INC. EST. TOTAL EST. TOTAL EST. TOTAL EST. TOTAL ITEM EST. UNIT EST. UNIT EST. UNIT EST. UNIT EST. ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY. PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE BASE BID 0571.603 VINYL EDGING L.F. 1825 0.71 1,295.75 1.88 3,431.00 1.50 2,737.50 1.12 2,044.00 0571.604 WEED BARRIER FABRIC S.Y. 685 1.06 726.10 1.17 801.45 1.00 685.00 2.10 1,438.50 0571.604 2" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH S.F. 5700 0.19 1,083.00 0.25 1,425.00 0.25 1,425.00 0.20 1,140.00 0571.604 4" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH S.F. 30394 0.33 10,030.02 0.25 7,598.50 0.30 9,118.20 0.25 7,598.50 2571.501 5' AUSTRIAN PINE TREE 20 141.60 2,832.00 150.00 3,000.00 150.00 3,000.00 150.00 3,000.00 2571.501 5' BLACK HILLS SPRUCE TREE 62 141.60 8,779.20 150.00 9,300.00 140.00 8,680.00 140.00 8,680.00 2571.506 #1 POT ENGLEMAN IVY VINE 44 9.44 415.36 10.00 440.00 12.00 528.00 13.20 580.80 2571.506 #1 POT DROPMORE HONEYSUCKLE VINE 34 11.80 401.20 10.00 340.00 16.00 544.00 14.00 476.00 2571.506 #1 POT BOSTON IVY VINE 32 9.44 302.08 10.00 320.00 12.00 384.00 14.00 448.00 2571.507 4.5" POT COMMON ORANGE DAYLILY PLANT 1450 6.60 9,570.00 3.75 5,437.50 8.00 11,600.00 4.25 6,162.50 2571.507 2 -1/2" POT FLEECE FLOWER PLANT 1700 0.95 1,615.00 1.25 2,125.00 1.50 2,550.00 1.75 2,975.00 2575.501 SEEDING, NATIVE GRASS & WILDFLOWERS ACRE 0.87 900.00 783.00 5000.00 4,350,00 1440.00 1,252.80 4500.00 3,915.00 2575.502 SEED, NATIVE GRASS MIXTURE LB. 37.9 22.50 852.75 13.00 492.70 27.00 1,023.30 13.00 492.70 2575.502 SEED, WILDFLOWER MIXTURE OZ. 9.7 15.00 145.50 8.00 77.60 18.00 174.60 8.00 77.60 2575.505 SODDING, TYPE EROSION CONTROL S.Y. 100 2.50 250.00 3.89 389.00 5.00 500.00 2.00 200.00 2575.545 WEED SPRAYING ACRE 0.87 170.00 147.90 189.00 164.43 200.00 174.00 500.00 435.00 2575.547 WEED SPRAY MIXTURE GAL. 0.44 85.00 37.40 94.00 41.36 100.00 44.00 65.00 28.60 2575.555 SEED BED MAINTENANCE L.S. 1 800.00 800.00 1333.00 1,333.00 1000.00 1,000.00 1000.00 1,000.00 BASE BID SUBTOTAL 40,066.26 41,066.54 45,420.40 40,692.20 N. METRO LANDSCAPING NOBLE NURSERY,INC. HOFFMAN & MCNAMARA EST. TOTAL EST. TOTAL EST. TOTAL UNIT EST. UNIT EST. UNIT EST. PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE ------------------------ ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -------- ---- -- 1.65 3,011.25 1.00 1,825.00 1.20 2,190.00 2.00 1,370.00 1.20 822.00 1.20 822.00 2.00 11,400.00 0.13 741.00 0.50 2,850.00 2.00 60,788.00 0.26 7,902.44 0.90 27,354.60 170.00 3,400.00 125.00 2,500.00 140.00 2,800.00 160.00 9,920.00 150.00 9,300.00 140.00 8,680.00 8.50 374.00 12.00 528.00 15.00 660.00 9.50 323.00 12.00 408.00 15.00 510.00 8.50 272.00 12.00 384.00 15.00 480.00 4.00 5,800.00 6.00 8,700.00 4.00 5,800.00 2.60 4,420.00 4.00 6,800.00 1.00 1,700.00 420.00 365.40 3000.00 2,610.00 5000.00 4,350.00 11.30 428.27 44.00 1,667.60 13.00 492.70 1.60 15.52 50.00 485.00 8.00 77.60 1.30 130.00 3.00 300.00 2.75 275.00 200.00 174.00 700.00 609.00 150.00 130.50 225.00 99.00 400.00 176.00 150.00 66.00 800.00 800.00 3200.00 3,200.00 1300.00 1,300.00 103,090.44 48,958.04 60,538.40 BID TABULATION BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA WEST RIVER ROAD LANDSCAPING CITY PROJECT NO. 1990 -25 SEH FILE 89169 FEBRUARY 13, 1991 GREENWORKS, INC. NATURAL GREEN, INC. MN VALLEY LANDSCAPE W.B. MILLER, INC. EST. TOTAL EST. TOTAL EST. TOTAL EST. TOTAL ITEM EST. UNIT EST. UNIT EST. UNIT EST. UNIT EST. ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY. PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE ---_"-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALTERNATE BID A (BALLED & BURLAPPED TREES & POTTED SHRUBS) 2571.502 2" DIAM. SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST TREE 43 177.00 7,611.00 196.00 8,428.00 180.00 7,740.00 165.00 7,095.00 2571.502 2" DIAM. NORWAY MAPLE TREE 22 177.00 3,894.00 196.00 4,312.00 160.00 3,520.00 185.00 4,070.00 2571.502 2" DIAM. HACKBERRY TREE 23 177.00 4,071.00 196.00 4,508.00 160.00 3,680.00 220.00 5,060.00 2571.502 2" DIAM. SENTRY GINKGO TREE 12 259.00 3,108.00 276.00 3,312.00 220.00 2,640.00 210.00 2,520.00 2571.503 6'JAPANESE TREE LILAC TREE 9 165.00 1,485.00 150.00 1,350.00 120.00 1,080.00 95.00 855.00 2571.503 6' AMUR MAPLE TREE 11 165.00 1,815.00 138.00 1,518.00 152.00 1,672.00 140.00 1,540.00 2571.503 1 -1/2" DIAM. SNOW DRIFT CRAB TREE 9 153.00 1,377.00 138.00 1,242.00 120.00 1,080.00 135.00 1,215.00 2571.505 24" POT SMOOTH SUMAC SHRUB 400 9.44 3,776.00 12.00 4,800.00 16.00 6,400.00 15.00 6,000.00 2571.505 24" POT COMMON PURPLE LILAC SHRUB 448 11.00 4,928.00 14.00 6,272.00 16.00 7,168.00 17.25 7,728.00 2571.505 18" POT DWARF AMUR MAPLE SHRUB 88 14.00 1,232.00 14.00 1,232.00 16.00 1,408.00 16.00 1,408.00 2571.505 15" POT RUGOSA ROSE SHRUB 88 11.00 968.00 14.00 1,232.00 12.00 1,056.00 17.00 1,496.00 BID ALT. A SUBTOTAL 34,265.00 38,206.00 37,444.00 38,987.00 N. METRO LANDSCAPING NOBLE NURSERY,INC. HOFFMAN & MCNAMARA EST. TOTAL EST. TOTAL EST. TOTAL UNIT EST. UNIT EST. UNIT EST. PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE 170.00 7,310.00 140.00 6,020.00 175.00 7,525.00 215.00 4,730.00 140.00 3,080.00 175.00 3,850.00 200.00 4,600.00 140.00 3,220.00 170.00 3,910.00 200.00 2,400.00 250.00 3,000.00 250.00 3,000.00 140.00 1,260.00 145.00 1,305.00 170.00 1,530.00 140.00 1,540.00 145.00 1,595.00 170.00 1,870.00 130.00 1,170.00 100.00 900.00 170.00 1,530.00 9.25 3,700.00 15.00 6,000.00 18.00 7,200.00 13.50 6,048.00 17.00 7,616.00 18.00 8,064.00 18.00 1,584.00 17.00 1,496.00 18.00 1,584.00 15.00 1,320.00 16.00 1,408.00 18.00 1,584.00 35,662.00 35,640.00 41,647.00 BID TABULATION BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA WEST RIVER ROAD LANDSCAPING CITY PROJECT NO. 1990 -25 SEH FILE 89169 FEBRUARY 13, 1991 GREENWORKS, INC. NATURAL GREEN, INC. MN VALLEY LANDSCAPE W.B. MILLER, INC. EST. TOTAL EST. TOTAL EST. TOTAL EST. TOTAL ITEM EST. UNIT EST. UNIT EST. UNIT EST. UNIT EST. ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY. PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE ALTERNATE BID B (BARE ROOT TREES & SHRUBS) --------------- - 2571.502 2" DIAM. SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST TREE 43 106.00 4,558.00 168.00 7,224.00 180.00 7,740.00 145.00 6,235.00 2571.502 2" DIAM. NORWAY MAPLE TREE 22 106.00 2,332.00 168.00 3,696.00 158.00 3,476.00 145.00 3,190.00 2571.502 2" DIAM. HACKBERRY TREE 23 106.00 2,438.00 168.00 3,864.00 158.00 3,634.00 175.00 4,025.00 2571.502 2" DIAM. SENTRY GINKGO TREE 12 190.00 2,280.00 240.00 2,880.00 203.00 2,436.00 175.00 2,100.00 2571.503 6'JAPANESE TREE LILAC TREE 9 130.00 1,170.00 48.00 432.00 113.00 1,017.00 80.00 720.00 2571.503 6' AMUR MAPLE TREE 11 130.00 1,430.00 48.00 528.00 113.00 1,243.00 85.00 935.00 2571.503 1 -1/2" DIAM. SNOW DRIFT CRAB TREE 9 94.00 846.00 60.00 540.00 113.00 1,017.00 95.00 855.00 2571.505 24" POT SMOOTH SUMAC SHRUB 400 5.72 2,288.00 10.00 4,000.00 14.00 5,600.00 13.00 5,200.00 2571.505 24" POT COMMON PURPLE LILAC SHRUB 448 10.00 4,480.00 12.00 5,376.00 14.00 6,272.00 12.25 5,488.00 2571.505 18" POT DWARF AMUR MAPLE SHRUB 88 10.00 880.00 12.00 1,056.00 17.00 1,496.00 13.00 1,144.00 2571.505 15" POT RUGOSA ROSE SHRUB 88 9.50 836.00 10.00 880.00 14.00 1,232.00 12.00 1,056.00 BID ALT. B SUBTOTAL 23,538.00 30,476.00 35,163.00 30,948.00 BASE BID + BID ALT. A TOTAL 74,331.26 79,272.54 82,864.40 79,679.20 BASE BID + BID ALT. B TOTAL 63,604.26 71,542.54 80,583.40 71,640.20 N. METRO LANDSCAPING NOBLE NURSERY,INC. HOFFMAN & MCNAMARA EST. TOTAL EST. TOTAL EST. TOTAL UNIT EST. UNIT EST. UNIT EST. PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE ---- ---- ---- -- -- -- -- ---- ---- ---- ---- -- i 68.00 2,924.00 125.00 5,375.00 150.00 6,450.00 80.00 1,760.00 100.00 2,200.00 135.00 2,970.00 95.00 2,185.00 125.00 2,875.00 170.00 3,910.00 95.00 1,140.00 250.00 3,000.00 250.00 3,000.00 85.00 765.00 95.00 855.00 170.00 1,530.00 95.00 1,045.00 95.00 1,045.00 145.00 1,595.00 80.00 720.00 90.00 810.00 14 5. 00 1,305.00 8.50 3,400.00 12.00 4,800.00 18.00 7,200.00 9.00 4,032.00 14.00 6,272.00 18.00 8,064.00 10.00 880.00 14.00 1,232.00 18.00 1,584.00 8.50 748.00 13.00 1,144.00 18.00 1,584.00 19,599.00 29,608.00 39,192.00 138,752.44 84,598.04 102,185.40 122,689.44 78,566.04 0 99 730. , 4 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR LANDSCAPING ON WEST RIVER ROAD BETWEEN 66TH AND 73RD AVENUES NORTH, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -25, CONTRACT 1991 -A WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1990 -25, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the Deputy Clerk and City Engineer, on the 12th day of February, 1991. Said bids were as follows: Contractor Base Bid + Alt A Base Bid + Alt B Greenworks, Inc. $ 74,331.26 $ 63,604.26 Natural Green, Inc. 79,272.54 71,542.54 MN Valley Landscape 82,864.40 80,583.40 W.B. Miller, Inc. 79,679.20 71,640.20 North Metro Landscaping 138,752.44 122,689.44 Noble Nursery 84,598.04 78,566.04 Hoffman & McNamara 102,185.04 99,730.04 Engineer's Estimate 106,555.35 99,405.35 WHEREAS, it appears that Greenworks, Inc. of Loretto, Minnesota, is the lowest possible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract with Greenworks, Inc. of Loretto, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1990 -25 for the base bid plus Alternate B in the total amount of $63,604.26, according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the Deputy Clerk. 2. The deputy clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. 3. All costs relating to this improvement shall be charged to the Municipal State Aid Street Fund, Account No. 2611. RESOLUTION N0. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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 2/25/91 Agenda Item Number "J REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR 69TH AVENUE RIGHT -OF -WAY, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy APP, DIRECT0A OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW jRECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Evergreen Land Services has negotiated purchase agreements with the property owners at 3618 and 3812 69th Avenue North. These agreements are based on appraised values of: John & Mary Heitzig, 3618 69th Avenue - $76,000 and Carla Rathmanner, 3812 69th Avenue - $75,000. These offers are acceptable to the property owners,'and they have signed the agreements. Ms. Rathmanner's closing is scheduled for March 18, 1991. The City Attorney is working with Evergreen and Public Works staff to review and finalize all details. Previous Council Action The Council on May 7, 1990 approved a resolution which provided for the negotiated purchase of real property for project 1990 -10. This resolution authorized the City Manager to negotiate with the owners of the properties to be acquired for this project, and directed him to offer to the owners the amount determined by appraisal and review appraisal. Such purchase agreements are subject to approval and ratification by the City Council. City Council Recommendation As all parties agree to the sale of the properties for their appraised value, a resolution is provided that approves and ratifies the purchase agreements. With these agreements, the City has reached agreements with 17 of the 23 residential property owners. • U Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR 69TH AVENUE RIGHT -OF -WAY, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 90 -66 adopted on March 26, 1990, the City Council ordered the reconstruction of 69th Avenue between Noble Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway, Improvement No. 1990 -10; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 90 -84 adopted on April 23, 1990, the City Council approved a right -of -way plan depicting properties to be acquired for the project; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 90 -95 adopted on May 7, 1990, the City Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate the purchase of these properties, and directed the City Manager to offer to the property owners the amount determined by appraisal and review appraisal; and WHEREAS, the owners of the property at 3618 69th Avenue have accepted the City Manager's offer of the appraised value, and have executed a purchase agreement to that effect; and WHEREAS, the owner of the property at 3812 69th Avenue has accepted the City Manager's offer of the appraised value, and has executed a purchase agreement to that effect; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The terms of the purchase agreements are hereby approved. 2. The City Manager is directed to proceed with the purchase of the properties at 3618 and 3812 69th Avenue North. 3. The City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute the purchase agreements. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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 2/25/91 Agenda Item Number 3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1990 -C (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -07, LIFT STATIONS NO. 4, 5 AND 7) 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 ) • Contract 1990 -C, Lift Stations No. 4, 5 and 7, (Improvement Project No. 1989 -07) has been completed by 0 & P Contracting, Inc. The City Council accepted the proposal per Resolution No. 90 -83 and a contract was subsequently executed. Due to an overestimation of quantities, the actual value of work performed is $ 228,529.13, or $ 1,514.34 less than the original contract amount plus approved change order(s). Accordingly, staff recommends acceptance of the work performed and authorization to make final payment. City Council Action Required Adopt the attached resolution. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1990 -C (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -07, LIFT STATIONS NO. 4, 5 AND 7) WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, 0 & P Contracting, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: LIFT STATIONS NO. 4, 5 AND 7 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -07 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: Original Contract and Approved As Ordered Change Orders Final Amount Construction Cost $ 217,740.00 $ 230,043.47 $ 228,529.13 Contingency 32,670.00 - - -- - - -- Easement Acquisition 2,000.00 1,960.00 1,960.00 Engineering (8%) 20,030.00 18,403.48 18,282.33 Administration (1 %) 2,500.00 2,300.43 2,285.29 Legal (1 %) 2,500.00 2,300.43 2,285.29 Interest (10 %) 25,060.00 23,004.35 22,852.91 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 302,500.00 $ 278,012.16 $ 276,194.95 2. The value of work actually performed is less than the original contract value plus approved change orders by $ 1,514.34, due to a minor overestimation of quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $228,529.13. RESOLUTION NO. Date Todd Paulson Mayor > Y ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded b P g g Y Y 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 2/25/91 Agenda Item Number 13 j REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1990 -F, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -02, WELL NO. 10 ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) Contract 1990 -F, Well No. 10 (drilling), Improvement Project No. 1990 -02 has been completed by Bergerson - Caswell, Inc. The City Council accepted the bid per Res. No. 90 -132 and a contract was subsequently executed in the amount of $98,990.00. Due to the unpredictable nature of the work to be performed, i.e. well drilling, the contract with Bergerson - Caswell was set -up (by Black & Veatch) to allow for substantial increases or decreases in various contract items. In this way, the Contractor is guaranteed fair compensation and the City is protected from paying a higher price for the pay items which were accurately estimated in the Contract. In this project, the pay item for sandstone removed from the well cavity exceeded the estimated quantity and resulted in a $ 21,975.00 overrun. The additional sandstone removal (well development) was necessary to ensure that the well would provide its design capacity. There were also minor adjustments (adds and deducts) to the other pay items in the Contract. Accordingly, Change Order No. 1 has been developed to reconcile the final construction quantities, and a copy has been attached for reference. We also recommend that the completion time for the contract be extended 45 days due to major delays which resulted from occurrences and circumstances which were beyond the control of the contractor (i.e. - a fractured geologic formation was encountered which required more than twice the estimated time to drill through). Due to the above - described underestimation of quantities in the original contract, the actual value of work performed, $126,462.22, is $27,472.22 more than the original contract amount. It is noted, however, that the original construction cost estimate for both contracts of the Well No. 10 project (drilling and wellhouse) was $555,000.00. Combining the final cost for the drilling contract ($ 126,462.22) with the authorized value of the wellhouse contract ($ 402,420.00) yields a total of $ 528,882.22, or $ 26,118 less than the estimated construction cost for Well No. 10. Accordingly, staff recommends acceptance of the work performed and requests authorization to make final payment for the well drilling contract. City Council Action Required Adopt the attached resolution. BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA WATER WORKS IMPROVEMENTS BROOKLYN CENTER CONTRACT NO. 1990 -F IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -02 WATER SUPPLY WELL NO. 10 CONTRACT NO. 1 - WELL CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 - FINAL I. SCOPE This Change Order No. 1 will adjust the Contract Price to account for the actual quantities used in the well construction and will adjust the Contract Time. II. CHANGE ORDER ITEMS A. ADJUSTED FINAL QUANTITIES The actual quantities used in construction of the well varied from the bid quantities, and the Contract Price shall be adjusted in accordance with the Contract Documents using the Adjustment Unit Prices named in the Bid Form. B. EXTENSION OF CONTRACT TIME The Contract Time for substantial completion and final completion shall be extended by 45 days to cover- delays due to unanticipated occurrences and circumstances beyond the Contractor's control during the well construction. This time extension revises the time for substantial and final completions to 135 days and 145 days, respectively. The revised substantial and final completion dates are December 6, 1990, and December 15, 1990, respectively. III. CHANGE IN CONTRACT AMOUNT Adjustments to the Contract Price resulting from the aforementioned items shall be the following prices based on the Adjustment Unit Prices named in the Bid Form: Bid Actual Change in Adjustment Item. Unit Quantity Quantit Quantity Unit Price Amount A. Adjusted Final Quantities 1. Drive pipe 120 107.67 (12.33) 66.00 (813.78) construction, LF 2. Cased well bore 130 139.33 9.33 50.00 466.50 construction, LF W3JAG010191 C01-1 Bid Actual Change in Adjustment Item, Unit Quantitv Quantit Quantity Unit Price Amount $ $ 3. Open well bore 75 72 (3) 40.00 (120.00) construction, LF 4. Cement used for 600 1,764 1,164 4.00 4,656.00 grouting, sack 5. Explosives, pound 500 282 (218) 3.00 (654.00) 6. Air development, hr 30 49.75 19.75 150.00 2,962.50 7. Sandstone 600 746.5 146.5 150.00 21,975.00 removed, CY 8. Test pumping 36 28 (8) 125.00 (1,000.00) duration, hour Subtotal $27,472.22 B. Extension of Contract Time No Change TOTAL - Change Order No. 1 $27,472.22 The net change to the Contract Price is summarized as follows: Current Contract Price $ 98,990.00 Change Order No. 1 $ 27,472.22 New Contract Price $126,462.22 IV. CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME The time for substantial and final completion as specified on Page BF -2 of the Bid Form shall be revised to 135 days and 145 days, respectively. V. ACCEPTANCE The changes and conditions set forth in this Change Order No. 1 are hereby accepted. All other provisions of the Contract remain unchanged. BERGERSON- CASWELL INC. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MN (Contractor) (Owner) By: By Date: Date: W3JAG010791 C01 -2 /3; Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1990 -F, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -02, WELL NO. 10 WHEREAS, the City Council entered into Contract 1990 -F with Bergerson- Caswell, Inc. for the construction of Improvement Project No. 1990 -02, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has determined that certain additional items of work should be added to the existing contract, and that the contract time for completion of the work should be extended for 45 days; and WHEREAS, the Contractor, Bergerson - Caswell, Inc. has agreed to the prices and quantities for said additional work; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Bergerson- Caswell, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: WELL NO. 10 (DRILLING) IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -02 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Change Order No. 1, Contract 1990 -F, as prepared by the City Engineer, which provides for a net increase in contract costs of $ 27,472.22 and which provides for a 45 day extension of the completion date, is hereby approved. 2. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: Per Change Order No. 1 As Approved And Final Original Contract $98,990.00 $126,462.22 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $126,462.22. 4. All financing for Improvement Project No. 1990 -02, Well No. 10 (Drilling), Contract 1990 -F, shall be from the Public Utilities Fund. RESOLUTION NO. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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 Cound! Meeting Date Agenda Item Number j REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION - (�DDDRIC ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AWARDING COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CONTRACT DEPT. APPROVAL: Director of Finance Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: s No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _) I, together with the City's insurance agent and risk management consultant, have completed negotiations with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) for the renewal of the City's comprehensive municipal property and casualty insurance coverage for 1991. The annual premium, compared to the 1990 premium is as follows: 1991 1990 Net Net Percent Coverage Premium Premium Increase Increase -------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Property $ 26,192 $ 26,176 $ 16 0.06% Inland Marine 6,097 6,774 (677) -9.99% General Liability 74,260 72,877 1,383 1.90% Errors /Omissions Liability (For Public Officials) 10,781 10,035 746 7.43% Automobile Liability 27,904 31,009 (3,105) - 10.01% Automobile Physical Damage 13,925 13,119 806 6.14% Bonds 4,837 4,693 144 3.07% Crime (Money & Securities) 1,182 1,313 (131) -9.98% - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Total Premium $ 165,178 $ 165,996 $ (818) - 0.49% All premiums are shown net (no commissions) because the City has an agreement with BHK &R Insurance Agency for agent services on a flat "fee for services" basis rather then paying them a commission based on premium. The City realizes a considerable saving on this arrangement. I will detail the amount of savings later in this memo. The total premium for the comprehensive municipal casualty and property insurance coverage is nearly the same as the 1990 premium. This despite the fact that property values have increased and expenditures, which are used for rating liability premium, also increased. l3� Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AWARDING COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CONTRACT ---------------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, the Director of Finance and the City's Insurance Agent have negotiated an annual renewal premium for the City's comprehensive municipal property and casualty insurance coverage for the period from January 1, 1991 to January 1, 1992 and it is as follows: League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) -------------------------------------------------- Property $ 26,192 Inland Marine 6,097 General Liability 74,260 Errors and Omissions 10,781 Automobile Liability 27,029 UN /UIM 875 Automobile Physical Damage 13,925 Crime 1,182 Bonds -- - 4,837 Total Annual Premium $165 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to: 1. Accept the negotiated insurance renewal and award the contract as stated. 2. Designate the Brandow Howard Kohler & Rosenbloom, Inc. (BHK &R) Agency as the agent of record for said insurance. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION FROM PAUL W. HOLMLUND CONTINUED I have attached a memorandum from our independent insurance consultant which shows our insurance program and compares premiums between 1990 and 1991. The City will save $14,961 in 1991 due to the "fee for service" contract entered into with BHK &R over what would have been paid through the commission system. The detail of the savings follows: Commi- Annual ssion Commi- Type of Insurance Premium Rate ssion ------------------------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- Comprehensive Municipal Casualty & Property $ 160,341 10.00% 16,034 Bonds 4,837 10.00% 484 Boiler and Machinery 2,854 16.00% 457 Liquor Liability 23,360 10.00% 2,336 Worker's Compensation 212,511 2.00% 4,250 -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- $ 403,903 $ 23,561 Less "Fee For Service" Agreement 8,600 Amount Saved $ 14,961 ------ - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ------------ -- - - - - -- STAFF - RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City accepts the negotiated insurance renewal and award the contract for comprehensive municipal property and casualty insurance coverage to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) and designate Brandow Howard Kohler & Rosenbloom, Inc. (BHK &R) as the agent of record for said insurance contract. SPECIFIC ACTION REQUIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL -------------------------------------------- Adopt the attached resolution awarding comprehensive municipal property and casualty insurance contract. North Star Risk Services, Inc. David Howard Date: January 29, 1991 BHK & R Olympic Place RE: CITY OF BROOKLYN CEN 7825 Washington Ave. South Eff. Date: 1 -1 -91 Bloomington, MN 55435 RENEWAL PREMIUM SUMMARY AND BINDER PROPERTY $26,192. INLAND MARINE $6,097. GENERAL LIABILITY $74,260. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS $10,781. AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY $27,029. UN /UIM $875. AUTOMOBILE PHYSICAL DAMAGE $13,925. CRIME $1,182. BONDS 4 837. TOTAL $165,178. REMARKS: DO NOT PAY UNTIL YOU RECEIVE INVOICES! Renewal coverage is bound up to 60 days pending issuance of renewal based on L.M.C.I.T. forms and practices in effect on renewal date. CPS � Sincerely, 3/88 1401 West 76th Street, Suite 500 ■ Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423 ■ (612) 861 -8600 ■ FAX (612) 861 -8643 A Member of Berkley isk M a nag ement Services Gro eY �8 P Risk Management Consultants Northwest Business Campus American Risk Services, tic. 3033 Campus Drive Suite A 418 Minneapolis, MN 55441 -2620 February 7, 1991 (612) 559 -7300 Mr. Paul W. Holmlund Director of Finance City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 RE: Insurance Program 1 -1 -91/92 Dear Paul: For your assistance I am enclosing spreadsheets showing the current insurance program and the proposed program for the new term. The total premiums have increased 8 %, however, reviewing the various exposures the Property coverage limits increased by 9 %, Contractor's Equipment increased by 9% yet these premiums remained approximately the same as last year. The Public Official and Police Professional premiums increased by 7% which, unfortunately, extends the problems the League of Minnesota Cities is having with this type of exposure on an overall basis. The Ceneral Liability premiums were increased by 2 %, however, the exposures have increased. Automobile premiums were reduced by 5% even though the vehicles increased by 5 %. The largest increase is in the Liquor Liability coverage. With almost the same gross revenues the premiums have increased 17% and we still need to add the golf course exposure during the Summer months. Worker's Compensation premiums increased 14 %, however, the payrolls increased 9% and, unfortunately, the Experience Modifier increased 10 %. The quotation spreadsheets show the premiums for Umbrella Liability both with a Waiver of Immunity. It is our opinion that the premium is very high for the exposure and with the legal counsel's interpretation of your liability on the Earle Brown Heritage Center I question the desirability of purchasing this coverage. It has been my opinion that the City of Brooklyn Center should entertain higher deductible limits with an aggregate on the deductible. I am in the American Risk Services, Inc. Mr. Paul W. Holmlund February 7 1991 City of Brooklyn Center Page Two process of analyzing this to show you exactly what the savings would be and what the expenses would be on the City's part based on your last Five Years Experience. I will furnish this to you shortly. Paul, I hope this information is self - explanatory and if you do have any questions, please let me know. Si e ely, &L ohn R. Simacek Vice President Enclosure cc: David Howard B.H.K.& R. (with enclosures) 104:2 4- Feb -91 Page 1 CITY OF BFtC)(= )KLYN (RENTER Subject of Insurance: Gurrent Pro-gram: Proposed Program: Percentage of Change: PROPERTY Insurer: L.M.GJ.T. L.M.G_!.T_ Real Property: included 20,879,400 Personal Property: included 8,157,000 Blanket Limit: 21,986,000 24,036,400 9.3 3 !Ab Agreed Amount: included included Replacement Cost: included included Extra Expense: 1,000 1,000 0.00% Limitation: None None Builders Risk Coverage: Included Included Deductible: per claim: 1,000 1,000 aggregate: 0 0 Sub Total Premium: 26,176 26,192 0= /c VALUABLE PAPERS O nsurer: Limit: 500 500 0'?/? Deductible: per claim: 1,000 1,000 aggregate: 0 0 Sub Total Premium: included included INLAND MARINE Insurer: L.M _G.I.T. L_M.t;_I.T_ Gorrtractors Egt"ern Lunt: 872,558 948,741 9010 Deductible: per claim: 1,000 1,000 ag9reg3te: 0 0 Miscellaneous Equi€rmern Limit: 121,000 121,000 0 M Voting Mac nine -s Limit: 65,000 65,000 0' =l0 Deductible: per claim: 1,000 1,000 aggregate: 0 0 Sub Total Premium: 6,774 6.097 10 LAO Prepared by: American Risk Services, Inc. 07 -Feb-91 Page2 C|TV(]F BROOKLYN CENTER �^`�'''�����''��'^``````````````````````````` ��� Su�e�of|nsunxnue Curren Pr"qra=: Percentage DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT of Change: Insurer: L]N/C]]r. L]N.C]T. c Limit: uov. under prop. uov. under prop. Deductible: per claim: 1.000 1.000 aggregate: O O Sub Total Premium: included - included PUBLIC OFFICIAL LIABILITY: Insurer: LW1.C]][. LyN.CJT. ^Cvc:unenoe^or 'Claims W1ade^ Claims Made Claims Made Ret,o Ac Date: 1-1-87 1-1-87 Limit: 600,000 600.000 Deductible: per claim: 5.000 5.000 O O Wlude Coveraqe for: Housing Redevelopment Authority: Included |nu|uaea Economic Development Authority: Included Included Sub Total Premium: 10.O35 10.781 70h POLICE PpOFESSN3t4AL: Liability Limit: 600.000 600.000 "Occurrence' or 'Claims Made: Claims Made Claims Ma R,t,o Ac Date: 1-1-87 1-1-87 Deductible: per claim: 5.000 5.000 aggre9ate: u o Sub Total Premium: Included Included Prepared by: American Risk Services, Inc. 46 7- Feb -91 Page 3 CITY (-)F BRO( -)KLYN CENTER 3 .....:...... . . Subject of Insurance: Current Proqram: Proposed Program Percentage of Ghange: GFUME Insurer: United Fire li Casualty United Fire & Casualty A_M.Best P,atinq: Employee Dishonesty: Ur faitWulf Performance: 100,000 100,000 Depositors Forgery: 100,000 100,000 Sub Premium: 4,693 4,837 3 : Broad Form Money & Securities Insurer: Inside Limit: Liquor Stores: 15,000 15,000 City Hall: 5,000 5,000 Civic Center: 10,000 10,000 Outside Limit: Liquor Stores: 15,000 15,000 City Hall: 5,000 5,000 O Civic Center: 5,000 5,000 eductible: 250 250 Sub Premium: 1,313 1,182 - 10 =' /0 Sub Total Premium: 6,006 6,019 0^fo Prepared by: American Risk Services, Inc. 07- Feb -91 Pacle 4 CITY t-1F BROOKLYN CENTER ...... ............................... ........ ...... ..... ............................... ....................... Subject of Insurance: Current Program: Proposed Program: Percentage of Change: GEN ERAL LIABILITY Insurer: L_M.CJ.T. L.M.C.I.T. Liability Limit: 600,000 600,000 Aggregate: 600,000 600,000 "Occurrence' or "Claims Made" Claims Made Claims Made Retro Active Date: 1 -1 -87 1 -1 -87 Limited Polution Liability: Retroactive Date: 1 -1 -89 1 -1 -89 Deductible: per claim, Property Damage: 250 250 aggregate: 0 0 Premises/Operations: Expenditures: 10 -1 HMO Recreation Center: 38,934 291,000 647% Golf Course: 206,964 224,858 9 0 /0 Liquor Store: 2,569,735 2,500,000 -3C/o Products /Completed Operations: gallonage: 1,776,248,900 1,776,248,900 0 0 /0 eluded H.RA. Add'l_ Insd. Included Included EARLE BROWN HERPoTAGE CENTER: Receipts: Bed & Breakfast: 60,000 Banquet & Convention: 190,000 Office Space Square Footage: 17,950 Sub Total Premium: 72,877 74,260 2C /0 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COV_ "Occurrence" or "Claims Made' Claims Made Claims Made Retro Active Date: 1 -1 -88 1 -1 -88 Liability Limit: 600,000 600,000 Deductible: per claim: 0 0 aggregate: 0 0 Sub Total Premium: included included Prepared by: American Risk.. Services, Inc. 't 07- Feb -91 Page 5 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ............................. ............................... ... ............................... Subject of Insurance: Current Proq-am: l Proposed Program: 4 Percentage of Change: AUTOMOBILE Insurer: L.M.C.I_T_ LM.C.I_T_ "Occurrence" or "Claims Made" Occurrence Occurrence Liability Limit: 600,000 600,000 Deductible: per claim: 0 0 aggregate: 0 0 Uninsured Motorist: 600,000 600,000 Underinsured Motorist: 600,000 600,000 Basic PIP: included included Comprehensive Deductible 250 250 Collision Deductible 500 500 Number of Vehicles: 76 80 5 0 /0 Liability Premium: 29,551 27,904 Physical Damaqe Premium: 14,577 13,925 Sub Total Premium: 44,128 41,829 -5 to &OILER and MACHINERY Insurer: Hartford Steam Boiler Hartford Steam Boiler A_M.Best Ratinq: A+ A+ Limit Per Accident: 3,000,000 000,000 Equipment Covered: 2 locations 2 locations Repair or Replace: Deductible: 1,000 1,000 Business Interruption: Annual income: Not Covered Not Covered Deductible: Sub Total Premium: 1,816 2,854 57/0 Prepared by: American Risk. Services. Inc. i 07- Feb -91 Paqe 6 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER �ns.Q.ranci? i t�. rani: : : .......... 1 Current Pro gram: Subje of Insurance: g L Proposed Program: Percentage UQUOR LIABILITY: of Change: Insurer: Transcontinental ins. Co. Transcontinental A_tv1_Best Rating: A+ A+ XV Liability Limits: Bodily Injury: Each Person: 1,000,000 1,000,000 Each Occurrence: 1,000,000 1,000,000 Property Damaqe: Each Occurrence: 1,000,000 1,000,000 Loss of gleans of Support: Each Person: 1 1,000,000 Each Occurrence: 1,000,000 1,000,000 Aggrecfate Limit: 1,000,000 1 Humboh Liquor #1 Receipts: 800,000 800,000 0' /0 Rate: 0.81 1.08 33'=/0 Premium: 5,832 8,640 4 8 Wo Boulevard Liquor #2 Receipts: 700,000 800,000 14th Rate: 0.61 0.92 14''/0 Premium: 5,670 7,360 30c10 Northbrook Liquor #3 Receipts: 700,000 800,000 1410 Rate: 0.81 0.92 14 Premium: 5,670 7,360 30�An Golf Course: Receipts: 10,000 -100'L Rate: 6.83 - 100 Premium: 2,737 0 - 100' /0 Sub Total Premium: 19,909 23,360 17/0 Prepared by: American Risk Services, Inc. 07- Feb -91 Page 7 0 CITY (DIF Blit -it- KLYN CENTER Subject of Insurance: Current Proqram: l Proposed Program: Percentaqe of Change: VVORKERS' Ci9MPENSATION: Insurer: L.M- C -I -T. L- M.G -I.T. Limits: Coverage A -: Statutory Statutory Coverage B- (Employers Liab.): Bodily Injury: Per Employee: 200,000 200,000 Per Accident: 600,000 600,000 Bodily Injury by Disease: Per Employee: 2 200,000 Per Accident: 600,000 600,000 Retrospective Ratinq Proqram: No No Payroll: 4,715,040 5,140;230 9 Experierice Modifier: 0.83 0.91 10 =Y0 Sub Total Premium: 186,129 212,511 1410 UM ! I A LIABILITY Insurer: L- M.G.1.T. L.M.G.I.T. Limits: Per Occurance: 1,000,000 1,000,000 Aggreqate: 1,000,000 1,000,000 Self Insured Retention: 10,000 10,000 'Occurrence" or 'Claims Made': "Claims Made" ° Claims Made' Sub Total Premium: With Waiver of Immunity: 70,996 89,789 26 With Out Waiver of Immunity: 57,720 64,382 12 ' AGENT'S `FEE FOR SERVICE - : 8200 8.600 5 /b --------------------------- - - - - -- ------------------ - - -- -- --------------- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- TOTAL PREMIUM: Wo Umbrelt 382,050 1 412,503 I 8 0 J? TOTAL PREMIUM: with Umbrella 43 476,855 8"10 0 Prepared by: American Risk: Services, Inc - r 07- Feb -91 ACCOUNT; CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER INSURER,: LEAGUE OF MN. CITIES INSURANCE TRUST REGARDING: WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE POLICY TERM: January 1, 1991192 CLASSIFICATIONS: CODE: 1 PAYROLL RATE PREMIUM ( PAYROLL RATE - REMIUM 1 1990!91 1 1991, 92 1 ----------------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- 1 Street or Road Construction 5506 320,000 9.32 29,824 1 327,000 9.79 32,013 1 Waterworks 7520 1 180,000 3.71 6,678 1 223,000 3.90 8,697 Firefighters (Volunteer) 7708 ( 31,230 89.27 27,879 1 31,230 93.73 29,272 1 Firefighters (Not Volunteer) 7706 1 1 41,000 11.36 4,658 1 Policemen 7720 1 1,096,000 5.22 57,211 1 1,342,000 5.48 73,542 1 Store Risk, Retail (Off Sale Liquor) 8017 1 226,000 2.83 6,396 1 227,000 .2.97 6,742 1 City Shop and Yard 8227 j 105,000 4.46 4,683 1 112,000 4.68 5,242 1 Clerical Office 8810 i 919,000 0.45 4,136 I 967,000 0.47 4,545 1 Buildinq Operations 9015 1 409,000 11.44 46,790 1 196,000 12.01 23,540 1 City Ice Arena 9016 0 1 I Parks 9102 1 659,000 5.77 38,024 1 802,000 6.06 48,601 1 Street Cleaninq/Snow Removal 9402 1 74,000 6.99 5,173 1 Municipal Employees 9410 1 626,000 3-35 20,971 1 763,000 3.52 26,858 1 Club - Gountryfgoff 9060 ( 78,000 2.66 2,075 ( 89,000 2.79 2,483 1 Elected or Appointed Officials 9411 J 23,040 3.35 772 1 20,000 3.52 704 i I i i Total Payroll 1 4,715,040 250,611 1 5,140,230 266,895 1 Experience Modifier 1 0.83 208,007 1 0.91 242,875 1 Premium Discount 1 (21,878 7 1 t�s,o�7) I 1 1 1 1 186,129 1 21 6,848 1 L.M.C_I.T_ Discount: ( 0.00 0 1 0.00 1 1 I 1 TOTAL ANNUAL PREMIUM ( 186,129 I 216,848 1 Prepared by: American Risk Services, Inc. 1� Licenses to be approved by the City Council on February 25, 1991 , -- BULK VENDOR K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr. Sanitarian r f NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Hub Vending, Inc. 6123 Aldrich Ave. N. Johnson Controls 1801 67th Avenue N. K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Drive NSI /Griswold Corporation 8300 10th Avenue N. Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd. Lynbrook Bowl 6357 North Lilac Dr. Travelers North 6601 Shingle Crk. Pky. Sanitarian G?= PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES I C.D. Flodstrom 5200 77th Avenue N. Firestone 5445 Xerxes Avenue N. Razor Court 5740 Brooklyn Blvd. NSI /Griswold Corporation 8300 10th Avenue N. f /� Travelers North 6601 Shingle Crk. Pky. Sanitarian C,= i 1 SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT Betty Varcoe /Gift Shop, Too 974 Rice Street Terrace Days Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. Kohl's Department Store 2501 County Road 10 Maid of Scandinavia Company 5717 Xerxes Avenue N. ) /� Paper Warehouse 5900 Shingle Creek Pky. f Toys "R" Us 5425 Xerxes Avenue N. Sanitarian RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Northport Properties 5401 Brooklyn Blvd. Gene L. Gullord 6045 Emerson Avenue N. Lenny Mazurek 4200 Lakebreeze Avenue Jeff Scoville 4207 Lakeside Avenue N. Ramoodit Kimal 6913 Morgan Avenue N. James A. Nelson 7110 Riverdale Road John Inselman 1013 73rd Avenue N. Renewal: Boyer Palmer 6101 Beard Avenue N. Earl James Backer 7018 Brooklyn Blvd. Kenneth Solie/Village Prop. Evergreen Park Manor H.E. Homes, Inc. 6831 Fremont Place Julia G. Paulson 5315 Knox Avenue N. Henry R. Johnson 6736 Scott Avenue N. Delbert P. Bruce 4741 Twin Lake Avenue Willow Lane Realty /Miller Mgmt. Willow Lane Apts. Fred Beier 5300, 5304 Vincent A. N. James M. Krzesowiak 3007 51st Avenue N. i Leo J. Vogel 2841 67th Lane :� % George T. Hanson 1510 69th Avenue N. Director of Planning�� and Inspection /1 GENERAL APPROVAL: Qln; P. Page, Deput Clerk