Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 02-27 CCP Regular Session• • 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FEBRUARY 27, 1989 7 p.m. 5. Approval of Consent Agenda -All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. 6. Approval of Minutes: a. February 13, 1989 7. Mayoral Appointment: *a. Park & Recreation - Regular Session Commission Chairman 8. Resolutions: *a. Amending Article III, Parties; Section I of the Northwest Hennepin Human Service Council's Joint Power's Agreement - This resolution will allow the City of Plymouth to participate as a member of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council. *b. Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1) Turf Sweeper (Litter Picker) - Appropriation approved in Dept. #69 budget. *c. Acknowledging Gift from Brooklyn Center Lions Club - Puppet wagon for park program. *d. Authorizing Appropriation from Capital Projects Fund - This item would appropriate $5,000 from the Capital Projects Fund for blacktopping the area between the Little League fields at Lions Park. *e. Accepting Quote and Authorizing Purchase of One (1) Five Reel Gang Mower for the Golf Course Amending the 1989 General Fund Budget - To allow for the purchase identification card equipment. *f. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA b. Twin Lake /Preserve Park Study c. Brooklyn Center Survey Questionnaire *12. Licenses 13. Executive Session -Kelly House 14. Adjournment -2- February 27, 1989 9. Planning Commission Items: (7:15 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 89005 submitted by Border States Foods requesting site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a Hardees Restaurant at the proposed intersection of Freeway Boulevard and James Circle (east leg) -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its February 16, 1989, meeting. b. Planning Commission Application No. 89007 submitted by Maranatha Place requesting variance approval to place identification signery for Maranatha Place apartments on a retaining wall on the Maranatha Care Center property to the east -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its February 16, 1989, meeting. 10. Ordinance: (7:30 p.m.) a. An Ordinance Vacating Part of the Right -of -Way of 66th Avenue North between West River Road and Willow Lane -This item was first read on January 23, 1989, published in the City's official newspaper on February 2, 1989, and is offered this evening for a second reading. 11. Discussion Items: a. Economic Development Consortium • • CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Todd Paulson, and Jerry Pedlar. 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, City Engineer Bo Spurrier, and Administrative Aide Patti Page. Mayor Nyquist noted Councilmember Scott would be absent from this evening's meeting. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Lhotka. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the open forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed the consent agenda. No requests were made. APPROVAL OF There was a to approve unanimously RESOLUTIONS MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 13, 1989 CITY HALL MINUTES - JANUARY 23, 1989 - REGULAR SESSION motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka the minutes of the January 23, 1989, meeting. The motion passed RESOLUTION NO. 89 -19 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION INITIATING THE PREPARATION OF A DISCRETIONARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF WEST RIVER ROAD FROM 66TH AVENUE NORTH TO 73RD AVENUE NORTH AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTIPLE USE TRAIL ALONG WEST RIVER ROAD AND WILLOW LANE FROM 1 -694 TO 73RD AVENUE NORTH 2/13/89 - 1 - from The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -20 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (HCDOT) TO DEVELOP PLANS FOR SAFETY AND CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS TO CSAH 152 (BROOKLYN BOULEVARD) BETWEEN 63RD AVENUE NORTH AND THE NORTH CITY LIMITS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -21 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) MECHANICAL HOIST The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -22 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) FOUR WHEEL PAVEMENT MARKING MACHINE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -23 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR THE LOAN OF PRELIMINARY BREATH TESTING INSTRUMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -24 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HIRING OF W.M. MONTGOMERY AND ASSOCIATES TO PERFORM A MEASUREMENT, EVALUATION, AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE CITY'S RADIO SYSTEM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. 2/13/89 -2- 410 • • • • LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the following list of licenses: BULK VENDOR Curtis Products, Inc. D & G Vending, Inc. Peterson Vending CATERING FOOD VEHICLE Bridgeman's CIGARETTE American Amusement Arcades Applebee's Consumer Vending Bridgeman's Hiawatha Rubber Mikros Engineering The Gift Shop FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Gloria Jean's Coffee Bean ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Orchard Lane School NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Ala -Carte Vending Systems, Inc. Health One Modern Control American Vending Company Sears Automotive Bro- Midwest Vending Company American Legion Beacon Bowl Days Inn Pilgrim Cleaners Brooklyn Center Service Canteen Company of MN, Inc. Medtronics Consumer Vending Target Stores D. L. Service Co. Lowell's Automotive Earle Brown Bowl Iten Chevrolet Co. Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. Northern States Power Service America Corporation Dayton's Graco 2/13/89 -3- 2516 Dodds Ave. 4313 NE Washington Street 1709 Hickory Hill 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. 850 Decatur Ave. N. 1347 Brookdale Center 2828 Lyndale Ave. S. 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. 1700 67th Ave. N. 3715 50th Ave. N. 2200 Freeway Blvd. 1119 Brookdale Center 6201 Noble Ave. N. 2550 Kasota Ave. 2810 Co. Rd. 10 6820 Shingle Creek Pkwy. P. 0. Box 511 Brookdale Center 9110 Grand Ave. S. 4307 70th Ave. N. 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. 1501 Freeway Blvd. 5748 Brooklyn Blvd. 6245 Brooklyn Blvd. 6200 Penn Ave. S. 6700 Shingle Creek Pkwy. 3014 Lyndale Ave. S. 6701 Parkway Circle 2516 83rd Ave. N. 6211 Brooklyn Blvd. 6440 James Circle 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. 6357 North Lilac Drive 4501 68th Ave. N. 7490 Central Ave. NE 1100 Brookdale Center 6820 Shingle Creek Pkwy. MTC Theisen Vending Company Brookdale Ford Budgetel Inn Econo Lodge Holiday Inn Bill West's Service Center Twin City Vending Co., Inc. Group Health, Inc. Sears Woodside Enterprises Brooklyn Center City Hall Brooklyn Center Police PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Ala -Carte Vending Systems, Inc. Modern Control American Vending Company Sears Automotive Bro- Midwest Vending Company Beacon Bowl Canteen Company Ault, Inc. Canteen Company of MN, Inc. Medtronics Consumer Vending Target Stores Hiawatha Rubber Mikros Engineering Iten Chevrolet Co. Jimmy Jingle Brookdale Corporate Center Builders Square Fingerhut Telemarketing Palmer Lake Plaza TCR Corporation Norcroftt Brooklyn Center High School Service America Corporation Dayton's Graco MTC Theisen Vending Company Budgetel Inn Twin City Vending Co., Inc. Sears READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE Bridgeman's Tombstone Pizza Corporation 2/13/89 -4- 6845 Shingle Creek Pkwy. 3804 Nicollet Ave. S. 2550 County Road 10 6415 James Circle 6445 James Circle 2200 Freeway Blvd. 2000 57th Ave. N. 1065 East Highway 36 6845 Lee Ave. N. 1297 Brookdale Center 11889 65th Ave. N. 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. 2550 Kasota Ave. N. 6820 Shingle Creek Pkwy. P. 0. Box 511 Brookdale Center 9110 Grand Ave. S. 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. 1091 Pierce Butler Route 1600 Freeway Blvd. 6300 Penn Ave. S. 6700 Shingle Creek Pkwy. 3014 Lyndale Ave. S. 6701 Parkway Circle 1700 67th Ave. N. 3715 50th Ave. N. 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. 1304 East Lake Street 6300 Shingle Creek Pkwy. 3600 63rd Ave. N. 6860 Shingle Creek Pkwy. 6860 Shingle Creek Pkwy. 1600 67th Ave. N. 229 South 4th Street 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. 7490 Central Ave NE 1100 Brookdale Center 6820 Shingle Creek Pkwy. 6845 Shingle Creek Pkwy. 3804 Nicollet Ave. N. 6415 James Circle 1065 E. Highway 36 1297 Brookdale Center 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. 6850 Shingle Creek Pkwy. • • SIGN HANGER Schad -Tracy Signs SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT The Gift Shop Gift Shop, Too Maid of Scandinavia Company Best Products Co., Inc. Kay -Bee Toy & Hobby Ideal Drug Snyder Brothers Drug Store Fun Services, Inc. 1654 E. Cliff Road 2200 Freeway Blvd. 1501 Freeway Blvd. 5717 Xerxes Ave. N. 5925 Earle Brown Drive 1320 Brookdale Center 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. 1296 Brookdale Center 3615 50th Ave. N. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving Contract for Consulting Engineering Services Relating to Reconstruction of West River Road (Old T.H. 252) from 66th Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North (Improvement Project No. 1988- 18). He explained the proposed concept development meeting will be held with the neighborhood on March 9, 1989, and a preliminary design meeting will be held with the neighborhood in mid -May. The Director of Public Works explained the consultant will be working with both Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park on this project. He stated the construction costs for the project would be approximately $750,000. He noted approximately half of this cost would be paid by MNDOT. He explained the remainder of the costs would be taken care of by levying some special assessments and by the local municipal state aid street fund. A discussion then ensued relative to the initial agreement with MNDOT in which MNDOT expected to do all the design and reconstruction work. The Director of Public Works explained since the initial agreement, MNDOT has received additional funding; their staff is now working on extra projects and not available to follow through on this agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -25 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATING TO RECONSTRUCTION OF WEST RIVER ROAD (OLD T.H. 252) FROM 66TH AVENUE NORTH TO 73RD AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -18) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving Contract for Consulting Engineering Services Relating to Preparation of a Study of the Brooklyn Center Municipal Water Supply System. The Director of Public Works stated staff is recommending a new study be conducted to reevaluate and update th, City's 1984 plans for improvements to the municipal water supply system. H .plained the three major reasons for updating the 1984 plan are: 1. To reevaluate the plan with reference to high demands experienced during the drought of 1988. 2/13/89 -5- 2. To reevaluate the feasibility of providing treatment to the water supply system. He noted it is proposed to reevaluate the feasibility of installing an iron and manganese removal system. 3. To evaluate the system's ability to achieve compliance with new water supply standards as set by the U.S. EPA, in accordance with the amendments to the Safe Water Drinking Act as adopted by congress in 1986. The Director of Public Works stated an RFP was prepared and submitted to four engineering firms. After receiving proposals from the four firms, City staff evaluated the proposals and recommends the proposal submitted by Black and Veatch be accepted. Councilmember Pedlar inquired how staff arrived at the "not to exceed" figure. The Director of Public Works stated this figure was submitted by the company and not requested by the RFP. He explained staff has carefully reviewed with Black and Veatch the full scope of the study, and Black and Veatch is very comfortable submitting its proposal with this "not to exceed" figure. Councilmember Lhotka inquired why staff is recommending treatment after all these years. He inquired if the water quality is getting worse in Brooklyn Center. The Director of Public Works stated the water quality is not worsening, but staff felt this was the opportune time to look into treatment as long as the water supply system is being reviewed because of the drought demands and the recently changed U.S. EPA regulations. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -26 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATING TO PREPARATION OF A STUDY OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Establishing a 5 -Year Plan for Improvements to the Municipal State Aid Street System. The Director of Public Works stated the City was requested to submit a 5 -year plan for construction on the City's municipal state aid street system. He went on to review the 5 -year plan which is summarized in the agenda materials. He explained this is a tentative schedule and in no way commits the City to proceed with any or all of the projects listed. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -27 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A 5 -YEAR PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET SYSTEM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. 2/13/89 -6 • • • • • ORDINANCE The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 Relating to Personnel. He noted this ordinance was first read on January 23, 1989, published in the City's official newspaper on February 2, 1989, and is offered this evening for a second reading. He explained this ordinance amendment would allow employees to use accrued sick leave during their six month probationary period. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 Relating to Personnel and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak. There being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 Relating to Personnel. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 89 -06 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17 RELATING TO PERSONNEL The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO 89001 SUBMITTED BY GORCO CONSTRUCTION REOUESTING VARIANCE APPROVAL TO ALLOW A SETBACK LESS THAN THE ORDINANCE REOUIRED 50' FROM COUNTY ROAD 57 FOR CONSTRUCTTON OF A GARAGE AT 5658 LOGAN AVENUE NORTH The City Manager noted this item was discussed and tabled at the January 12, 1989, Planning Commission meeting and recommended for denial at the January 26, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. He added the Planning Commission did recommend an ordinance amendment pertaining to this 'rem. The Director of Planning and Inspection referred the Council to pages one through three of the January 12, 1989, Planning Commission minutes and pages one and two of the January 26, 1989, Planning Commission minutes. He went on to briefly review the application and the standards which must be met for granting a variance. He explained the arguments which were made by Gorco Construction could not be found as hardships, merely inconveniences. He went on to review the three findings relative to denial of Planning Commission Application No. 89001, those being: a. Setting the garage back 50' from 57th Avenue North presents difficulties which fall into the category of inconveniences, not a hardship as discussed in the ordinance standards for variances. 2/13/89 b. The circumstances upon which the variance is based are not unique to the parcel of land in question but are common to other residential lots abutting major thoroughfares. -7- c. Granting a variance would be detrimental to the public welfare by undermining the required setback for structures adjacent to major thoroughfares. The Director of Planning and Inspection went on to briefly review the proposed ordinance amendment which would exempt accessory structures in any yards from the requirement of the major thoroughfare setback. He added staff will continue to study the major thoroughfare designations and definitions and make various recommendations for change to the City Council in the near future. He noted a public hearing has been scheduled this evening pertaining to Planning Commission Application No. 89001, and the appropriate notices have been sent. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 89001 submitted by Gorco Construction requesting variance approval to allow a setback less than the ordinance required 50' from County Road 57 for construction of a garage at 5658 Logan Avenue North. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 89001. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to deny Planning Commission Application No. 89001 subject to the three findings listed by the Director of Planning and Inspection. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Major Thoroughfare Setbacks and setting a public hearing date for March 13, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:29 p.m. and reconvened at 8:48 p.m. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving Supplemental Agreement No. 3 to Contract 1988 -H (for Improvements on Logan Avenue North, on France Avenue North, on Lakebreeze Avenue North, and on 50th Avenue North). Councilmember Lhotka stated he did not understand the high overrun on this project and requested an explanation from the Director of Public Works. The Director of Public Works stated during construction of these projects, a large number of changes were required which resulted in significant contract cost increases. He noted the changes could be categorized into nine groups and went on to review each of the groups. The EDA Coordinator entered the meeting at 8 :50 p.m. 2/13/89 -8- • • • • The Director of Public Works noted proposed supplemental agreement, the three items which have not been requesting $16,482.46, and staff is for these items. He noted if an negotiations between City staff and initiate arbitration proceedings. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -28 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 3 TO IMPROVEMENTS ON LOGAN AVENUE NORTH, ON FRANCE AVENUE NORTH NORTH, AND ON 50TH AVENUE NORTH) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Regarding Funding Construction Program in State of Minnesota. in addition to the items included in this contractor has submitted claims relating to resolved. He stated the contractor is recommending a payment totaling $11,103.55 agreement cannot be reached by direct the contractor, the City will have to moved its adoption: CONTRACT 1988 -H (FOR , ON LAKEBREEZE AVENUE was duly seconded by for Street and Highway RESOLUTION NO. 89 -29 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING FUNDING FOR STREET AND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM IN STATE OF MINNESOTA The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Requesting the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission to Conduct a Feasibility Study for Implementation of the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Outlet Modification. The Director of Public Works briefly reviewed the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake outlet area and the history of flooding and prolonged periods of high water. He explained the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission has recently completed a special study of the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake outlet modification. He stated this study describes a system of improvements that can be made which will somewhat lower the maximum high water level in these lakes and substantially reduce the length of time during which the lake levels remain high following a heavy run off while maintaining the same "run out elevation" to assure that the lake levels during normal and dry periods are no lower than they are with the present outfall system. The Director of Public Works stated the proposed feasibility study will look at what is the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission's share of these costs and what the City will pay. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -30 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 2/13/89 -9- RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TO CONDUCT A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TWIN LAKES /RYAN LAKE OUTLET MODIFICATION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS STATUS REPORT ON HRG RECYCLING EFFORTS AND STATE RECYCLING LEGISLATION The City Manager stated the HRG has recently completed negotiations with a recycling contract vendor for providing services to Crystal, Brooklyn Center, and New Hope. The successful proposal was submitted by BFI, Inc. He added the HRG has also let a contract for purchasing recycling containers to Shamrock Industries. He noted Shamrock Industries is required to deliver sufficient numbers of containers to allow New Hope to start its recycling program in April, and the remainder of the contract is to be fulfilled by delivery within the month of May. The City Manager stated if the judge's ruling on the case brought by BFI against the HRG occurs in a timely fashion (early March), it would be possible for Brooklyn Center to proceed with a coordinated consortium refuse hauling system and recycling by approximately June or July of 1989. He noted a factor which must be considered is the county will be instituting an increase in the landfill dumping charges in approximately June or July, and this increase would translate into an approximate $60 per year increase for residential users. He explained it appears these increases will be passed on to the customers. He stated if the City were to start the recycling program in June or July and the refuse haulers passed on this landfill increase to its customers, the citizens would assume the increase was because of the recycling. He stated the City may have to implement the recycling program after the rates have risen so a decrease can be seen in the customer's bill. He noted some time in March he would be requesting the Council to make a firm decision. The City Manager briefly reviewed the proposed legislation pertaining to deposits for beverage containers. He noted while on the surface this legislation is well intended, it could have a devastating economic impact on the City's proposed recycling program and the programs already working in the metro area. A discussion then ensued relative to how passage of a beverage container deposit would affect the City's recycling efforts. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar directing staff to inform the City's legislators of the Council's opposition to container deposit legislation and express the rationale for the City's opposition in the language contained in Josephine Nunn's article. The motion passed unanimously. 1990 PRELIMINARY BUDGET The City Manager explained because of the changes made by the Truth in Taxation bill, the City's budget process is moved ahead by approximately two months. The Finance Director went on to review the key dates for the budget process and noted basically the budget process is starting this evening. He explained staff 2/13/89 -10- • • • would be meeting on February 27, 1989, to begin their actual planning for their departments. He noted this is a tentative schedule and is still subject to change. OTHER BUSINESS The City Manager stated following the City Council meeting and EDA meeting an executive session would be held to discuss the Kelly /Norton lawsuit. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 2/13/89 -11- Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Amending Article III, Parties; Section I of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council's Joint Powers Agreement *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: r No comments to supplement this report SUMMARY EXPLANATION: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2/27/89 HRG Administrator Comments below /attached *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (supplemental sheets attached This resolution would add the City of Plymouth to the list of cities participating in the Joint Powers Agreement providing the organization for the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council. Present members to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Joint Powers Agreement are the cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Champlin, Corcoran, Crystal, Dayton, Golden Valley, Hanover, Hasson Township, Maple Grove, New Hope, Robbinsdale, and Rogers. • • • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING ARTICLE III, PARTIES; SECTION I OF THE NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL'S JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Plymouth has been a participating member of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council for many years; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center believes it is in the best interest of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council to incorporate the City of Plymouth; and WHEREAS, the City of Plymouth, north of Highway 55, is served by the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council's various programs and services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend Article III, Section I of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council's Joint Powers Agreement to recognize the City of Plymouth (north of Highway 55) as eligible to participate as a governmental unit in the Joint Powers Agreement. Date Mayor 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. • Council Meeting Date 2/27/89 Agenda Item Number g b REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION 0 *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1) Turf Sweeper *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title ******************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Administrative Aide * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Staff has obtained two quotations for the purchase of a turf sweeper (litter picker) for the Parks Maintenance department. Staff recommends awarding the contract to North Star Turf for a cost of $6,967 after trade -in. • ATTEST: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) TURF SWEEPER WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1989 budget for the purchase of one (1) turf sweeper; and WHEREAS, two quotations were received as follows: Company Quote Trade -in Cost North Star Turf, Inc. $8,767 $1,800 $6,967 MTI Distributing $8,096 $ 900 $7,196 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of one (1) turf sweeper from North Star Turf, Inc. in the amount of $6,967 is hereby approved. Date Mayor 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. 86 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB WHEREAS, THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB has presented the City a gift of six thousand dollars ($6,000) and has designated that it be used to purchase a puppet wagon to be used in the City's park programs; and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of the gift and commends the Brooklyn Center Lions Club for its civic efforts: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to acknowledge the gift with gratitude; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the gift of $6,000 be appropriated to the Recreation and Parks Administration Capital Outlay Budget to be used to purchase a puppet wagon for the City's park programs. Date Mayor 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 2/27/89 Agenda Item Number g REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Authorizing Appropriation from the Capital Projects Fund *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title ******************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: irt401101 No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached HRG Administrator *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) ) This resolution would authorize a $5,000 appropriation from the City's Capital Projects Fund to provide for the blacktopping of the area between the Little League fields in Lions Park. The area has been covered by Ag lime which has not worked as a proper surface for this area. The City's Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed this item and recommended blacktopping this area. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATION FROM CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND WHEREAS, the City's Park and Recreation Commission has recommended the blacktopping of the area between the Little League fields at Lions Park; and WHEREAS, the Capital Projects Fund was established to provide expenditures for certain permanent improvements in the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that an expenditure of $5,000 be authorized from the unappropriated fund balance of the Capital Projects Fund for blacktopping the area between the National League Little League fields at Lions Park. Date Mayor Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. PN.$ MID MICNMt,/M • • TO • Gerald G. Splinter FROM : Arnie Mavis DATE . February 22, 1989 SUBJECT: Lions Park MEMO CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PARKS AND RECREATION 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Telephone 561 -5448 When the National Little League fields were built in Lions Park the question was raised as to what to do with the area between the two fields. There were three choices: 1) Plant grass or sod; 2) Blacktop; or 3) fill in the area with agricultural lime. The decision was to use the agri -lime. It seemed like a good idea at that time, but after one year of having it that way, it turned out to be a problem. The rain coming off the concession building caus- ed ruts in the ground, which caused an unsafe condition for people walking in the area. Some of the ruts became quite deep and we tried to fill them in with agri - lime, but the ruts came back. Rather than trying to keep repairing this area which would take a great deal of time and energy, I suggest we put in blacktop which should solve the problem. At the most it would cost $5,000, and I am sure the blacktop would last for a long time before we would have to repair it. It would also make the area look better, plus be more functional. I believe it is the only way to go. • • • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2/27/89 Agenda Item Number S REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1) Five Reel Gang Mower for the Golf Course *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Administrative Aide Signature - title ************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **$ * * ** * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: . No comments to supplement this report * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** /k Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Staff has obtained two quotations for the purchase of a five reel gang mower for the golf course. Staff recommends awarding the contract to MTI Distributing for a cost of $6,735 after trade -in. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) FIVE REEL GANG MOWER FOR THE GOLF COURSE WHEREAS, it has been determined the golf course is in need of a back -up gang mower to allow continued maintenance when the regular mower is not working; and WHEREAS, it has also been determined there is not a significant need for the Tee Mower which the golf course currently owns; and WHEREAS, staff is recommending the purchase of a Five Reel Gang Mower and has obtained quotations which assume the trade -in of the Tee Mower; and WHEREAS, two quotations were received as follows: Company Quote Trade -in Cost MTI Distributing $8,235 $1,500 $6,735 Wayzata Lawn $9,000 $1,500 $7,500 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of One (1) Five Reel Gang Mower from MTI Distributing in the amount of $6,735 is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the funding for this purchase will come from the Golf Course Fund. Date Mayor Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. December 20, 1988 Mr. Kurt Johnsen Centerbreek Golf Course 5-.500 North Lilac Drjy_e Brooklyn Center, MN 55420 Dear Kurt Enclosed is literature and pricing for your consideration regarding your 1989 turf e!uipme -nt needs. QTY. PRODUCT DESCRIPTION gill 1 DISTRIBUTING C$. 561 -32319 QUOTE 111 1 Demo Toro 5 Gang Reelmaster, Steel Wheels, $ 8,235 5 Blade Reels, Frame complete.* * Unit is in excellent condition. QTY. TRADE DESCRIPTI ©N 1 Toro 70" Professional Mower All equipment would be set -up, serviced, and delivered in operating condition and covered under factory warranty. If I may be of any assistance don't hesitate to contact me. Regards, Tom Haberman C ac i S a a s. TH /sh TRADE VALUE $ 1,500 14900 Twenty -first Avenue North • Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 • Phone (612) 475 -2200 • We are pleased to quote as follows: Quantity Wayzata L3 on Mower 253 E. Lake St. Wayzata, MN 55391 Attn: Jack Dorfer QUOTATION Centerbrook Golf Course 5500 N. Lilac Dr. Brooklyn Center, MN 55420 Attn: Kurt Johnson 1 Complete Toro 5 Gang Unit 5 Bladed, Steel Wheels w/ Frame Description List Price Sell Price Less Trade 70" Pro "QUOTATION GOOD FOR 30 DAYS" DATE February 24,1989 TERMS Prices quoted are F.O.B. Delivery 8995.00 800.00 8195.00 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date ��a:i'g 7 / Q Agenda Item Number !J r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET • • ********************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL` No comments to supplement this report RECOMMENDATION: Signat re - t' le James . Lindsay f o. Police ************* * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW / RECOMMENDATIO 3 54, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes The 1988 Emergency Preparedness Budget authorized the purchase of a system for the production of identification cards. The attached memorandum outlines the problems encountered in trying to purchase the budgeted system. Subsequently, Polaroid Corporation was contacted and representatives offered a new system for city use. Additional funds are required to purchase this system. As part of the purchase, sales representatives are also offering $650.00 in supplies at no cost. It is felt this is a far superior system, and the problems encountered with the first system make this system more advantageous. The City Council authorize the resolution transferring existing funds for identification card supplies and addition funds from contingency for the purchase of the Polaroid identification card system. Member adoption: 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 Council appropriated funds in the 1989 Emergency Preparedness Budget for the purchase of a camera and support equipment to make identification cards in the amount of $1,755 and supplies for said camera in the amount of $480; and WHEREAS, the equipment budgeted for is not now available and better quality equipment is available at a cost of $2,895 and the vendor has offfered to provide the first years supplies at no cost: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend the 1989 General Fund Budget as follows: Emergency Preparedness No. 34, Other Equipment No. 4552 Decrease the Appropriations for the following line Emergency Preparedness No. 34, Operating Supplies No. 4220 Unallocated Expenses No. 80, Contingency Account No. 4995 ATTEST: Date Clerk introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET Increase the Appropriations for the following line items: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. $ 1,140.00 items: $ 480.00 $ 660.00 Mayor 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: 8F MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: February 22, 1989 SUBJECT: Identification Card System Approved in the 1988 Emergency Preparedness budget are funds for the purchase of camera and support equipment to make I.D. cards. Budget estimates were obtained from a local supplier of Polaroid equipment. Four appointments were set up with the company to demonstrate the equipment. Each appointment was cancelled by the company. They used excuses of "equipment broke down, another customer has the equipment," et cetera. I requested a call from the sales representative and have not received one. Barbara Cox contacted Polaroid Corporation in New Jersey. They referred us to Olson Graphics in St. Paul. It seems the company we were dealing with had adapted a Polaroid camera in what is called a cut and paste system. Reading between the lines, it seems the first company has experienced problems with their units. Olson Graphics, along with Polaroid, offered us a totally different system. This system takes a photo of the person and I.D. card in one operation. There is no doubt this system is a superior system. Of course there is a difference in price. The 1988 budget for camera, equipment and supplies is $2,235.00. The cost of the new system camera and equipment is $2,895.00. This is a difference of $660.00. Polaroid has offered to provide free of cost to the city, $650.00 worth of supplies. The supplies would be the film and laminates. The total value of the Olson Graphics/ Polaroid offer is $3,545.00. To take advantage of this offer, a total of $660.00 would need to be transferred from the council's contingency fund. Also, the monies budgeted for supplies would need to be transferred into the capital outlay account. Due to the fact the original system is not available, and to take advantage of Polaroid's offer, I recommend $660.00 be transferred from the council contingency fund to the emergency preparedness capital outlay account, 4552 -34. Also, the $480.00 in emergency preparedness miscellaneous supplies account, 4220 -34 budgeted for I.D. system supplies be transferred to the capital outlay account, 4552 -34. MIDWESTERN REGIONAL MARKETING CENTER ro Polaroid Brooklyn Center Police Dept. James Lindsay - Chief of Police 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Chief Lindsay - 2020 SWIFT DRIVE OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60521 PHONE: (312) 954.1600 February 17, 1989 Thanks for your time accorded to Scott Scoville (Olson Graphics) and myself on Thursday the 16th of February. I thought we had an interesting, entertaining and informative conference. As I stated, my offer of a case of film ($500) and box of laminates ($150) will more than make up for the difference in costs between the two ID systems. Also, all of the customer service differences Polaroid and Olson's can contribute over Videotronics. Enclosed you will find the pricing form for the systems. Thanks again to you and Barbara. Good luck. Regards, ut C ,6-16/kc Mark L. Falcone Polaroid Professional Products Rep MLF /sb Encl. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 16, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Mike Nelson at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas and Ella Sander. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 1989 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the January 26, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki and Ainas. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Bernards and Sander. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89005 (Border States Foods) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a Hardees restaurant at the proposed intersection of Freeway Boulevard and James Circle (east leg). The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89005 attached). The Secretary also explained the background of the plat which is to extend James Circle east and north of its present cul -de -sac location south of Freeway Boulevard. He also showed the location of the new lot on which the Hardees restaurant is proposed to be built. He added that the City is proposing to rezone the land south of Freeway Boulevard to C2 (General Commerce). Regarding landscaping, the Secretary suggested the Planning Commission may want to increase its requirement for smaller developments because the proposed landscaping seems inadequate for the site as proposed. Chairman Nelson asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Paul Gray, the architect and contractor for the development, noted that representatives of the applicant have met with staff a number of times, but would also meet the concerns regarding lighting and landscaping for the proposed site. Commissioner Ainas asked Mr. Gray whether he would propose additional landscaping along Freeway Boulevard. Mr. Gray responded in the affirmative. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89005) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. 2 -16 -89 -1- Commissioner Bernards asked whether the lighting and landscaping concerns could be covered by Condition Nos. 13 and 15 in the information sheet. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, stating that the staff could work with the applicant to come up with an acceptable plan. Commissioner Bernards inquired as to the hours of operation. Mr. Gray responded that the hours would probably be from about 5:30 or 6:00 a.m. in the morning to 11:00 p.m. at night. Mr. Ron Ohe, another representative of the applicant, stated that, depending on the work force in the industrial park, the Hardees could become a 24 hour operation. The Secretary stated that he saw no problem with a 24 hour operation. He recalled that the proposed Embers restaurant in this general area was also going to be a 24 hour operation, though it has never been built. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 89005 (Border States Foods) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 89005, subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is issued for the construction and operation of a convenience food restaurant with a drive -up window. No other uses are comprehended. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 5. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 7. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 8. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 9. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 10. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 2 -16 -89 -2- • • 2 -16 -89 11. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 12. The property owner shall enter in an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems. 13. Site lighting shall conform with the requirements of SEction 35- 712 of the Zoning Ordinance. Pursuant to this end, the plans shall be revised, prior to issuance of building permits to eliminate the tilt of the north and south lamps on all four light poles on the site. 14. One on -site hydrant shall be required in a location to be approved by the Fire Chief. 15. The landscape plan shall be revised, prior to consideration by the City Council to indicate berming in the greenstrips adjacent to Freeway Boulevard and James Circle to provide parking lot screening. The landscape plan shall be further revised, prior to the issuance of permits, to indicate additional plantings as requested by the Planning Commission and City Council in keeping with community standards. 16. Building permits shall not be issued for the project until the plat comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 88024 has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards Ainas and Sander. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89006 (E and H Properties) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for rezoning approval of a small sliver of land at the southeast corner of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North from R5 to C2. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89006, attached). Commissioner Sander asked whether the rezoning to C2 would allow something to be built on the property, that the property was essentially unbuildable now. The Secretary responded in the negative. He stated that some development could be built on the existing C2 land, but that the site design could be more efficient if some additional land were rezoned to C2. He stated that without the rezoning it was possible that some of the traffic exiting the site would wind up going down to Willow Lane to turn around to make their westbound movement onto 66th Avenue North. He stated that moving the zoning line would allow better use of the median opening in 66th. Commissioner Sander stated that she did not want to see traffic from this development going down Willow Lane. The Secretary answered that the City could refuse to allow access from the easterly parcel to Willow Lane. He stated that the R5 parcel, in this case, would have to serve as a buffer between the service station use and the residential neighborhood to the east. He stated that the staff wanted the applicant to show that an office development would fit in this location. He added that the City staff detects that the neighborhood would prefer an office development as a buffer rather than apartments and that perhaps the land should be rezoned to 01 to lock in this development option. Chairman Nelson asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Howard Atkins, owner of the property in question, stated that his intention was to build a 12,000 sq. ft. office building on the land to the east of the service station site. He introduced architect Hal Pierce to show the Planning Commission some possible development layouts for the easterly property. Mr. Pierce then showed the Planning Commission potential site layouts for offices, apartments, and a day care center. During the Planning Commission's discussion, a neighbor who attended the meeting, stated that he objected to the traffic and noise from the Superamerica station across Highway 252. He stated that the service station development proposal would bring it closer to Willow Lane by developing the land east of Highway 252 for a service station. Chairman Nelson asked what was the feeling on the possibility of rezoning of the R5 land to Cl. An unidentified neighbor stated that there was an office development proposed two years ago and now a gas station is proposed. He stated that he wanted a buffer building to be constructed before a gas station. The Secretary stated that the City does not have the power to force one building to be built before the other. Mr. Howard Atkins explained that development of the easterly property depends on the sale of land adjacent to Highway 252 for a gas station. The Secretary indicated that there appears to be some concern about screening the gas station site. Commissioner Sander asked about screening of the gas station site from the office building. The Secretary explained that screening is not required between C2 uses and C1 uses, but that it would be appropriate to provide such screening anyway, especially if the office building is not built right away. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89006) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone wished to formally present their views. Mr. Jim Neuberger of 6546 Willow Lane expressed concern regarding traffic and noise from a 24 hour gas station and convenience store. He stated that the rezoning would only help the gas station and not the neighborhood. Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Neuberger if he had any problem rezoning the vacant land to the east from R5 to C1. Mr. Neuberger responded that he had no problem with such rezoning. Chairman Nelson noted the entrance to the site would probably be off the Highway 252 frontage road and that most cars would exit onto 66th. The Secretary stated that the rezoning to C2 would help improve the access to 66th and may prevent movements down to Willow Lane. Mr. Neuberger stated that Superamerica is already a headache with the noise and litter and traffic that comes from that site. He stated that another gas station on the east side of Highway 252 would present even more problems. Mr. Richard Jewitt, of 6552 Willow Lane, complained about problems with Superamerica and the decline of property values and crime that has been prevalent in the area recently. He stated he was concerned about a decline in his own property values and yet he understood the fact Mr. Atkins has the right to develop his property. He stated he did not know what the best answer was. He complained that, at present, he cannot let his son play in the street in front of his house because of the traffic coming down to Willow Lane. He stated that he felt the new gas station would increase traffic on Willow Lane. He expressed his concern that he would be unable to sell his home and cited the example of another home in the area that has been for sale for a couple of years and has not been able to sell. He stated that the rezoning presents an issue of residents versus a commercial business. Chairman Nelson then asked the Planning Commission for their comments. Commissioner Malecki stated that the Commission needs more input from neighbors in the area. She urged that the application be tabled and referred to the Northeast 2 -16 -89 • • • • • Neighborhood Advisory Group. Commissioner Ainas recommended that the rezoning include the rezoning of the R5 land to 01. Commissioner Malecki stated there were really two questions to look at. One was the rezoning of land to C2 for the service station site; the other was to look at the desirability of rezoning the R5 land to 01 whether or not the rezoning to C2 took place. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 89006 (E and H Properties) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to table Application No. 89006, continue the public hearing, and refer the application to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment, with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to evaluate rezoning of the R5 land to 01. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards and Sander. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Following the vote, one of the neighbors asked whether the advisory group would be told that it is a gas station that is proposed. The Secretary stated that the advisory group would be aware of the gas station proposal, but that the rezoning really has to be decided on the merits of the basic use of the land. He explained that a gas station is already allowed in the C2 zoning district which covers most of the land for the proposed service station site. The rezoning of a small portion of the property to C2 is one of the questions that needs to be addressed. APPLICATION NO. 89007 (Maranatha Place) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for variance approval to place an identification sign for Maranatha Place apartments on a retaining wall on the Maranatha Care Center property to the east. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89007 attached). The Secretary added that the nursing home is allowed a 36 sq. ft. sign already. Chairman Nelson then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. David Viland, the administrator of the Maranatha Care Center, showed the Planning Commission a site plan of the entire care center and apartment complex and the location of the proposed sign and the location of the driveway serving both aspects of the development. He explained that construction of the Maranatha Place apartments required soil corrections and 6,000 yards of fill to be disposed of. He explained that the fill was used to create a bermed area in front of the care center and that the retaining wall would help to buttress that berm. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the retaining wall would be brick. Mr. Viland responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the sign variance would set a precedent for other apartment complexes in the City. The Secretary stated that he did not think so because of the unique circumstance of the care center and the apartment complex being attached and being one continuous use. The Secretary added that the Commission could look at an ordinance amendment on multiple- family signery. He stated that the limit for this particular building is rather stringent, limiting it to only a 10 sq. ft. sign on the wall of the building. In response to another comment from Commissioner Bernards, the Secretary agreed that the sign was aesthetically attractive and should not be any detriment to surrounding properties. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89007) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. 2 -16 -89 -5- CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Nelson indicated some interest in looking at the sign ordinance and perhaps bringing back an ordinance amendment relating to signery for multiple- family complexes. The Secretary stated that staff could bring back some ordinance amendment in the future. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 89007 (Maranatha Place) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to recommend approval of Application No. 89007, subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. Unified signery for the care center /apartment complex is appropriate and even desirable. Applying the ordinance literally would prevent such unified signery and would work a hardship on the applicant. 2. The continuum of services offered in the complex and the attachment of the buildings across zoning as well as property lines are unique conditions which are not common generally in either the R6 or R1 zoning districts. 3. The proposed signery is aesthetically attractive and will have no greater impact than two separate sign monuments. There should, therefore, be no detrimental effect on the public welfare, nor injury to other property in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed retaining wall serves a function in addition to providing a wall on which to place signery. Sign area, therefore, need not be computed as the total face of the retaining wall, but only that area covered by the proposed signery. 5. Variance approval acknowledges one 28 sq. ft. freestanding sign as proposed on the Maranatha Care Center property. No other identification signery for Maranatha Place is acknowledged by this variance approval. 6. The existing identification sign for the care center shall be removed prior to issuance of the sign permits for the proposed signs. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners, Malecki, Bernards, Ainas and Sander. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The City Engineer left the meeting at 9:19 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS • The Secretary then briefly reviewed with the Commission the action on Application No. 89001, a variance request by Lois Anderson to allow a garage to be less than 50' from 57th Avenue North. He explained that the Planning Commission had recommended an ordinance amendment to define major thoroughfares as all four lane streets in the city. He explained that the Director of Public Works had informed him that after 2 -16 -89 -6- 1 • the Planning Commission's actions that there was some possibility that 57th would also be widened to four lanes between Logan and Humboldt. The garage in question, therefore, would also become nonconforming. The Secretary explained that he had decided to recommend a different ordinance amendment to the City Council to deal with Mrs. Anderson's proposed garage. He recommended that the ordinance exclude from the major thoroughfare setback requirement all accessory buildings. He explained that accessory buildings in rear yards were already excluded. He explained that his rationale was that accessory buildings are not as sensitive to noise, odor, or vibration as a principal use such as a dwelling. He added that the City Council went along with the revised ordinance amendment. The Planner then distributed to the Planning Commission a copy of a report from Hennepin County entitled "Not in my Back Yard" regarding the location of group homes. The Secretary encouraged the Commission to read the report and any other information regarding group homes. He explained that Donn Wiski's report would tell the City that it would not be able to exclude group homes from multiple- family zones. The Secretary also stated that concentration of group homes would be a concern of any new ordinance. He also stated that the City may want to require that all residential facilities be licensed in order to receive zoning approval. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Chairman Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89005 Applicant: Border States Foods Location: Freeway Boulevard and James Circle (new east leg) Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Permit Location /Use The applicant requests site and building and special use permit approval to construct a Hardees restaurant at the as- yet- to -be- constructed intersection of Freeway Boulevard and James Circle (east leg). The property in question is presently zoned I -1 (however, it is covered in a City- initiated rezoning to C2 under Application No. 89003) and is bounded on the north by Freeway Boulevard, on the east by the new, easterly leg of James Circle, on the south by vacant land (also included in the rezoning to C2) , and on the west by the Earle Brown Bowl. Convenience food restaurants are presently allowed by special use permit in the I -1 zone and are also allowed by special use permit in the C2 zoning district. Access /Parking The plan calls for a single access to the site via a 30' wide driveway off James Circle at the southeast corner of the site. The plan calls for a drive -up window on the west side of the building and an order speaker somewhat northwest of the building. Stacking for the drive -up lane is expected to fill the driving lanes north and east of the building. Parking east of the building will be 90°, but spaces along the north, west, and south sides of the lot will be angled, promoting a counter - clockwise flow, paralleling the drive -up circulation. A 2' wide concrete median separates the drive -up from the parking lot driving lane. The proposed restaurant is to have 118 seats and 20 employees. At one space per two seats plus one space per two employees, the parking requirement is 69 spaces. Precisely 69 spaces are provided on the plan. The proposal, therefore, complies with parking requirements. Landscaping The landscape plan calls for minimal landscaping other than numerous shrubs adjacent to the building. The plan calls for four American Linden (2 1/2" diameter), 60' apart along the new leg of James Circle (in the easterly greenstrip of this site). Other than that, the plan calls for two Radiant Crabs, one at the northwest corner and one at the southwest corner of the site. All of the remaining plantings are shrubs located around the foundation of the building and around a proposed freestanding identification sign at the northeast corner of the site, and around an entrance sign north of the access drive. No berming was shown on the plan submitted. We have informed the contractor of the need for parking lot screening along the north and east sides of the site adjacent to public streets. A revised plan should show berming in these areas. We would also recommend that the Commission discuss landscaping with the applicant. Although the number of plantings meets the requirements of the landscape point system used to evaluate landscape plans, the general level of plantings is minimal and provides little visual relief on the site. We would recommend the addition of more trees - perhaps coniferous trees - along the Freeway Boulevard greenstrip. Sod has been indicated in all perimeter green areas and underground irrigation has also been noted, as required. Drainage and Utilities The grading plan calls for runoff to drain basically from west to east. Two catch 2 -16 -89 -1- Application No. 89005 continued basins are proposed, one at the northeast corner and one at the southeast corner of the parking lot. The catch basins will be connected by 12" storm sewer lines to a catch basin in James Circle. An 18" line in James Circle will convey runoff southward to a holding pond south of the bend in James Circle. The holding pond will drain out into a 21" line flowing north to the 60" storm sewer in Freeway Boulevard. Drainage calculations for a 5 -year and 100 -year storm have been submitted to the City Engineer for review. The plan calls for a hydrant to be placed just inside the north property line. The Fire Chief has recommended that the hydrant be placed either in the green area north of the building or near the common property line with the vacant parcel to the south so as to serve both sites. There is an 8" line coming off the main in Freeway Boulevard which could serve both a hydrant and a service to the building rather than having separate lines for each. Sanitary sewer service will extend from the east side of the building to a neW sanitary main in James Circle (east leg). Building The applicant proposes a 4,285 sq. ft. light brick building with a mansard treatment carried continuously around the building. Signs are indicated on the wall and on the mansard. As long as the mansard is carried entirely around the building, the mansard signs can be considered wall signs (as opposed to roof signs). Windows around the seating area (roughly the north one third of the building) are proposed to be 1" insulated and bronze tinted glass. Lighting /Trash The plan calls for a trash enclosure on a concrete pad at the southwest corner of the parking lot. Proposed lighting raises some concerns. The site plan calls for four 30' high poles, two on the east side of the site and two on the west. Each pole is to have three 400 watt high pressure sodium luminaires, tilted at least 25 to shine out on the building. We are not as concerned with those lights that shine directly on the building as much as with the four fixtures that will shine off in a northerly direction, projecting some glare toward Freeway Boulevard. While the level of' lighting, measured in foot - candles, is within the 10 foot candle limit established in Section 35 -712 of the Zoning Ordinance, we believe the projection of light off the premises is inconsistent with that section which requires illumination to be concentrated on the property. It also provides that "no glare shall emanate from or be visible beyond the boundaries of the illuminated premises ". The southerly as well as the northerly lamp on each pole will shine onto the property to the south. This may not be unwelcome in a commercial district, but it is contrary to the direction of the ordinance. We would recommend a condition calling for modification of these light fixtures to comply with Section 35 -712, ie. no tilt of the northerly or southerly lamps. Special Use Standards The proposed convenience food restaurant is presently an acknowledged special use in the I -1 zoning district. (As the Commission is aware, the City has initiated a rezoning of this and neighboring properties to C2, in which convenience food restaurants are also acknowledged as a special use. Accompanying the rezoning is an ordinance amendment which would, among other things, eliminate convenience food restaurants from the I -1 zone) . All special uses are subject to the standards set forth in Section 35 -220, Subsection 2 (attached). The applicant has submitted a brief statement (attached) asserting that the Standards for a Special Use Permit are met by the proposed Hardees restaurant. 2 -16 -89 -2- • • • • • Application No. 89005 continued We agree that the proposed restaurant will not endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. We also anticipate no negative impact on property values within the neighborhood. The establishment of the proposed restaurant should not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding property. In fact, the seller of the site (Richardson and Sons) expects that the installation of the roadway and the construction of the restaurant will stimulate further development of the remaining vacant land south of Freeway Boulevard. Finally, ingress, egress and parking have been so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. The location of the single access drive relative to the drive -up window will insure that stacking for the drive -up business is accommodated on site and will not spill out onto James Circle or Freeway Boulevard. Recommendation In general, the plans appear to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is issued for the construction and operation of a convenience food restaurant with a drive -up window. No other uses are comprehended. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 5. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 7. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 8. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 9. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 10. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 2 -16 -89 -3- Application No. 89005 continued 11. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 12. The property owner shall enter in an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems. 13. Site lighting shall conform with the requirements of Section 35- 712 of the Zoning Ordinance. Pursuant to this end, the plans shall be revised, prior to issuance of building permits, to eliminate the tilt of the north and south lamps on all four light poles on the site. 14. One on -site hydrant shall be required in a location to be approved by the Fire Chief. 15. The landscape plan shall be revised, prior to consideration by the City Council, to indicate berming in the greenstrips adjacent to Freeway Boulevard and James Circle to provide parking lot screening. The landscape plan shall be further revised, prior to the issuance of permits, to indicate additional plantings as requested by the Planning Commission and City Council in keeping with community standards. 16. Building permits shall not be issued for the project until the plat comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 88024 has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County. • Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89006 Applicant: E and H Properties Location: 6550 West River Road Request: Rezoning The applicant requests approval to rezone from R5 to C2 a small sliver of land at the southeast corner of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North. The land is located to the east of' the present C2 zoning district, adjacent to the Atkins Mechanical site. It is bounded by 66th Avenue North on the north, by vacant R5 zoned land on the east, by an 18 unit apartment building on the south, and by vacant C2 land and Atkins Mechanical on the west. The zoning line presently angles southeastward at the southeast corner of the Atkins Mechanical site. The proposed rezoning would draw the zoning line directly from the northeast corner of the Atkins Mechanical site to the southeast corner of the vacant C2 land south of Atkins Mechanical (see area map, attached). Background The purpose of the proposed rezoning is to square out the C2 district at the southeast corner of 66th Avenue North and Highway 252 and thereby simplify development of the C2 land for a gas station /convenience store /car wash. The squared out district will also make access to 66th easier and allow for left turns out of the site onto 66th. A replat of the property is also required to put all of the C2 land into a single parcel and to complete the transfer of land from the R5 to the C2 zoning district. Rezoning Evaluation Guidelines All rezoning requests are evaluated under a set of guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). Mr. Howard Atkins of E and H Properties has submitted a letter (also attached) in which he briefly addresses the guidelines. Mr. Atkins' arguments and staff comments follow below: a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Atkins: "Present zoning line between C2 and R5 is irregular. Straightening out the C2 zone line will make development of the site more efficient and will align access with new median opening." Staff: Placing the access to the gas station in such a location as to put it beyond (eastward of) the median in 66th Avenue North is appropriate. An efficient site layout is also generally a public benefit, but this case certainly has private benefits as well by allowing more retail space and more maneuverability for cars on the site. To the extent that an "efficient" layout increases traffic, noise, glare from headlights, etc. the more concern there is that there might be some detriment to neighboring properties. b) Is the proposed rezoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Atkins: "The proposed straightening out of the C2 zone is entirely compatible with surrounding land use." 2 -16 -89 -1- Application No. 89006 continued Staff: The straightening of the zoning line is not so much the issue as is the ultimate use of the property. Service stations and car washes are not permitted to abut R1, R2 or R3 zoned property. The proposed development will not abut R1, R2, or R3 land, but the land which will serve as a buffer is vacant and does little to separate the service station from the single- family residential neighborhood on the east side of Willow Lane. We anticipate some neighborhood opposition to the development. If an office development were proposed concurrently on the R5 land to the east of the site, (which should perhaps be zoned to C1) this might go some distance in providing an effective buffer to the service station. c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Atkins: "Yes. Proposed use is a service station which is permitted in the C2 zone." Staff: Service stations are comprehended in the C2 zone by special use permit and are subject to the standards for special uses contained in Section 35 -220 of the Zoning Ordinance. d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Atkins: "There have been no physical or zoning classification changes since the subject property was zoned." Staff: There has certainly been an upgrading of Highway 252 in this area which has no doubt raised the value of real estate at the intersection of 66th and Highway 252. Another physical change, which surely contributes to the service station proposed, is the elimination of two gas stations at this intersection as a result of the reconstruction of Highway 252 and the frontage road entrance to West River Road. Superamerica, at the southwest corner of the intersection, has been doing well and has plans to expand its site in the near future. The City's Zoning Ordinance does not require developers to prove with a market analysis that a business will be successful, nor can the City protect existing businesses from competition by discriminatory zoning actions. Nevertheless, we certainly hope that this intersection will not be home to four gas stations as it was at one point in the 1970's. Such an outcome would probably result in the failure of one or more stations and lead ultimately to redevelopment as in the case of the existing Atkins Mechanical office on the subject site. e) In the case of City - initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Atkins: "Not applicable." Staff: Not applicable. 2 -16 -89 -2- Application No. 89006 continued f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? Atkins: "The subject property will comply fully with restrictions for the C2 zoning district." 2 -16 -89 -R- development development Staff: The plans we have seen thus far comply with ordinance requirements. No variances are sought and none are recommended. g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Atkins: "The subject property is suited for uses permitted in the present zoning district; however, straightening out the zoning line will align the C2 property with the proposed access road and new median opening on 66th Avenue North." Staff: Perhaps one consideration should be whether the land remaining in the parcel to the east will be sufficient for construction of a development that will screen and buffer the gas station from the residential neighborhood to the east. We have seen no plans for that parcel as yet, but we believe it is at least feasible to design such a development, though it will likely be tight, given the lack of width of the parcel. The Commission may wish to ask the applicant to submit at least a concept plan for the remaining R5 parcel. Our understanding at this time is that the applicant intends to develop it ultimately for office use. Again, consideration of a rezoning from R5 to C1 may well be in order, as a service /office use appears to be a more desirable buffer than multiple residential use of the property. h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? Atkins: "The rezoning will not result in the expansion of the zoning district. We are merely attempting to straighten out the present zoning line." Staff: It seems obvious that the rezoning action would result in a slight expansion of the C2 zoning district. This is not in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Plan Revisions map at figure 15 of the Comprehensive Plan includes all of the vacant land surrounding the Atkins Mechanical site (including the R5 land) in area #3. Table 14 (attached with figure 15) lists the recommended use of this land as "commercial retail." A rezoning of all the land zoned R5 at the southwest corner of 66th and Willow Lane to C2 could, therefore, be comprehended. We would not recommend such a rezoning today. One reason for the Plan recommendation may have been to eliminate the R5 zoning and thereby potential apartment development. The Northeast Neighborhood of the City (in which this land is situated) has the Application No. 89006 continued highest concentration of multiple family dwellings in the City; yet the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the northeast neighborhood be predominantly single - family residential. We presume that the Plan recommendation was intended more to preclude apartment development than to place commercial retail development across the street from single - family homes. We would recommend that the R5 land be rezoned to C1 to allow for office development. This would be in keeping with the Plan and would provide some buffer between the C2 and R1 zoning districts. i) Does the proposal demonstate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Atkins: "Straightening out the zone line as proposed will promote better traffic flow by allowing direct access to new median opening." Staff: We agree that an access to the C2 property should be to the east of the median in 66th Avenue North to allow for left turns directly onto westbound 66th without making U -turns or turning around in people's driveways on Willow Lane. Also, the R5 zone does not allow as an accessory use "any business or industrial accessory use." We have considered access drives serving commercial uses to be an example of such an accessory use disallowed under Section 35 -314 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). We, therefore, would recommend avoiding some sort of cross - access arrangement where the service station traffic would cross over a residentially zoned parcel to exit onto 66th Avenue North. Of course, if this property (the R5 property) were zoned Cl, such a conflict would not arise. (The Commission may wish to expand this application to include a rezoning of the R5 land to Cl, thus insuring that an office development will ultimately be built between the C2 district and Willow Lane). At any rate, we would agree that there is merit to at least some expansion of the C2 district boundary. Procedure As the Commission is aware, the normal procedure with rezoning applications is to open the public hearing, take comments from the neighborhood and then table the matter, referring it to the appropriate neighborhood advisory group (in this case, it would be the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group) for review and comment. In this case, due to the slight area of land involved, the Commission may wish to waive the review of the neighborhood group although this is not recommended. In any case, tabling of the application is in order as no development plans or preliminary plat have yet been submitted to flesh out the rezoning proposal. As we have discussed briefly in our analysis of the proposal, the Commission may wish to consider jointly a rezoning of the remaining R5 land to Cl. We believe the neighborhood would prefer to see an office development as a buffer to the service station rather than an apartment building. The applicant 's future plans presently lean in this direction and it would be more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation for the area. If a companion rezoning to C1 were pursued, a referral to the neighborhood group might be more appropriate. 2 -16 -89 _4_ • • Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89007 Applicant: Maranatha Place Location: 5401/5415 69th Avenue North Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests a variance from the Sign Ordinance to have an off - premise freestanding sign for the Maranatha Place apartment building at 5415 69th Avenue North. The sign would be located on a retaining wall on the nursing home property to the east. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north by 69th Avenue North, on the east and south by single- family homes, and on the west by the Maranatha Place Apartments. Beyond Maranatha Place is a three -story apartment complex across the city boundary in Brooklyn Park. Off- premise identification or advertising signs are considered billboards and are prohibited under Section 34- 130.11 of' the Sign Ordinance. Also, apartment complexes are only allowed to have freestanding signs if they are cluster developments with three or more buildings and 36 or more units (Section 34- 140.3C.3). Sign variances are subject to three standards contained in 340 -180 (attached). The standards are similar to those in the Zoning Ordinance. A particular hardship must be shown if the strict letter of the ordinance is carried out. The conditions upon which the variance is based must be unique to the parcel of land and not be common generally in the zoning district. Finally, the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. The applicant (Mr. David Viland, administrator of the Maranatha Care Center) has submitted a letter addressing the Standards for a Variance, a rendering of the proposed sign and a site plan (all attached). The sign itself is proposed to be located on a brick retaining wall in the northwestern portion of the Maranatha Care Center site. There would be three sections of the retaining wall, two convex relative to 69th and a middle section convave. The signs would be located on the convex sections, Maranatha Care Center on the easterly section and Maranatha Place on the westerly section. The sign would be located between the entrance serving the care center and the entrance to the apartment building. Regarding hardship, Mr. Viland states that the length of their business name makes it difficult to stay within the size limitation yet making the sign readable from a distance. Also, the only location for a sign allowed by ordinance would be the north wall of the apartment building which is very utilitarian in appearance and function. Staff would agree that a 10 sq. ft. sign is not really sufficient for this building, considering its bulk and the number of units in it. (It may be that the Commission will want to evaluate the existing ordinance for possible change. Nevertheless, we feel the variance can proceed apart from an ordinance change). There is also some advantage, not only to the applicant, but to the City as well, in consolidating the identification signery of this complex in a single location. The fact that the sign would be located across a property line seems immaterial as long as both properties are under common ownership. Regarding uniqueness, Mr. Viland states that the conditions are unique because of the way the two buildings are situated in relationship to each other, the restrictions on the access driveway location, and the continuum of services which the two business componants together provide. Mr. Viland explains this continuum 2 -16 -89 -1- Application No. 89007 continued of services ranging from completely independent living to a setting where complete care is provided. He states that the proposed signery effectively portrays to the community the continuum of services offered. He concludes by noting that, though the nursing home and apartment building are technically on separate parcels, their ownership, management and service are singular. Staff would certainly agree that the continuum of services available at the subject properties is unique. The arrangement of the two buildings, attached along a common zoning as well as property line is very unique. The building attachment serves to indicate that the two entities form a common unit. Unified signery is, therefore, appropriate. Regarding potential detriment to the public welfare and injury to other property, Mr. Viland points out that a single sign monument will eliminate the need for a separate sign on the Maranatha Place property. He also notes that there are plans for landscaping around the retaining wall and that the signery will be very subtle and aesthetic. Staff agree that the proposed signery is low key and should not pose any detriment to public welfare or injury to property in the neighborhood. Recommendation We believe there is definite merit to this variance request. Approval is recommended, noting the following findings: 1. Unified signery for the care center /apartment complex is appropriate and even desirable. Applying the ordinance literally would prevent such unified signery and would work a hardship on the applicant. 2. The continuum of services offered in the complex and the attachment of the buildings across zoning as well as property lines are unique conditions which are not common generally in either the R6 or R1 zoning districts. 3. The proposed signery is aesthetically attractive and will have no greater impact than two separate sign monuments. There should, therefore, be no detrimental effect on the public welfare, nor injury to other property in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed retaining wall serves a function in addition to providing a wall on which to place signery. Sign area, therefore, need not be computed as the total face of the retaining wall, but only that area covered by the proposed signery. 5. Variance approval acknowledges one 28 sq. ft. freestanding sign as proposed on the Maranatha Care Center property. No other identification signery for Maranatha Place is acknowledged by this variance approval. 6. The existing identification sign for the care center shall be removed prior to issuance of the sign permits for the proposed signs. 2 -16 -89 -2- • • • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2 -27 -89 Agenda Item Numoer gar REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION S ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 89005 - Border States Foods DEPT. APPROV_ Signature - title Director of Planning and In iection ****************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X ) Planning Commission Application No. 89005 is submitted by Border States Foods. The application is a request for site and building plan /special use permit approval to construct a Hardees restaurant at the proposed intersection of Freeway Boulevard and James Circle. The Planning Commission considered this request at its February 16, 1989 meeting (see Planning Commission minutes and information sheet attached). The application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission subject to the 16 conditions listed on pages 2 and 3 of the minutes. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 16, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Mike Nelson at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas and Ella Sander. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 1989 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the January 26, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki and Ainas. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Bernards and Sander. The motion passed. /APPLICATION NO. 89005 (Border States Foods) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a Hardees restaurant at the proposed intersection of Freeway Boulevard and James Circle (east leg). The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89005 attached). The Secretary also explained the background of the plat which is to extend James Circle east and north of its present cul -de -sac location south of Freeway Boulevard. He also showed the location of the new lot on which the Hardees restaurant is proposed to be built. He added that the City is proposing to rezone the land south of Freeway Boulevard to C2 (General Commerce). Regarding landscaping, the Secretary suggested the Planning Commission may want to increase its requirement for smaller developments because the proposed landscaping seems inadequate for the site as proposed. Chairman Nelson asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Paul Gray, the architect and contractor for the development, noted that representatives of the applicant have met with staff a number of times, but would also meet the concerns regarding lighting and landscaping for the proposed site. Commissioner Ainas asked Mr. Gray whether he would propose additional landscaping along Freeway Boulevard. Mr. Gray responded in the affirmative. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89005) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. 2 -16 -89 -1- • Commissioner Bernards asked whether the lighting and landscaping concerns could be covered by Condition Nos. 13 and 15 in the information sheet. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, stating that the staff could work with the applicant to come up with an acceptable plan. Commissioner Bernards inquired as to the hours of operation. Mr. Gray responded that the hours would probably be from about 5 :30 or 6:00 a.m. in the morning to 11:00 p.m. at night. Mr. Ron Ohe, another representative of the applicant, stated that, depending on the work force in the industrial park, the Hardees could become a 24 hour operation. The Secretary stated that he saw no problem with a 24 hour operation. He recalled that the proposed Embers restaurant in this general area was also going to be a 24 hour operation, though it has never been built. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 89005 (Border States Foods) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 89005, subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is issued for the construction and operation of a convenience food restaurant with a drive -up window. No other uses are comprehended. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. . Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 5. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 7. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 8. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 10. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 2 -16 -89 -2- 11. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 12. The property owner shall enter in an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems. 13. Site lighting shall conform with the requirements of SEction 35- 712 of the Zoning Ordinance. Pursuant to this end, the plans shall be revised, prior to issuance of building permits to eliminate the tilt of the north and south lamps on all four light poles on the site. 14. One on -site hydrant shall be required in a location to be approved by the Fire Chief. 15. The landscape plan shall be revised, prior to consideration by the City Council to indicate berming in the greenstrips adjacent to Freeway Boulevard and James Circle to provide parking lot screening. The landscape plan shall be further revised, prior to the issuance of permits, to indicate additional plantings as requested by the Planning Commission and City Council in keeping with community standards. 16. Building permits shall not be issued for the project until the plat comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 88024 has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County. ' Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards Ainas and Sander. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89006 (E and H Properties) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for rezoning approval of a small sliver of land at the southeast corner of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North from R5 to C2. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89006, attached). Commissioner Sander asked whether the rezoning to C2 would allow something to be built on the property, that the property was essentially unbuildable now. The Secretary responded in the negative. He stated that some development could be built on the existing C2 land, but that the site design could be more efficient if some additional land were rezoned to C2. He stated that without the rezoning it was possible that some of the traffic exiting the site would wind up going down to Willow Lane to turn around to make their westbound movement onto 66th Avenue North. He stated that moving the zoning line would allow better use of the median opening in 66th. Commissioner Sander stated that she did not want to see traffic from this development going down Willow Lane. The Secretary answered that the City could refuse to allow access from the easterly parcel to Willow Lane. He stated that the R5 parcel, in this case, would have to serve as a buffer between the service station use and the residential neighborhood to the east. He stated that the staff wanted the applicant to show that an office development would fit in this location. He added that the City staff detects that the neighborhood would prefer an office development as a buffer rather than apartments and that perhaps the land should be rezoned to Cl to lock in this development option. 2 -16 -89 -3- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 39005 Applicant: Border States Foods Location: Freeway Boulevard and James Circle (new east leg) Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Permit Location /Use The applicant requests site and building and special use permit approval to construct a Hardees restaurant at the as- yet- to -be- constructed intersection of' Freeway Boulevard and James Circle (east leg). The property in question is presently zoned I -1 (however, it is covered in a City- initiated rezoning to C2 under Application No. 89003) and is bounded on the north by Freeway Boulevard, on the east by the new, easterly leg of James Circle, on the south by vacant land (also included in the rezoning to C2), and on the west by the Earle Brown Bowl. Convenience food restaurants are presently allowed by special use permit in the I -1 zone and are also allowed by special use permit in the C2 zoning district. Access /Parking The plan calls for a single access to the site via a 30' wide driveway off James Circle at the southeast corner of the site. The plan calls for a drive -up window on the west side of the building and an order speaker somewhat northwest of the building. Stacking for the drive -up lane is expected to fill the driving lanes north and east of the building. Parking east of the building will be 9Q but spaces along the north, west, and south sides of the lot will be angled, promoting a counter - clockwise flow, paralleling the drive -up circulation. A 2' wide concrete median separates the drive -up from the parking lot driving lane. The proposed restaurant is to have 118 seats and 20 employees. At one space per two seats plus one space per two employees, the parking requirement is 69 spaces. Precisely 69 spaces are provided on the plan. The proposal, therefore, complies with parking requirements. Landscaping The landscape plan calls for minimal landscaping other than numerous shrubs adjacent to the building. The plan calls for four American Linden (2 1/2" diameter), 60' apart along the new leg of James Circle (in the easterly greenstrip of this site). Other than that, the plan calls for two Radiant Crabs, one at the northwest corner and one at the southwest corner of the site. All of the remaining plantings are shrubs located around the foundation of the building and around a proposed freestanding identification sign at the northeast corner of the site, and around an entrance sign north of' the access drive. No berming was shown on the plan submitted. We have informed the contractor of the need for parking lot screening along the north and east sides of the site adjacent to public streets. A revised plan should show berming in these areas. We would also recommend that the Commission discuss landscaping with the applicant. Although the number of plantings meets the requirements of the landscape point system used to evaluate landscape plans, the general level of plantings is minimal and provides little visual relief on the site. We would recommend the addition of more trees - perhaps coniferous trees - along the Freeway Boulevard greenstrip. Sod has been indicated in all perimeter green areas and underground irrigation has also been noted, as required. Drainage and Utilities The grading plan calls for runoff to drain basically from west to east. Two catch 2 -16 -89 -1- • Application No. 89005 continued basins are proposed, one at the northeast corner and one at the southeast corner of the parking lot. The catch basins will be connected by 12" storm sewer lines to a catch basin in James Circle. An 18" line in James Circle will convey runoff southward to a holding pond south of the bend in James Circle. The holding pond will drain out into a 21" line flowing north to the 60" storm sewer in Freeway Boulevard. Drainage calculations for a 5 -year and 100 -year storm have been submitted to the City Engineer for review. The plan calls for a hydrant to be placed just inside the north property line. The Fire Chief has recommended that the hydrant be placed either in the green area north of the building or near the common property line with the vacant parcel to the south so as to serve both sites. There is an 8" line coming off the main in Freeway Boulevard which could serve both a hydrant and a service to the building rather than having separate lines for each. Sanitary sewer service will extend from the east side of the building to a new sanitary main in James Circle (east leg). Building The applicant proposes a 4,285 sq. ft. light brick building with a mansard treatment carried continuously around the building. Signs are indicated on the wall and on the mansard. As long as the mansard is carried entirely around the building, the mansard signs can be considered wall signs (as opposed to roof signs). Windows around the seating area (roughly the north one third of' the building) are proposed to be 1" insulated and bronze tinted glass. Lighting /Trash The plan calls for a trash enclosure on a concrete pad at the southwest corner of the parking lot. Proposed lighting raises some concerns. The site plan calls for four 30' high poles, two on the east side of the site and two on the west. Each pole is to have three 400 watt high pressure sodium luminaires, tilted at least 25° to shine out on the building. We are not as concerned with those lights that shine directly on the building as much as with the four fixtures that will shine off in a northerly direction, projecting some glare toward Freeway Boulevard. While the level of lighting, measured in foot - candles, is within the 10 fobt candle limit established in Section 35 -712 of the Zoning Ordinance, we believe the projection of light off the premises is inconsistent with that section which requires illumination to be concentrated on the property. It also provides that "no glare shall emanate from or be visible beyond the boundaries of the illuminated premises ". The southerly as well as the northerly lamp on each pole will shine onto the property to the south. This may not be unwelcome in a commercial district, but it is contrary to the direction of the ordinance. We would recommend a condition calling for modification of these light fixtures to comply with Section 35 -712, ie. no tilt of the northerly or southerly lamps. Special Use Standards The proposed convenience food restaurant is presently an acknowledged special use in the I -1 zoning district. (As the Commission is aware, the City has initiated a rezoning of this and neighboring properties to C2, in which convenience food restaurants are also acknowledged as a special use. Accompanying the rezoning is an ordinance amendment which would, among other things, eliminate convenience food restaurants from the I -1 zone). All special uses are subject to the standards set forth in Section 35 -220, Subsection 2 (attached). The applicant has submitted a brief statement (attached) asserting that the Standards for a Special Use Permit are met by the proposed Hardees restaurant. 2 -16 -89 -2- Application No. 89005 continued We agree that the proposed restaurant will not endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. We also anticipate no negative impact on property values within the neighborhood. The establishment of the proposed restaurant should not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding property. In fact, the seller of the site (Richardson and Sons) expects that the installation of the roadway and the construction of the restaurant will stimulate further development of the remaining vacant land south of Freeway Boulevard. Finally, ingress, egress and parking have been so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. The location of the single access drive relative to the drive -up window will insure that stacking for the drive -up business is accommodated on site and will not spill out onto James Circle or Freeway Boulevard. Recommendation In general, the plans appear to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is issued for the construction and operation of a convenience food restaurant with a drive -up window. No other uses are comprehended. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 4 +. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 5. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 7. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 8. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 9. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 10. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 2 -16 -89 _3- Application No. 89005 continued 11. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 12. The property owner shall enter in an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems. 13. Site lighting shall conform with the requirements of Section 35- 712 of the Zoning Ordinance. Pursuant to this end, the plans shall be revised, prior to issuance of building permits, to eliminate the tilt of the north and south lamps on all four light poles on the site. 14. One on -site hydrant shall be required in a location to be approved by the Fire Chief. 15. The landscape plan shall be revised, prior to consideration by the City Council, to indicate berming in the greenstrips adjacent to Freeway Boulevard and James Circle to provide parking lot screening. The landscape plan shall be further revised, prior to the issuance of permits, to indicate additional plantings as requested by the Planning Commission and City Council in keeping with community standards. 16. Building permits shall not be issued for the project until the plat comprehended under Planning Commission Application No.. 88024 has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County. 2 -16 -89 -4- • cREEK - OPEN SPACE 11 OA, 67TH \ AVE. z LLJ ' <t APPLICATION NO --) 89005 BLVD. R5 C2 lao 2 ' I i N : 8 -_-_/ i 1u2, 67TH \ 67TH 5 BROOKLYN C HIGH SC1 • • 1 - - rve- + 8 44.8' 844.8' z7.5° r}t .) R. • FCC GCfAIL ) - — Q' I G E 1 \ \ OWP GF 11 '+ 'f `7dq'o l --- /65,01' - - - 'agr'G. 0 gi�-z^w14.._ & N 4' 1,+ t , n 4 Ah V I /�i 1,0DER nr1P Q �t eef 'F.(tAce"" S �a,, rE�.lAt u(.EVAKC1 g WA Tg t o -� — Lt Tb co E c�oi's , 47 P.c.. 4 N . tJ.ce u� 3 ,\ 'MENU ¢uLd* i8' ��+ ?v' -o" y ' f lo' -, 43 �r - 4447./3-10 evY zae; 1 CF 9 R li'I cow. z5 °c • yR� Ing =z4'a+ 6,1- LAIJcor.-cfS —'L— Q 6.10 '- -- 9'-a'.- Darts C.-F yc t 11- ti t 1 1 1 I'7 0 T 1 1 I I 9 -o 7g i' -o Its if / I% ( 1h>G 0PA' c 9 -0 :111' -04 4/10 cj .s.c , o- NIgar-1!1 17 w ' ft f." NJ5i < ck.v Lr r . , 2 11 , -;r1r* r -• 1.1HV' I ki - 1 :711"1/ -tivriafil < Alodrocr, r H nr tJ / _ ' _zz / \ \\ rIMA261b1M - -10 4 ■IS-; sHa. •o eyrh-i s c;ser•I'r" 02,1r-ma)-t- ..143443e-Ara JrUn ahvriloi1106 tin • • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Cate Agenda Item Numoer REQUEST COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ******************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** • ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 89007 - Maranatha Place DEPT. APP L: / Signature - titre Director of Planning and Inspcti of ******************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached 2 -27 -89 q b SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X ) Planning Commission Application No. 89007 is submitted by Maranatha Place. The application is a request for variance approval to place identification signery for Maranatha Place apartments on a retaining wall on the Maranatha Care Center property to the east. These properties are addressed as 5401 and 5415 69th Avenue North. The Planning Commission considered this request at its February 16, 1989 meeting (see Planning Commission minutes and information sheet attached). The application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission subject to the six findings and considerations listed on page six of the minutes. APPLICATION NO. 89007 (Maranatha Place) The Secretary then introduced the next item of' business, a request for variance approval to place an identification sign for Maranatha Place apartments on a retaining wall on the Maranatha Care Center property to the east. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89007 attached). The Secretary added that the nursing home is allowed a 36 sq. ft. sign already. Chairman Nelson then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. David Viland, the administrator of the Maranatha Care Center, showed the Planning Commission a site plan of the entire care center and apartment complex and the location of the proposed sign and the location of the driveway serving both aspects of the development. He explained that construction of the Maranatha Place apartments required soil corrections and 6,000 yards of' fill to be disposed of. He explained that the fill was used to create a bermed area in front of' the care center and that the retaining wall would help to buttress that berm. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the retaining wall would be brick. Mr. Viland responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the sign variance would set a precedent for other apartment complexes in the City. The Secretary stated that he did not think so because of the unique circumstance of the care center and the apartment complex being attached and being one continuous use. The Secretary added that the Commission could look at an ordinance amendment on multiple- family signery. He stated that the limit for this particular building is rather stringent, limiting it to only a 10 sq. ft. sign on the wall of the building. In response to another comment from Commissioner Bernards, the Secretary agreed that the sign was aesthetically attractive and should not be any detriment to surrounding properties. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89007) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. 2 -16 -89 -5- i CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Nelson indicated some interest in looking at the sign ordinance and perhaps bringing back an ordinance amendment relating to signery for multiple- family complexes. The Secretary stated that staff could bring back some ordinance amendment in the future. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 89007 (Maranatha Place) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to recommend approval of Application No. 89007, subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. Unified signery for the care center /apartment complex is appropriate and even desirable. Applying the ordinance literally would prevent such unified signery and would work a hardship on the applicant. 2. The continuum of services offered in the complex and the attachment of the buildings across zoning as well as property lines are unique conditions which are not common generally in either the R6 or R1 zoning districts. 3. The proposed signery is aesthetically attractive and will have no greater impact than two separate sign monuments. There should, therefore, be no detrimental effect on the public welfare, nor injury to other property in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed retaining wall serves a function in addition to providing a wall on which to place signery. Sign area, therefore, need not be computed as the total face of the retaining wall, but only that area covered by the proposed signery. 5. Variance approval acknowledges one 28 sq. ft. freestanding sign as proposed on the Maranatha Care Center property. No other identification signery for Maranatha Place is acknowledged by this variance approval. 6. The existing identification sign for the care center shall be removed prior to issuance of the sign permits for the proposed signs. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners, Malecki, Bernards, Ainas and Sander. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The City Engineer left the meeting at 9:19 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS The Secretary then briefly reviewed with the Commission the action on Application No. 89001, a variance request by Lois Anderson to allow a garage to be less than 50' from 57th Avenue North. He explained that the Planning Commission had recommended an ordinance amendment to define major thoroughfares as all four lane streets in the city. He explained that the Director of Public Works had informed him that after 2 -16 -89 -6- • Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89007 Applicant: Maranatha Place Location: 5401/5415 69th Avenue North Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests a variance from the Sign Ordinance to have an off - premise freestanding sign for the Maranatha Place apartment building at 5415 69th Avenue North. The sign would be located on a retaining wall on the nursing home property to the east. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north by 69th Avenue North, on the east and south by single- family homes, and on the west by the Maranatha Place Apartments. Beyond Maranatha Place is a three -story apartment complex across the city boundary in Brooklyn Park. Off- premise identification or advertising signs are considered billboards and are prohibited under Section 34- 130.11 of the Sign Ordinance. Also, apartment complexes are only allowed to have freestanding signs if they are cluster developments with three or more buildings and 36 or more units (Section 34- 140.3C.3). Sign variances are subject to three standards contained in 340 -180 (attached). The standards are similar to those in the Zoning Ordinance. A particular hardship must be shown if the strict letter of the ordinance is carried out. The conditions upon which the variance is based must be unique to the parcel of land and not be common generally in the zoning district. Finally, the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. The applicant (Mr. David Viland, administrator of the Maranatha Care Center) has submitted a letter addressing the Standards for a Variance, a rendering of the proposed sign and a site plan (all attached). The sign itself is proposed to be located on a brick retaining wall in the northwestern portion of the Maranatha Care Center site. There would be three sections of the retaining wall, two convex relative to 69th and a middle section convave. The signs would be located on the convex sections, Maranatha Care Center on the easterly section and Maranatha Place on the westerly section. The sign would be located between the entrance serving the care center and the entrance to the apartment building. Regarding hardship, Mr. Viland states that the length of their business name makes it difficult to stay within the size limitation yet making the sign readable from a distance. Also, the only location for a sign allowed by ordinance would be the north wall of the apartment building which is very utilitarian in appearance and function. Staff would agree that a 10 sq. ft. sign is not really sufficient for this building, considering its bulk and the number of units in it. (It may be that the Commission will want to evaluate the existing ordinance for possible change. Nevertheless, we feel the variance can proceed apart from an ordinance change). There is also some advantage, not only to the applicant, but to the City as well, in consolidating the identification signery of this complex in a single location. The fact that the sign would be located across a property line seems immaterial as long as both properties are under common ownership. Regarding uniqueness, Mr. Viland states that the conditions are unique because of the way the two buildings are situated in relationship to each other, the restrictions on the access driveway location, and the continuum of services which the two business componants together provide. Mr. Viland explains this continuum 2 -16 -89 -1- • Application No. 89007 continued of services ranging from completely independent living to a setting where complete care is provided. He states that the proposed signery effectively portrays to the community the continuum of services offered. He concludes by noting that, though the nursing home and apartment building are technically on separate parcels, their ownership, management and service are singular. Staff would certainly agree that the continuum of services available at the subject properties is unique. The arrangement of the two buildings, attached along a common zoning as well as property line is very unique. The building attachment serves to indicate that the two entities form a common unit. Unified signery is, therefore, appropriate. Regarding potential detriment to the public welfare and injury to other property, Mr. Viland points out that a single sign monument will eliminate the need for a separate sign on the Maranatha Place property. He also notes that there are plans for landscaping around the retaining wall and that the signery will be very subtle and aesthetic. Staff agree that the proposed signery is low key and should not pose any detriment to public welfare or injury to property in the neighborhood. Recommendation We believe there is definite merit to this variance request. Approval is recommended, noting the following findings: 1. Unified signery for the care center /apartment complex is appropriate and even desirable. Applying the ordinance literally would prevent such unified signery and would work a hardship on the applicant. 2. The continuum of services offered in the complex and the attachment of the buildings across zoning as well as property lines are unique conditions which are not common generally in either the R6 or Rl zoning districts. 3. The proposed signery is aesthetically attractive and will have no greater impact than two separate sign monuments. There should, therefore, be no detrimental effect on the public welfare, nor injury to other property in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed retaining wall serves a function in addition to providing a wall on which to place signery. Sign area, therefore, need not be computed as the total face of the retaining wall, but only that area covered by the proposed signery. 5. Variance approval acknowledges one 28 sq. ft. freestanding sign as proposed on the Maranatha Care Center property. No other identification signery for Maranatha Place is acknowledged by this variance approval. 6. The existing identification sign for the care center shall be removed prior to issuance of the sign permits for the proposed signs. 2 -16 -89 -2- • m r- m- z 0 --� n T n I INIT,Y 1 I 1 ! AVE. I IN; TOLEDO PERRY 04 NOBLE AVE CITY II AVE a II will I } I I A IR OAKS ELEMENTARY $ F SCHOOL I I OF I 1 1 I , I I 1 (SCOTT I < REGENT I D rn 'I BROOKLYN pyA1L m PERRY, _ _•I ro oa m IAVE.IN U NIT us co � + ; MAJOR I I J AVE. N ♦• 141 V"'" s \ T I .I . AVE. I 0) = AVE A AVE,. ? I (�� VIIIII i L � • PARK all1 WNW / I � n � -- `i �r -,... LS J 25 ' -0 '. SITE PLAN \--• SCALE: 1" = 30' 69TH AVE. No -TH W OLTTO ATECTS C., 381 FAS KE ERS LLOG BOU ARD • ST PA M 5 IN • 612 -06 P.A. P 0 • P-E TAl ki l kt 4 l_1ALL iAA�y�dl�fs�Jlz�'� 1 14 1 �L NA M LhI,15TIZIES - SIDE WALK ' SITE SECTION SCALE: 118" = 1'- 0" 2S_ 0 AREA OF 516NACCE HAR..1N•i•4\THA CAKE CENTER -/ MARANATHA MlNI5TP - -1 ES - 1'1" R•ANATHA PLAG E MARAN \THE Mt*1i_TkIES - 1T14 AVE. NG t c 6•.• F. GC T f r PROJECT NAME /NUMBER DATE MARANIATHA PLAGG I f II /o1/55 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2/27/89 Agenda Item Number /0Gli REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: ORDINANCE VACATING PART OF THE RIGHT -OF -WAY OF 66TH AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN WEST RIVER ROAD AND WILLOW LANE *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP Y i'IRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ******** ********** 4 ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 4 ra * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) Explanation No comments to supplement this report When MNDOT reconstructed T.H. 252/610 through Brooklyn Center, one element of that project was the realignment of the T.H. 252/66th Avenue intersection. With the purchase of the former Amoco station in the northeast quadrant of this intersection, the easterly leg of 66th Avenue (between new T.H. 252 and Willow Lane) was shifted northerly. As a result, the southerly portion of the "old" 66th Avenue right -of -way is no longer needed for street purposes, and the adjoining property owner, E. and H. Properties (i.e. Howard Atkins), has requested that the portion of the right -of -way not needed be vacated. We recommend that the portion of this right -of -way which lies more than 20 feet beyond the new curb line on 66th Avenue be vacated. The remaining 20 feet wide right -of -way would be adequate to allow construction of a 10 foot wide trailway while retaining a 10 foot wide boulevard area. A copy of the survey of the portion of the street proposed to be vacated is attached. Also, a proposed ordinance is provided for consideration by the City Council. The first reading of the proposed ordinance was conducted on 1/23/89. Notices of the proposed vacation have been sent to all privately -owned public utility companies. All have indicated "no objection" to the proposed vacation. Council Action Required Comments below /attached Conduct second reading and public hearing. If appropriate, adopt the proposed ordinance. • • • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 27th day of February , 1989 at 7 :30 P.M. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Vacating Part of the Right -of -Way of 66th Avenue North Between West River Road and Willow Lane. 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 VACATING PART OF THE RIGHT -OF -WAY OF 66TH AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN WEST RIVER ROAD AND WILLOW LANE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The portion of 66th Avenue North. lying between West River Road and Willow Lane. and legally described as follows. is hereby vacated: That part of the existing right -of -way for 66th Avenue. being a portion of Lots 4 and 7. Block 1, OLSON'S ISLAND VIEW TERRACE. as platted and recorded. Hennepin County. Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the easterly line of said L9t 7. said point being on a line 25 feet south of anti parallel with the north line of said Lot 7: thence South 85 degrees 02 minutes 05 seconds West. assumed bearing. 13.25 feet along said parallel line to the point of beginning of the tract to be described' thence continuing South. 85 degrees 02 minutes 05 seconds West 225.34 feet on said parallel line: thence North 09 degrees 12 minutes 43 seconds West 11 feet: thence North 80 degrees 47 minutes 17 seconds East 19_9 R0 feet: thence southeasterly 44.50 feet on a tangential curve concave to the southwest with a radius of 28.94 feet and with a central angle of 88 degrees 05 minutes 40 seconds to the point of beginning. Said tract contains 4,233 square feet. more or less. Said tract is subiect to a permanent public utility easement over all but the south 4.50 feet thereof. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date Mayor • MItiI1i 1TiNNTilI, I I dltl l;flf I A f III IIIINIIIIr 1{811 d r II NIL !Brian I 1 filidL MID Mill Ilifl Uiiiiiil 1Mii ...,.tea • . -_____ r - '11 �� 1 1 W1s 1u1J ij )1 I `l[Illl� -- QIUIMI* _.1 ?IN Vd tiNVItt w••• ; - I I I I I I I A . -I , Sr■ •••:;;;;I iddis [M171 r�111i[ [[ 10ili01111181 . LLilll� ' f�I][� ;l f':' 0 r .�..., / , L'! i ®IIIIICINMI II ML IThr, r 1fta m META f MiiillElliniff/ - H �Q7 �NMI [ LSDW IILL[110-1f;IIli11P1'iiifl mimic I1 W M® Lind ' ` EW I ONO NCI NI ■ ' V III QT11ID11 r'ii i[1i�u ;" on. [ME 1 ''�' ' lilil l i I 1W Q1I1111]C1Tiil l'1'II711111N 1 111W' Q W G,[ JJ1111lI =lei 1tlllilh" _ [Ill11fll [�Illllt(l m i JLti11llll >- 0 � '+ C11IEMITf1IU riginiI EEO N IHH6�' i �► i Il lYY L 1llil IIIEi�" D ®IN 3 "I EE] -o 1 01 t F S I IL :. j SKETCH OF PROPOSED RIGHT -OF -WAY VACATION 66TH AVENUE E x15TI NC..4 cut 215 rj („t1TT E _1ss.8o -I t..18004z•1't" E- FERMAN N-r- SEM Li TY t (ee..t2) 225.34-- 585 °02.' W- NO2TH L IN E OF c--or 7, BLOCK. 1, N OLSON'S ISLAt4D VIEW TERS AGE N pGK OLSON'S ISLAND VIEW TERRACE • r i P. o. B. - - 13.25' 5 ° 0 2' 05 "W SCALE 1 INCH e 20 FEET OF - 1 - ‘41 , 5 gEAG -lr 4 SYSTEM t5 4.55LI NA ORIENTATION 1 ERI LA 8401 73rd Ave. No., Suite 63 Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 -1293 ��b Fax (612) -1937 -7595 & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING • • Hennepin County Economic Development Consortium January 16, 1989 Mr. Gerald G. Splinter Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Splinter: The meeting of Hennepin County mayors and city administrators last week to discuss the Economic Development Consortium went quite well. Since you were unable to attend, I have enclosed a briefing paper on the Consortium to bring you up to date. We would like your city to consider joining the effort. As you will see from the briefing, there is no cost in doing so. I am available to meet with you or a committee from your city at your convenience to explain the Consortium further and to answer any questions that might arise. A number of cities have already indicated they plan to join, pending full council consideration. Members to date include Hennepin County, Minneapolis, Bloomington, St. Louis Park, and seven chambers of commerce. Thanks for your consideration. Let me know if I can help. Best regards, Enclosures G1 A Mark D. Threlkeld Acting Director Voting Quinlan Building 81 South 9th Street, Suite 200 Minneapolis. Minnesota 55402 012/:370-9162 For Quality .Jobs and Business Grn th NOTE: Until mid -April the Consortium's address is 15 South Fifth St.. Minneapolis 55402 ria • • BRIEFING PAPER HENNEPIN COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONSORTIUM The Hennepin County Economic Development Consortium is a group consisting of area chambers of commerce, cities, Hennepin County government and post secondary education institutions. The group is working to foster economic growth and to increase the number of quality jobs for all Hennepin County residents. The focus will be on: * helping existing companies to expand in their present locations; * assisting high growth potential entrepreneurs; * responding to companies looking at the metro area from the outside; and * establishing a computerized means of sharing information between economic development groups and coordinating resources. The effort started in the fall of 1987 when the Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce led a group of 15 people to review the development efforts in Wichita, Kansas and Denver, Colorado. After seeing the magnitude of those programs and the metro -wide approach being taken, the decision was quickly made to broaden the effort here. From the beginning, it has been led by Eric Selberg, vice president and CEO -MN of US West Communications and the current chair of the Consortium. Hennepin County- Commissioners Sam Sivanich and Mark Andrew participated on the trip to the two cities, with Sivanich becoming the lead supporter of the effort from the county. Last August, the Board of Commissioners voted $160,000 in funding for the Consortium during an 18 month start -up period. The Greater Minneapolis Chamber is providing staff support. A two -day planning session was held about a year ago, at which a mission statement and four goals were identified. From that, an initial plan was written, which has guided the Consortium to this point. One of the first efforts of the Consortium was the Executive Call Program last summer, which coordinated 15 chambers of commerce in a program designed to make personal calls on local manufacturing companies. The intent was to learn more about their needs, (over) expansion plans and any problems they might have which inhibit their growth. A great deal of information was gathered from 'the 275 companies which took part, allowing the Consortium and the Chambers to improve their efforts to meet business needs. An on -line computer system has been developed and will be available to all Consortium members in early February. The system will contain an 80 page economic profile of the metro area, information on Hennepin County, profiles on each city in the county, a list of new business prospects, an inventory of available industrial buildings and land, and will have an electronic bulletin board feature which will allow economic development people from, all cities and chambers to exchange documents, leave messages for individuals or the entire group, and to supplement the Consortium's information in a number of ways. Most of these files will be on the system at the outset, with others being added as soon as possible. Marketing materials such as brochures, folders, an AV presentation, etc. will be developed using the Consortium's identity, allowing any member to use them as a supplement to their own existing materials. CURRENT STATUS The Consortium is now asking every city, chamber, and post- secondary education institution to consider membership. All that is required is for the governing body (city council or board) to adopt the attached mission statement and goals, and agree to actively participate. Participation can mean serving on the 15 member steering committee which meets quarterly, on the working committee which meets monthly and is -open to all, or by simply using the resources of the Consortium and providing help and suggestions for improving it. There is no cost. - -As mentioned earlier, funding through the end of 1989 is in place. Joining now will not cost members anything. By the fall of 1989, we will determine the on -going costs of the Consortium and discuss funding with all members. Joining now does not commit anyone beyond 1989. The people and organizations who have been involved in getting the Consortium to this point believe it is important that we all work together to maintain the health of our local economy and to provide good jobs for the people of Hennepin County. The Consortium can provide a way for each city and chamber to do an even better job of local economic development for their constituents, which will mean a net gain for us all. NOTE: Until mid - April, the Consortium's address is 15 South Fifth Street. Suite 100. Minneapolis 55402 • • MISSION and GOALS of the Hennepin County Economic Development Consortium MISSION: Ensure economic growth and increased income for all Hennepin County residents through expanded quality jobs. GOAL 1: Aggressively manage and coordinate a public /private economic development effort for the region. GOAL 2: Provide a competitive environment for growth in diversified opportunities, emphasizing existing and new emerging enterprises. GOAL 3: Maintain and improve the requisite skills base and foster entrepreneurialism. GOAL 4: Maintain and improve the physical infrastructure. DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR JOINING THE HENNEPIN COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONSORTIUM WHEREAS, the City of has a strong interest in the economic health of both the community and the region; and WHEREAS, a group known as the Hennepin County Economic Development Consortium has been formed and has identified significant economic development needs and opportunities which can be best addressed through cooperation among the chambers and local governments of the area; and WHEREAS, the Consortium has developed a mission statement and goals for achieving more effective and better coordinated economic development programs; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF That the City of endorses the economic development mission and goals identified by the Consortium and by so doing becomes a member, agreeing to work on cooperative efforts with the Consortium and other business, government and community organizations to accomplish these goals. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 2/27/89 Agenda Item Number lib REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: TWIN LAKE /PRESERVE PARK STUDY *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title ************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached As part of the 1988 budget, the City Council authorized a preliminary use study for the park lands in the area of the Kylawn Preserve and upper, middle and lower Twin Lakes area. The parks and recreation commission reviewed the first draft of Westwood's Planning Study at its February meeting and is in the process of evaluating the various alternatives listed in the preliminary report. Monday evening I will be reviewing with you the preliminary report and requesting City Council input to the park and recreation commission review process. In your review of the attached draft report, please pay particular attention to the Josyln property as it relates to recommendations from Westwood. V WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. • I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • TWIN LAKES & THE PRESERVE STUDY BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA OVERVIEW Twin Lakes is like a "jewel in the rough "; it is an underused resource. In the upcoming years the City of Brooklyn Center may have the opportunity to reclaim this valuable public resource. In a reclaimed state, more people will be able to utilize the water and share its resources. This study was undertaken to determine what issues and opportunities are associated with increased utilization of the Lake as an active and passive resource. The study occured over a 12 -month period from midwinter 1987 -88 to midwinter 1988 -89. This afforded a 4 season review of the study area. The study area was broken into two areas of written summary: Twin Lakes (Upper, Middle, and Lower) and the Preserve Area. For mapping purposes they are displayed as part of the same geographic area and so the graphics reference the Preserve as if it were just another part of the study area. The graphics are presented on a corrected set of aerial photos from April 1985 and spliced to together. The study area falls mostly within the City limits of Brooklyn Center. However, a study of Twin Lakes must recognize that Robbinsdale and Crystal also own part of the lakes and Brooklyn Park is a neighbor to the Preserve. This multi - jurisdictional aspect presents several problems caused by local views, but clearly can be viewed as an opportunity to provide a natural resource based amenity which benefits a very broad area. This point can be clearly seen when it is pointed out that all four communities are presently looking at ways to improve their pedestrian and bike trails. The possibility of a 4 city "link up" in the Twin Lakes area is feasible and opens up an emense opportunity for biking and hiking. FINDINGS: 1. The public land holdings around Twin Lakes clearly show an existing interest in land around the Lakes. Many sites exist, but they are very fragmented. To assemble a trailway, many parcels will need to be acquired and /or an on road trail system will be involved. 2. The MnDOT boat access area is the largest active public use area. The Preserve is quite large, but not being lake oriented is not viewed by the public as part of the "Twin Lakes" environment. The old Brooklyn Center beach area was the key piece of Twin Lake usage which has not been replaced by a large active use area on the lakes. 3. The Preserve itself lacks an overall development plan, consequently the development pattern is strongly influenced by individualized municipal management practices. This patchwork approach also results in an under utilized resource. Crystal, Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center could plan a facility which could allow for integrated trails and areas which can also reflect any localized goals. 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443 (612) 424 - 8862 (Business Office) 7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55426 (612) 546-0155 • Twin Lakes and the Preserve Study Page 2 4. The Lakes themselves are greatly appreciated by a somewhat limited number of people who have opportunity to use them. Boaters, anglers, homeowners, wildlife preservationists, and recreational vehicle operators have found the lakes to be very good source of pleasure. At various seasons or times of day and to those fortuitously positioned, the lakes are available. Too many however, the lake access is poor, it has a limited capacity, public facilities are scarce, usage conflicts are common, and the linkage between lakes makes movement difficult. 5. The potential for change is present. The forces that cause change seem to be most present in the Brooklyn Center area. Redevelopment of the Joslyn and Tri State sites, are probable and parkland could be included in that developement. Further, the City is clearly showing a strong preference for bike trails. The Highway 100 upgrading may alter the open space character of the area around lower and middle Twin Lakes. Road improvements could include upgrading of the lake linkages, trails (over and /or under 100) and revisions at the public access. Robbinsdale, Crystal and Brooklyn Park all appear integrated in seeing a lakes loop which could link into their bike /hike systems. 6. A joint management plan for the Twin Lakes surface(s) and any trails appears to have value as a method to manage usage conflicts. The inability of any single municipality to manage uses has resulted in some conflicts which are unsafe and seem to benefit only a very small number of users. Specific details about these findings can be found in the complete Findings sections (Part II). RECOMMENDATIONS Five General Goals are proposed which are paraphrased here: 1. Establish a format for the involved communities to impliment common goals around lake usage. 2. Develop a year -round approach to development and management of the resource for broadened community uses. 3. Preserve the natural resources wherever possible. 4. Improve the water quality of the lakes. 5. Develop a trail system which links the presently planned trails of the 4 communities in the Twin Lakes area. • • SUMMARY Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 3 The goals and the policies proposed to achieve the goals can be exemplified by the two sheet master plan. This plan contains the following major elements: 1. A trail loop all the way around the lakes. 2. Trail linkages under /over Highway 100 to Lower Twin Lake. 3. Trail access points to facilitate user access and familiarity with the trail system around the lake. 4. A singular concept of trails and uses for the Preserve area. 5. Two major park activity areas (Bass Lake Road site and Middle Lake North site) are proposed which will be supported by smaller secondary park use areas. Not illustrated, but implied are: 6. Some form of surface water controls. 7. Improved water quality. To achieve the type of facilities suggested in this study a series of events would need to occur. The process would include official - adoption of the studies goals, move into a feasibility type study to determine the cost and methods to establish the favored plan, fundings of the plan, and lastly acquisition and development. This plan in its entirety, will take many years to impliment. • • 710t York Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 TWIN LAKES AND THE PRESERVE STUDY FOR THE CITY OF 3 BROOKLYN CENTER WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. FEBRUARY 1989 • • w Section I. Executive Summary TWIN LAKES AND THE PRESERVE STUDY BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA Table of Contents II. Findings — Twin Lakes /The Preserve 4 A. Land Parcels Inventory 4 B. Water Resources 10 C. Crystal's Comments on Twin Lakes 13 D. Upgraded Highway 100 Issues 14 E. Robbinsdale's Comments on Twin Lakes 15 F. The Preserve 16 III. Goals and Policies 21 Twin Lakes 21 The Preserve 23 IV. Concept Plan 24 V. Recommendations 25 Acquisition 25 Development 27 VI. Summary 30 February, 1989 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Tim Erkkila, ASLA Page Page 1 • Overview Findings U L WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. • I. Executive Summary TWIN LAKES & THE PRESERVE STUDY BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA Twin Lakes is a "jewel in the rough ": it is an underused resource. In the upcoming years the City of Brooklyn Center may have the opportunity to reclaim this valuable public resource. In a reclaimed state, more people will be able to utilize the chain of lakes and share its resources. This study was undertaken to determine what issues and opportunities are associated with increased utilization of the Lake as an active and passive resource. The study occured over a 12 -month period from midwinter 1987 -88 to midwinter 1988 -89. This afforded a 4 season review of the study area. The study area was broken into two areas of written summary: Twin Lakes (Upper, Middle, and Lower) and the Preserve Area. For mapping purposes they are displayed as part of the same geographic area and the graphics reference the Preserve as part of the study area. The graphics are presented on a corrected set of aerial photos from April 1985 and spliced together. The study area falls largely within the City limits of Brooklyn Center. However, a study of Twin Lakes must recognize that Robbinsdale and Crystal also have part jurisdiction over the lakes and Brooklyn Park is a neighbor to the Preserve. This multi - jurisdictional aspect presents several problems caused by local views, but clearly can be viewed as an opportunity to provide a natural resource -based amenity which benefits a very broad area. This can be clearly seen when it is pointed out that all four communities are presently looking at ways to improve their pedestrian and bike trails. The possibility of a 4 city "link up" in the Twin Lakes area is feasible and opens up an immense opportunity for biking and hiking. 1. The public land holdings around Twin Lakes clearly show an existing interest in land around the Lakes. Many sites exist, but they are very fragmented. To assemble a trailway, many parcels will need to be acquired and /or an on -road trail system will be implemented. 2. The MnDOT boat access area is the largest active public use area. The Preserve is quite large, but not being lake oriented is not viewed by the public as part of the "Twin Lakes" environment. The old Brooklyn Center beach area was the key piece of Twin Lake usage which has not been replaced by a large active use area on the lakes. 3. The Preserve itself lacks an overall development plan, consequently the development pattern is strongly influenced by individualized municipal management practices. This patchwork approach also results in an under utilized resource. Crystal and Brooklyn Center in cooperation with MAC 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443 (612) 424 -8862 (Business Office) 7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55426 (612) 546 -0155 • • Twin Lakes and the Preserve Study Page 2 could plan and manage a facility which could allow for integrated trails and areas which can also reflect any localized goals. Cooperation with Brooklyn Park could add linkages of that City to the trail system. 4. The Lakes themselves are greatly appreciated by a somewhat limited number of people who have opportunity to use them. Boaters, anglers, homeowners, wildlife preservationists, and recreational vehicle operators have found the lakes to be very good source of pleasure. At various seasons or times of day and to those fortuitously positioned, the lakes are available. To many however, the lake access is poor, it has a limited capacity, public facilities are scarce, usage conflicts are common, and the linkage between lakes makes movement difficult. 5. The potential for change is present. The forces that cause change seem to be most present in the Brooklyn Center area. Redevelopment of the Joslyn and Tri State sites, are probable and parkland could be included in that development. The City is clearly showing a strong preference for bike trails. The Highway 100 upgrading may alter the open space character of the area around lower and middle Twin Lakes. Road improvements could include upgrading of the lake linkages, trails (over and /or under 100) and revisions at the public access. Robbinsdale, Crystal and Brooklyn Park all appear interested in seeing a lakes loop which could link into their bike /hike systems. 6. A joint management plan for the Twin Lakes surface(s) and any trails appears to have value as a method to manage usage conflicts. The inability of any single municipality to manage uses has resulted in some conflicts which are unsafe and seem to benefit only a very small number of users. Specific details about these findings can be found in the complete Findings sections (Part II). Recommendations Five General Goals are proposed: 1. Establish a format for the involved communities to implement common goals around lake usage. 2. Develop a year -round approach to development and management of the resource for broadened community uses. 3. Preserve the natural resources wherever possible. 4. Improve the water quality of the lakes. 5. Develop a trail system which links the presently planned trails of the 4 communities in the Twin Lakes area. • • Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 3 The goals and the policies proposed to achieve the goals can be exemplified by the two sheet master plan. This plan contains the following major elements: 1. A trail loop all the way around the lakes. 2. Trail linkages under /over Highway 100 to minimize its potential barrier effect. 3. Numerous trail access points to facilitate user accessibility and familiarity with the trail system around the lakes. 4. A singular concept of trails and uses for the Preserve area. 5. Two major park activity areas (Bass Lake Road site and Middle Lake North site) are proposed which will be supported by smaller secondary park use areas. Not illustrated, but implied are: 6. Some form of surface water controls. 4110 7. Improved water quality. Summary To achieve the type of facilities suggested in this study a series of events would need to occur. The process would include official adoption of the studies goals, moving into a feasibility type study to determine the cost and methods to establish the favored plan and fundings of the plan, and lastly acquisition and development. The total plan could potentially take several years to implement. • • Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 4 11. Findings In order to understand the larger picture, one must understand the components. It was with this thought in mind that the "Findings" section was prepared. It is a nondirected inventory of the land, water, and attitudes which influence the past, present, and future conditions in the Twin Lakes and Preserve area. This section is largely detail oriented and may be considered as background information which documents the information available at the time of the study. A. LAND PARCELS INVENTORY 1. South Kylawn Park Site (approximately 7+ acres) This is a dual purpose site, fitting into the context of The Preserve (similar land type) as well as being adjacent to a main, established park parcel. More importantly, it is one of the key parcels in establishing a trail link from Upper Twin Lake to Kylawn Park. The parcel is bounded by Kylawn Park on the north, Moorwood Townhomes on the south, Twin Lake North Condominiums on the west and June Avenue single family homes on the east. The Parcel is valuable because it provides an access link to the vast neighborhood to the east via 59 -1/2 Avenue R.O.W. West of June Avenue. The general public has already established paths on this parcel. The main path runs north from Shores Drive and then heads to the picnic area on the south side of Kylawn Park. There is a path on the 59 1/2 Avenue R.O.W. to June Avenue as well. It would be advantageous for the City to take control of this parcel and clean it up. The eastern portion plus the 59 1/2 Avenue R.O.W. is currently used as a dumping ground. Lawn clippings, leaves, branches, and rocks litter the site. This parcel is generally wetland, but does have enough high ground to route a trail and establish a trail node. A bridge or culvert crossing probably will be needed at the point where the trail will cross over to Kylawn Park. 2. Two Vacant Lots - Kyle Avenue - There are two (2) vacant lots south of 6012 Kyle Avenue. Potentially, they could be incorporated into the overall plan for Kylawn Park and the South Kylawn Park parcel. 3. Bass Lake Road Park Site - Approximately 5+ acres - This parcel is the key parcel for the proposed trail system. It has good visibility and access from Bass Lake Road. It will function well as a major activity node and trail head, for the trail loop proposed north of Bass Lake Road and the trail that will head south around the east side of Upper Twin Lake. • • • Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 5 4. Big Island Access Site .5+ acres - This parcel is the 30' wide R.O.W. access running south to the big island (actually platted Island Drive). This parcel is generally wet and will require some filling to provide access to the island. 5. Big Island Park Parcel Approximately 4.1+ acres - This island is basically high ground with mature deciduous trees. There is a potential of better utilizing the existing beach areas on the island. The island has a lot of intrigue and makes a good destination point for canoeing. Potentially, the Big Island Park Site could be linked to the Big Island access site with a bridge. 6. Thompson Parcel 2.1+ acres Approximately 275 Lineal Feet Lakeshore - This parcel abuts the Bass Lake Road site on the southeast. It is designated official wildlife preserve and has an access easement across the Bass Lake Road Park site. 7. Indiana Avenue /June Avenue Parcel Approximately 2.5+ acres with approximately 300 lineal feet lakeshore - This beautiful wooded tract becomes another key link to trail routing and assembling a significant park parcel package on the north end of Upper Twin Lake. It has recreation possibilities in conjuction with the Thompson parcel and the Bass Lake Road Parcel. The preferred bituminous trail routing would be through this parcel, extending south via Indiana Avenue. 8. Lake Access - 56th Avenue & Indiana Avenue - 56th Avenue R.O.W. extends west from Indiana Avenue and is platted all the way to the shoreline. Existing access is currently only via pedestrian, as the R.O.W. is narrow (30' wide) and has 2 -3 mature deciduous trees on it. 9. Eckberg Drive Park Site Approximately 8.6+ acres to potentially approximately 11.9+ acres - Large open space with high ground and mature deciduous trees on the west half of the parcel with wetland and an open water inlet on the east half. This parcel provides great possibilities for trail routing and supporting trail nodes. Access is via the intersection of Eckberg Drive and Halifax Avenue. 10. Lake Access 53rd & Twin Lake Blvd. East - This lake access is actively used in the winter for ice fishing and general access out onto the ice. In consideration of all limitations for this access (parking, space, etc.), it seems appropriate to designate it as a winter use only access. Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 6 11. Lakeside Park - Approx. 1.0+ Acre - This parcel is well maintained open space and is an asset to all the homes around it. Further use of this parcel (passive recreation, tot lot, trail, road, etc.) needs further review. 12. Trail Corridor Linkages - Sheet 1 - The following trail segments are being considered and reviewed to be incorporated into an efficient trail system. g. a. Noble Ave., 61st to 63rd - Trail corridor to run on existing sidewalk on the west side of Noble Ave. This will provide the link to Orchard Lane School and potentially to points north across 63rd Ave. b. The Arboretum - A bituminous trail exists here, running north to Major Avenue. c. 61st. Ave. - Includes an existing sidewalk, but a stronger link to the east needs to be developed, specifically to Wangstad Park from Kylawn Park. d. Shores Drive -This is a private street serving the Moorwood Townhomes. An approximate 30' to 40' wide buffer strip exists between the east curb line of Shores Drive to the west lot lines of single family homes on June Ave. Aesthetically, it would be good to route a trail through this buffer strip. If that routing is not possible, a trail route may have to be striped on the east shoulder of Shores Drive. Routing through the buffer strip or shoulder will require easements unless this segment can be obtained as dedicated public R.O.W. If nothing can be acquired along Shores Drive, a trail may need to be routed on the west side of June Ave. utilizing existing sidewalk. e. 59 1/2 Ave. R.O.W. - The trail link here provides access to the large neighborhood to the east. f. Twin Lake North Sidewalk /Trail Extension - Construct a sidewalk /trail segment to link Kylawn Park /proposed trail node to the existing sidewalk on the west side of Twin Lake North /Moorwood Townhouses ponding area. Trail Link West Side of Channel, The Preserve to Bass Lake Road - Construct a trail on the west side of the channel in Crystal; link it to the proposed trail node on the west end of the upgraded boardwalk, south to the sidewalk on the north and west sides of Bass Lake Road. This property is currently privately owned. • Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 7 h. Bass Lake Road Crossings - Consider and review the following crossing points: 1. Shores Drive & Bass Lake Road intersection j. 2. 58th Avenue (Crystal) & Bass Lake Road intersection A last resort would be June Avenue and Bass Lake Road. Here a problem exists in that the June Avenues north and south of Bass Lake Road do not align. NOTE: Traffic volume and speed on Bass Lake Road presents current challenges. We must review controlling and managing traffic in this area. i. 58th Avenue Brooklyn Center /Bass Lake Road - Establish a trail corridor here, north and /or south sides, specifically running east to link Brookdale and subsequently the Shingle Creek Trail system, Central Park and the City Hall /Civic Center Complex. June Avenue South of 58th - Alternate trail route if trail through Thompson parcel is not possible. k. Halifax Avenue South of 58th - Alternate trail route if the trail through the Thompson parcel or the June Avenue route is not possible. 1. Halifax Avenue North of 57th - Alternate trail route if trail route through June /Indiana Avenue is not possible. m. Eckberg Drive - Establish a trail link to Northport Park. n. Twin Lake Boulevard East - Establish a trail segment on the west side of Twin Lake Boulevard East, running from Eckberg Drive to 51st Avenue. o. 53rd Avenue East - Trail connects to France Avenue trail and runs east to Brookdale. 13. North Middle Lake Park Site - Potentially 25+ acres; 15.8+ acres south of Soo Line Rail Road with 1400+ lineal feet lakeshore and 9.2+ acres north of Soo Line Rail Road with potentially 1200+ lineal feet lakeshore. This property is made up of former Joslyn Manufacturing property and Tri- State land property (i.e. Soo Line Rail Road) and one private residence near the railroad bridge. These 25+ acres would serve as a major activity node. (Refer to sheet 2 of concept plan for a further idea on proposed uses for this parcel.) The status of this land, on all concerned parcels is under review. • • Twin Lakes Study & The Preserve Page 8 Vehicular access back to a potential North Middle Lake Park site is not now available. Planning will have to occur in conjunction with the development of the Joslyn Tri -State site to amke an access road which will extend from France Ave (or off Lake Breeze) back toward the Middle Lake North Site. 14. Lake Access - Lake Breeze Avenue & Twin Lake Avenue - Status and function is similar to the access on 53rd and Twin Lake Boulevard East. In consideration of all limitations for this access it also seems appropriate to designate it as a "winter use only" access. 15. South Middle Twin Lake (Currently Twin Lake Beach Park) - Approximately 3.4+ acres with the balance of the site being Highway 100 R.O.W. This site will change dramatically with the upgrading of Hwy. 100. The site will become smaller, noise levels will increase and there will be a decrease in vehicle accessibility. There is a large lot abutting this site to the north (Twin Lake Blvd. and Lakeside Ave.) and its status is being reviewed. It may be desirable to acquire this lot due to the diminishing size of the current Twin Lake Beach Park. 16. Boat Launch Site - This site is currently under the jurisdiction of MnDOT - Hwy 100 R.O.W. will potentially increase and the boat launch /perceived park and open space will decrease dramatically with the upgrading of the Highway 100 and County Highway 81 (old 162/]52) intersection cloverleaf. (Please refer to attached Hwy. 100 upgrade comments.) MnDOT will try to maintain the existing boat launch with 10 spaces. Because the Highway 100 upgrade presents a major loss of park and open space at this site, the City(s) may wish to consider compensating for lost park and open space at other sites. 17. Humphrey Park (Robbinsdale) - This is a passive park with prairie grasses and wildlife viewing areas. The park contains a wood chip trail along the Lower Twin Lake - Channel shoreline with scattered benches and rest stops /observation nodes. The park has a picnic area with a parking lot. An existing suspension bridge links Humphrey Park to the 46th Street on the west side of the Channel. 18. Remnant Parcels /R.O.W. 46th & Indiana Avenue - 2 remnant parcels with 46th Avenue R.O.W. and Indiana Avenue R.O.W may be worked into an overall trail corridor system. 19. Wetland South of Proposed Hwy.100 Frontage Road - Between France Avenue and Indiana Avenue approximately 5+ acres. These 2 parcels fall in Brooklyn Center and Robbinsdale. With the upgrading of Highway 100 and subsequent acquiring of additional R.O.W., claiming this site for parks and open space is recommended to create a trail corridor link /loop. • • Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 9 20. Park Parcels North and South of Soo Line Rail Road /West Side of Middle and Upper Twin Lake Channel. - Approximately 16.5 acres +, the bulk of this acreage is in Crystal, (10.7 acres), with approximately 5.8 acres in Brooklyn Center. Land on the south side of the railroad (11.4 acres) is under the jurisdiction of the DNR. Land on the north side is all privately owned (residence). 21. Trail Corridor Linkages - Sheet 2 - a. 51st Avenue - Provides link from North Middle Lake Park site to France Ave. trail corridor. b. Lake Breeze Trail Corridor - Provides a link from France Avenue to Twin Lake Avenue (lake access, North Middle Lake site and South Middle Lake site). c. Azelia Avenue - Provides north /south link from Lake Breeze Avenue to potential Highway 100 pedestrian bridge. d. South Middle Lake Site Trail (Twin Lakes Beach Park) - Provides links to Twin Lake Avenue, proposed pedestrian bridge and the new Hwy. 100 bridge over the middle /Lower lake channel with walkways on each side of the channel. e. 46th Avenue - Provides link from the channel to Humphrey Park. f. Indiana Avenue - provides link from potential Highway 100 pedestrian bridge south to 46th Avenue and Humphrey Park. g. Trail Loop - South of Hwy 100 between France Avenue & Indiana Avenue. This claims a parcel for trails and designated open space that ultimately may be lost and provides a different trail experience - an extended nature walk. -, h. Halifax Avenue - 46th to Lake Drive provides link from Humphrey Park south to Lake Drive and east to trail Minneapolis parkway system, and west to downtown Robbinsdale. -, J• i. Lakeview Ave. (Robbinsdale) - Provides trail link from boat launch site to downtown Robbinsdale and large numbers of users to the south. -• Quail Ave. /Orchard Ave. /Bass Lake Road (Crystal) - Links trail node at Highway 100 Channel Bridge all the way north to 58th Ave. There is an on grade railroad crossing being considered north of 52nd Ave. and Quail Ave. ;, * Trail routes in Crystal and Robbinsdale are subject to their own planning. • • Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 10 B. WATER RESOURCES 1. Lake Access There are three locations currently being used for launching boats on Twin Lakes. There is one each on Upper, Middle, and Lower Twin Lake. The access on Upper Twin is on the east side of the lake at East Twin Lake Boulevard and 53rd Avenue North. This site consists of an extension of 53rd Avenue large enough to launch a boat with no parking places available in the immediate vicinity. The launch site on Middle Twin is on the southeast side of the lake at Twin Lake Ave. and Lake Breeze Avenue, North of Twin Lake Beach Park. This site is not large enough to launch more than one trailered boat at a time. Parking is a major problem at the launch site in conjunction with the swimming beach which is within one half block of the access. There is no room to turn around in the access vehicles with trailers so they must back in from the street. This causes traffic problems on a day with heavy launch and beach use. Twin Lake Avenue, Lakeview Avenue and Lakeside are posted "no parking" May 15 to September 15, so many lake users must park two blocks away on Azelia or in a local business parking lot after hours or on weekends. The launch site on Lower Twin is located on the northwest part of the lake south of Highway 100. It is owned and maintained by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Maintenance would include patching the parking lot, sweeping, emptying trash receptacles and providing portable toilets. This access has an asphalt ramp approximately 50 feet wide with room to park approximately 10 vehicles with trailers. (Ref. A water surface use strictly of Twin Lake, DNR 1978). The general condition of all accesses seemed to be good. The problems seem to be adequate parking adjacent to launch sites and fluctuating water levels which prohibit boats moving from one basin to another. There are existing channels connecting all the basins, but low water levels prohibit their use for most if not all of the year. The Channel between Middle and Lower Twin Lake was dreaged in the summer of 1988. In the spring of 1987 the City of Robbinsdale was looking at putting some controls and limitations on the access to Lower Twin. The City was curious as to the impact this might have on DNR management policies for Twin Lakes. The DNR responded with a letter to Mr. Russ Fawbush, Parks and Recreation Director, outlining their management position on Twin Lakes. It was stated the DNR has a standard whereby for every 20 acres of water surface they recommend a minimum of one car /trailer parking space. Currently the DOT access site meets that minimum requirement with 10 parking spaces. The DNR feels there are no other adequate access sites available on Twin Lakes. If the city would choose to reduce the number of spaces and limit use through the access, there would be a number of ramifications from the DNR's • Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 11 fish management currently being done on the lake would be discontinued. Second, the City's chances of receiving any funds for the clean water program or any other resource improvement programs would be slim. The following recommendations were made by the DNR: 2. Fishing - The City should continue to request that DOT permit maintenance by dredging the channel under Highway 100 to allow boat traffic. (As stated, dredging of the channel occurred in the summer of 1988.) - The DOT access should remain as it is. - The City should look into surface use zoning regulations such as horsepower limitations or speed to control what happens on the lake. The DNR last surveyed Twin Lakes in June of 1985 for number of fish species and their general populations. A total of 15 species was reported. Northern pike, sunfish, and crappies were the prominent game fish surveyed. Northern Pike are plentiful, the fish being small to medium size. Their abundance is less than in 1980, but the population is maintained above median levels through natural reproduction. The sunfish are of average size with higher than median numbers. Crappies show good size distribution and numbers throughout the lakes. There appears to be a sizable population of rough fish (carp, bullheads, dogfish, etc.) but they don't seem to be causing any major problems with game fish populations. Fishing pressure on Twin Lakes seems to be concentrated on the northern end of Middle Twin where the greatest water depth occurs. This is true during both summer and winter. Both Upper and Lower Twin are shallower than Middle Twin (See Lake Depth Map) and fishing pressure on them is minimal. Fisheries management by the DNR on Twin Lakes has included stocking, monitoring winter oxygen levels, aerial fishhouse counts,and helping to manage storm water run -off. Stocking of fry, fingerling, and yearling Northern Pike was done by the DNR up until 1976. There has been a well established population of Northern Pike that is being maintained through natural reproduction since that time and no further stocking has been done with Northern Pike or any other fish species. The monitoring of winter oxygen levels has been done on a year to year basis with Upper and Lower Twin Lakes generally showing low enough exygen levels to require aeration. The DNR believes that dredging the channel beneath Highway 100 would help fish populations by allowing movement from a low level oxygen basin (Lower Twin) to a higher level oxygen basin (Middle Twin). • Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 12 Rough fish removal has not been tried on the Twin Lakes but is a possibility if their levels become too high. Most, if not all, of the DNR's fisheries management programs hinge on maintaining viable public accesses to Twin Lakes. If these are maintained in accordance with DNR standards the DNR will continue to effectively manage the fish populations in Twin Lakes. 3. Swimming Twin Beach Park is currently the one recognized swimming beach on Twin Lakes. Located on the southeast side of Middle Twin Lake, it includes a sand beach area, some children's playground equipment, and a shelter building. A sign is posted on the beach warning swimmers of power boat activity and that there is no life guard on duty. There are 3 off - street parking spaces located adjacent to the beach /park area. 4. Non - Motorized Boating Twin Lakes are used quite extensively by non - motorized boats for both fishing and non - fishing recreational pleasure. Canoeing or rowboating, inflatable raft use, and sailboating are the most popular non - motorized boating activities. These non - motorized boating activities seem to be appropriate for the size of Twin Lakes. 5. Motorized Boating Twin Lakes are also heavily used by motorized boats for fishing and speed or pleasure boating which would also include waterskiing. Upper Twin has an especially high number of waterskiers with a club based on the lake and a ski jump located on the north end. Considering the size of Twin Lakes, it appears there may be a problem with the number of speed boats using the lakes. The Cities of Crystal, Robbinsdale, and Brooklyn Center proposed motor restrictions on the lakes but were turned down by Hennepin County. Twin Lakes are under the jurisdiction of the County because the City line crosses the lake. 6. Water Quality Analysis The water quality of Twin Lake changes from basin to basin but generally Upper Twin has shown a considerably higher algae bloom than Middle or Lower Twin. The overall water color is green because of algae. The DNR measured water clarity in 1985 and found it to be 1.4 feet with 1 -4 feet being poor and anything over 5 feet being good. Therefore water clarity would be considered poor. There doesn't appear to be an erosion problem but there is heavy storm sewer runoff with fertilizers and pollution from the manicured lawns adjacent to the lake. 4 • • • Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 13 7. Special Considerations /Water Uses It should be noted there is a property owner on Upper Twin who has a permit that allows him to maintain a pontoon plane on the lake. There have been complaints by residents on Lower Twin of a duck /geese overpopulation problems. It is not known at this time whether there are isolated cases or if there genuinely is a widespread problem in the Twin Lake area. On the north end of Upper Twin there is an official wildlife preserve which is about 3 to 5 acres in area. The property is directly adjacent to the lake so it does not have water access but most of the vegetation in the preserve is overstory trees. Many bird houses and feeders have been set up on the preserve, including wood duck houses. Snowmobile use is permitted on Twin Lake by Hennepin County but is prohibited by Brooklyn Center. Site inspection showed heavy snowmobile use on Lower Twin and moderate to heavy use on both Middle and Upper Twin. In Robbinsdale snowmobile use is prohibited in the City but allowed on Lower Twin Lake with access through the MnDOT public access by Highway 100. Operators of snowmobiles must stay away from Fisherman's Shoreline. 9. Low & High Water Problems Water level fluctuations over the past 30 years have caused both high and low water concerns on Twin Lake. In the late 1950's, early 1960's and again in the mid- 1970's low water levels were a problem. In the mid 1980's high water levels were a concern. The general concensus is that there is a need for greater control of the water levels on Twin Lakes. It has been cited in studies that the normal water levels on Twin Lakes are controlled almost exclusively by the culvert which is in place under France Avenue. An April 2, 1986 report from Hickok & Associates suggests that the water level in Twin Lakes can be stabilized by the construction of an overflow weir and the installation of additional culverts under France Avenue. The combination of an overflow wier and culverts would attempt to assure stable water levels both during wet and dry seasons. Any solution at France Avenue must take into account the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Plan developed in late 1986. C. CRYSTAL'S COMMENTS ON TWIN LAKES The following comments were provided by the Staff of Crystal and may or may not reflect the feelings of the present City Council. • Twin Lakes & The Preserves Page 14 1. The City maintains strip of parkland east of Twin Lake Terrace (between 49th: Fairview and 50th) and maintains the Twin Lake Terrace R.O.W.. Adjacent homeowners also maintain this area. They set docks and tie boats in this zone, but do not want to see any use of this land by the public, even though it is public land. 2. Watercraft - Crystal wants to see greater restrictions on watercraft, limiting motors to 5 h.p. 3. Homeowners - To homeowners, Twin Lakes' biggest problem is boating and surface water use issues. Homeowners are against any public use of public land adjacent to Twin Lakes. The Homeowners have been quite possessive. They perceive the lake(s) as theirs, and feel justified to act as they do because they claim their taxes are twice the rate as any other comparable dwelling in Crystal. 4. Water Quality - A major issue with Twin Lakes is water quality. He feels water quality needs to improve dramatically, and that it is futile to plan to upgrade lake facilities if the water quality does not improve. Storm sewer run off and stormwater runoff need to be regulated. Crystal kids previously used the Twin Lake Beach for swimming lessons, but now use pools. Crystal feels more people would rather use pools these days; only sunbathing takes place. D. UPGRADED HIGHWAY 100 Note: All comments stated here and all future alignment, layout and R.O.W. information shown on sheet 2 are subject to change. 1. Hwy. 100 is to become a 6 lane freeway in the early to mid 1990's. It will be 6 lanes from I - 694 to 1-494. The County Highway 81 (old 162/152) and Hwy. 100 interchange may become a full cloverleaf interchange. Basic Hwy. 100 upgrade studies were done during 1969 - 1970. Plans are not finalized. They are now being reviewed and updated. The West Broadway Avenue bridge is scheduled to be replaced in 1990. The 36th Avenue North bridge is scheduled to be replaced in 1990 -91 (November 1990). 2. Twin Lake (south) Boat Launch /Access - A public lake access shall remain after the interchange improvements. MnDOT will try to maintain the park, and boat launch as much as possible. • • Twin Lakes Study Page 15 They will try to work within the existing R.O.W. as much as possible. There will be some land taking /home acquisition in the NE /North quadrant of Co. Highway 81 (old 162/152). 3. Channel Dredging - City of Robbinsdale along with the D.N.R. has completed dredging of the channel under highway 100 between lakes. This work was done in 1988. 4. Indiana Avenue & Highway 100 - The Indiana Ave. /Highway 100 intersection could change, but its fate is undecided. A temporary signal still remains in place. There is an opportunity to link the trail system by building a pedestrian bridge here. The Indiana and Lakeside Ave. access to Highway 100 is subject to future planning. 5. France Avenue & Highway 100 - This interchange could become a full diamond interchange, pending further review and revision of plans. 6. Soo Line Railroad Bridge & Highway 100 - Water table and lake elevations limit potential access under the bridge. Access over the Railroad is even more unlikely. What is implemented here will affect both the France Avenue and Indiana Avenue interchanges. 7. Cities' Cooperation With MnDOT - It is recommended that Brooklyn Center, Crystal and Robbinsdale identify how Highway 100 development affects them, determine what their needs are, and make their proposals to MnDOT addressing how they would like development to proceed. The Cities should be working with MnDOT on the developments in the Hwy. 100 corridor. They should be making their requests known now before plans become finalized. E. ROBBINSDALE'S COMMENTS ON TWIN LAKES 1. Latest Development - Since Hennepin County is the current governing body, Robbinsdale is attempting to establish legislation that gives it total control of Lower Twin Lake. This was done out of frustration with the differing goals of Crystal and Brooklyn Center. It is now named Lower Twin Lake not South Twin Lake. 2. Robbinsdale cites several problems: a. Snowmobile problems - (winter) b. Wake problems from speedboats c. 3 wheel and 4 wheel, all terrain vehicles - (winter) 3. Robbinsdale is actively working to develop its resources in its best interests. At this time it is occuring without any planning to integrate it into a multi -city approach. • Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 16 4. Robbinsdale wants to control motor size on boats. 5. A public boat launch of 10 spaces will be built on Lower Twin. These 10 spaces are appropriate for 200 acres of water surface. 200 acres takes up all three lakes. DNR is for the general public using the lakes and does not consider adjacent homeowners. 6. The State and Robbinsdale worked on channel dredging in 1988. Robbinsdale's engineering department worked on the plans. 7. Robbinsdale would like to see a linkage under or across Highway 100 such as a floating boardwalk on the channel between Lower Twin and Middle Twin. 8. There is an area resident conflict between lakefront apartment renters who dislike the motor boat and snowmobile noise caused by homeowners on the south shore or coming from the public access. Those who use the lake surface would like better access to the other lakes, but this would bring more complaints from the renters. F. The Preserve 1. Name / Identity Issue - The identity of the parcel is confusing. Brooklyn Center refers to the area as "The Preserve ", Crystal refers to it as "MAC Park ", actual signage at 60th and Regent reads "Crystal MAC Wildlife Area ", actual signage at Noble Ave (61st) reads "Crystal - Brooklyn Center MAC Wildlife Area." This area needs to be "marketed ", and for this purpose it needs a unified name. 2A. Signage - General Issues - There is a major need for access, directional, and locational signage. Signage is needed to direct users to access points, to let them know where they are at at a given point, and to let them know where they are going. 2B. Signage System - There is a major need for a unified signage system for identity, access, locational, directions and regulatory signage. A good model for style or type is the current Arboretum signage. 2C. Regulatory Signage - It is posted throughout The Preserve "No Snowmobiling." 3. Access Points to the Preserve - The site has numerous access points which are very low key. Their identity needs to be strengthened. S.W.. 60th & Regent - The gravel- surfaced parking lot here looks like a mini trailhead. It appears to serve the Babe Ruth Baseball Field. • • • Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 17 S.W.. East: North: 60th & Quail - An existing pedestrian trail access. There is a need for a bridge across the small ravine north of 60th & Quail to get to the main East -West trail. N.W. Corner of Twin Lake North Condo's - NOTE: There's implied access all along the main north /south roadway on the west side of the condominiums. Orchard Lane School /Noble Ave /The Arboretum - A paved parking lot of 19 spaces serves a mini trail head at the south end of the Arboretum west of 61st & Lee (61st dead ends to a parking lot.) Additional Access - There is a need for more access from the east from Kylawn Park and potentially from the neighborhood to the N.W. (61st & Regent). An access link is being considered to the S.E. that would tie in directly to the proposed Twin Lakes trail system. 4. Unify Adjacent Park Sites - It would be advantageous to unify The Preserve, The Arboretum, Kylawn Park, The South Kylawn Park parcel and potentially Orchard Lane School site as a contiguous unit, to make them not seem so fragmented. 5. Joint Use? - A real, joint, working relationship does not yet exist between Brooklyn Center and Crystal for the development and maintenance of The Preserve. Because it is technically located within the Crystal city limits, Crystal perceives that it is basically their park, and they are doing the bulk or all of the maintenance and development to date. Crystal has done most development (wood chip trails and timber foot bridges) through the Tree Trust program and has supplied their own wood chips for trails. Brooklyn Center, Crystal, MAC and affected School Districts need to develop the best working relationship possible. 6. Terms of Lease - The MAC lease is yearly and seems too tentative. Enthusiasm towards any type of development commitment is hard when everything seems so speculative. The MAC lease appears so forceful as to reserve the right to retake control of the parcel and subsequently the Cities are suppose to restore the land to original condition. This provides no incentive for improvements by the municipalities. Eighteen (18) years have passed since the lease was written and signed. MAC must have a better idea of its needs and long range plans for this parcel of land. It would be good to have a total review of the lease, get current input from all concerned/ affected parties and rewrite/ re- negotiate the lease. What role do area school districts play in development and maintenance of the parcel? They are named in the lease as having input. • • Twin Lakes & Preserve Study Page 18 7. Type and Scope of Future Development for the Preserve - Crystal envisions The Preserve as having the potential to be developed as a facility similar to Wood Lake Nature Preserve in Richfield. 8. Existing Trail and Boardwalk Conditions - The trail system that currently exists can be described as a large loop that rings the periphery of the 40 acre parcel. This loop system has a small diagonal link in the S.W. corner. The actual trail corridor can be classified as 3 types: -Wood Chip - Boardwalk -Small timber foot bridges Transition between these 3 types is awkward and the overall experience is fragmented. 8A. Woodchip trail, boardwalk, bridge width - all of these have been constructed too narrow! Existing widths really vary 4, 5, & 6' wide at the most. These widths are not conducive to a good comfort zone when walking two abreast. It is generally not feasible to walk the trail, boardwalk or bridges two abreast. For necessity's sake, a pair of trail users finds themselves walking single file and especially when meeting individuals or an individual and a pet (dog). The trails should be upgraded to an 8' width minimum, this would provide a good comfort zone to users and would be the appropriate width for all- season maintenance (summer restoration work; winter snow removal, grooming). The trail, boardwalk and bridges are not conducive to any kind of maintenance program requiring vehicles or equipment because of narrow width and load limit/ structural restrictions and limitations. 8B. Inadequate Trail Base and Surfacing - The bulk of The Preserve trail is wood chip. This presents several problems, the main one being the wood chips simply don't stay in one place. It was good to review trail conditions in the spring to observe wet or low spots. (The Spring of '88 was dry.) The bulk of The Preserve parcel is low, wet and marshy and it was obvious that the greater percentage of trail length has inadequate base. There's a need to increase the base, raise it up to keep the wearing surface dry. Wood chips tend to blow, float or simply disintegrate. There is a segment of trail running from the gravel parking lot at 60th & Regent east to the boardwalk, that has timber edgers, but here the problem tends to be uneven wearing surface due to settling and disintegration of wood chips. With the wood chip trail not staying in place, aggregate or crushed stone material would function better and stay in place. • Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 19 8C. Condition of Main Boardwalk - The main boardwalk runs a distance of approximately 400' east to west, from just north of 60th & Perry, east to just north of the NW corner of the Twin Lake North Condominiums located in Crystal. The boardwalk consists of rough sawn timbers nailed to parallel lengths of recycled utility poles. Because of construction technique, narrow width and lack of continuity from section to section; they are precarious to walk on. A wider width and handrails would do much to the experience of walking across this segment. 8D. Small Timber Foot Bridges - These are all of new, recent construction and were built by Tree Trust personnel. These bridges are located at scattered locations along the northern trail loop /segment. They have a wood ramp at each end of the center span section. The existence of handrails on these needs further review. 9. Maximize The Preserve Experience - There is a need to more closely experience the site. Trails and boardwalk /bridges run along the periphery of the parcel. The user feels left on the fringes. A goal should be to create real interaction between the user and the site via varied trail routings and observation areas. Habitat needs to be developed for waterfowl as well as small mammals and other wildlife as can be environmentally accommodated. For waterfowl, it would be good to expand and create open water areas, with islands for waterfowl nesting sites. 10. Visual Interest - The area has a minimal amount of natural diversity and is dominated by "alder thicket" and sedge or wetland vegetation types. This area often can be a wildlife habitat area, but is frequently visually unappealing to the general public for even trails. It can be improved by grading and planting to develop some areas of open water and small "nobs" of high ground for hardwood trees. 11. Wildlife - Although an on -site analysis of wildlife species showed little or none wildlife activity, the habitat present suggests it is capable of supporting a wide variety of wildlife including ducks, pheasants, muskrats, songbirds and many others. One possible reason for the lack of wildlife signs is that there may be a severe cat /dog harassment problem from surrounding neighborhoods. Dog tracks were observed throughout the preserve and this may indicate a deterrent to wildlife from fully utilizing the preserve. Cats are also a problem because they tend to prey on ducklings, pheasant chicks, and songbirds. • • Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 20 12. Trapping - There may be a problem with trapping in the preserve the City is not aware of at this time. Two men were observed trapping late February, 1988. If this problem does in fact exist, it may be in the Cities best interests to post signs prohibiting trapping and all other killing animals within the preserve and to more closely monitor the preserve for illegal activity. 13. Additional Development Needs - The Preserve needs seating areas. These can function with dual roles, providing rest stops /comfort stations as well as observation nodes for vegetation and wildlife. The only seating that currently exists is three scattered benches south of 61st & Noble Ave. Lighting and trash receptacles need to be considered as well as picnicking, possibly in the S.W. corner. There is also a need for interpretive signage for wildlife and vegetation. The trail appears to have users (those out for a walk or exercising pets), but so much more can be done to maximize The Preserve experience. 14. Cross Country Ski Trails - Crystal would like to expand their cross country ski program. They would continue to ban snowmobiles in The Preserve. 15. Ratio of L.F. Trail to Wildlife Population - Crystal feels it would be good to review the ratio of lineal foot of trail to amount of wildlife population. Their feeling is, if we increase the lineal feet of trials, we disturb more area and will subsequently reduce wildlife levels. 16. Crystal Engineering Department recently arranged dredging of the channel from MAC Park (The Preserve) south to North Twin Lake. This created an improved open water situation. 17. Dual Trails - A dual trail heads south from 61st & Noble to the N.W. corner of Twin Lake North Condominiums, straddle a hedgerow /fencerow on the east and west. This seems unneccessary, but Crystal uses the west side, and Brooklyn Center uses the east. This trail should be reworked into a single trail with a more interesting alignment. 18. The Preserve /West Kylawn Park - Selective cleanup is needed to remove the large amount of dead and windblown trees found in this area. • Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 21 (EE. Goals And Policies Twin Lakes Goals A. Establish improved working relationships with all affected communities and agencies to establish the key common goals (lake usage and trail linkages). B. To provide safe, pleasant open space recreation in a system which will offer the range of facilities and programs to accommodate a broad base of park users in the community (s) for all seasons of the year. C. To preserve and protect the natural environment with emphasis on conservation of natural resources for the present and future use of the City(s) residents (Brooklyn Center, Crystal and Robbinsdale). D. Improve water quality of the Twin Lakes Chain. E. To promote safe, convenient and coordinated bike and pedestrian trail facilities in the Twin Lakes area of the City of Brooklyn Center and adjacent communities (currently Eastern Crystal and Northern Robbinsdale. Twin Lakes Policies A. Establish a comprehensive lake use policy involving all three municipalities. 1. Basic lake access policy a. number of accesses b. locations c. general condition of access /basic facilities provided d. vehicle and watercraft trailer. e. agency policies and restrictions. f. users: adjacent property owners vs. the general public. 2. Types of use policies to be addressed: a. fishing - Is this activity which should be encouraged? b. swimming - Is there a need for a swimming area here? c. non - motorized watercraft (canoeing, sailing, wind surfing, rowing, rafts). Are these uses acceptable? d. motorized watercraft - type and size of watercraft, water skiing, motor size restrictions. • • • Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 22 e. Special considerations and problems: 1) Airplanes, skidoos, snowmobiles 2) Low & high water problems B. Establish an improved water quality policy 1. Review existing stormwater management plans 2. Review all relative water quality data to date (agency clarity studies and identification) 3. Monitor pollution (stormwater runoff, quantity and quality) a. Streets and roadways, storm sewer runoff (salt and petroleum factors) b. Industrial (commercial runoff (chemical pollution) c. Residential surface runoff (lawns, fertilizer application). 4. Review shoreline erosion (watercraft wake problems). C. Review City(s) Park classification system 1. Now do the proposed park sites and trail corridor fit into the City(s) overall park system plan and open space system. 2. Develop trail standards. D. Unify existing and proposed park facilities via links by trail corridors and linear parks. 1. Provide access points, trails heads, opportunities to utilize the system. 2. Establish neighborhood linkage with feeder trails to provide a coordinated trail and linear park system. 3. Link community facilities with the trail corridor to metro wide trail systems (Minneapolis Parkway System, Hennepin Co. Trail Network, adjacent community trail networks). 4. Evaluate types of trails needed (user survey ) a. Pedestrian (walk, hike, jog) b. Bike and or roller skates, skateboards c. Winter use - cross country ski, snowshoe d. "Vita course" or other exercise course system Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 23 E. Implement Acquisition, Development and Maintenance Policy(s) 1. Establish a capital improvements program a. establish acquisition budgets & program b. establish development budgets & program c. establish maintenance budget and program. 2. Identify and clarify parcels to be acquired then begin acquisition program. 3. Review and rework parks dedication requirement formula /computation for all new development and construction. (Parcel acquisition or cash payment for future parks acquisition and /or development. 4. Establish a development and continued maintenance program policy. 5. Upgrade existing recreational facilities F. Establish ongoing cooperative working relationship with all affected communities and agencies (City of Crystal, City of Robbinsdale, City of Brooklyn Park, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MnDOT, Soo Line Railroad). Also coordination with City Departments - HRA - Redevelopment. G. Establish ordinance authority and enforcement methods. 1. Park police to patrol - curfew and alcohol enforcement 2. Vehicle patrol - snowmobile use, all terrain vehicle use, motorcyles, bicycles, skateboards and rollerskates. 3. Monitor and control illegal dumping on park property (Robbinsdale). The Preserve Goals F. To preserve, protect and increase wildlife habitat with an emphasis on educational opportunities to the user of The Preserve. G. To promote all season recreational use of the Preserve (intent would include the arboretum and Kylawn Park as well). H. To incorporate The Preserve trail routings into the Twin Lake trail system. I. Establish improved cooperative working relationships between Brooklyn Center M.A.C., and Brooklyn Park. • • Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 24 The Preserve Policies A. Establish a program for wildlife habitat management. B. Emphasize educational opportunities more. Establish an interpretive program. C. Review City(s) Park Classification System and clarify how The Preserve fits into the City(s) overall park system plan and open space system. D. Develop trail standards for trails in the Preserve. E. Link The Preserve to the proposed Twin Lake trail system. F. Implement a development and continuing maintenance policy. 1. Establish a capital improvement program a. establish development budgets and program b. establish maintenance budgets and program. 2. Upgrade existing facilities. G. Establish improved cooperative working relationship with Crystal, Brooklyn Park and all affected agencies (DNR, M.A.C., School Districts). IV. Concept Plan The planning process takes the user from raw findings, to goal statements, to specific policies, and to a Concept Plan. The Concept Plan is an illustrative tool to suggest the physical form which is implied by the recommended Goals and Policies. One should not take the concept plan by itself too literally. Clearly, other trail routes or activity areas are possible within the framework of the established goals and policies. The plan, as illustrated, includes the following major elements: Trails Loop. A routing has been proposed which would utilize on and off street bike /pedestrian trail routings to encircle Twin Lakes. Within the City of Brooklyn Center an 8' wide bituminous paved off road route is most common. Within Robbinsdale and Crystal, those cities shall develop a system consistent with their programs. The proposed trail is not always a lakeside route. Highway 100. The proposed plan calls for preservation of a boat access on Lower Twin. This is important to maintain D.N.R. management of the fisheries resource. More importantly, when the bridge over the channel between the lower and middle lakes is built, this plan calls for a structure which accommodates bike trail movements from the east side of the lakes to the west side and from the north side of 100 to the south side (an underpass). • Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 25 Trail Access points. Since the entire trail system is not a lakeshore system, special work will be needed to identify trailhead points. These access points should be clearly signed and located with an interval to provide ready access for area residents. The Preserve Concept. A singular master plan should be developed for the "Preserve" which unifies the area with trails and provides a link to Brooklyn Parks trail system. The Preserve area should be developed to provide wildlife habitat, more visual diversity and clear links to the Twin Lakes trail system. New Park Activity Areas. New park sites are proposed in several areas. Two larger parks are proposed in Brooklyn Center. One is the Bass Lake Road activity area which provides the visual access link to the drive -by public and is strategically located between the Preserve and Upper Twin Lake. The second park site is actually on Middle Twin and is intended to provide lake oriented recreation (but not necessary swimming). V. Recommendations • Acquisition Recommendation is made to proceed with acquisition of the following parcels into the park system. Site Area A. Physically incorporate the two vacant lots south of .7 Acre. 6012 Kyle Ave. Plus the unimproved Kyle Ave. R.O.W. into the overall context of Kylawn Park. i.e. expand skating or potentially expand wetland trail loop B. Finalize acquisition (through tax forfeiture) of the 7.0 Acres. South Kylawn Park site (Moorwood Townhouses) approximately 7.0+ acres. C. Assume control of the 59 1/2 Ave. R.O.W. West of .2 Acres. June Ave. D. Acquire the 30' to 40' x 800' buffer strip east of Shores Drive. This could be achieved by outright public R.O.W. dedication or obtaining an easement of the buffer strip. If this isn't possible, obtain an easement of the east shoulder of Shores Drive. .6 Acres. E. (Acquire the parcel from the Preserve to Bass Lake Road (Property in Crystal). (3.8 Acres.) • Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 26 F. Acquire the Thompson Parcel 2.1+ acres or obtain a trail 2.1 Acres. easement along the east side. G. Acquire the George D. Crosby parcel 5621 Indiana Avenue 2.5+ acres or obtain a minimum of a trail easement connecting the Thompson Parcel to Indiana Avenue. H. Acquire property for the proposed North Middle Lake Park 29.6 Acre. Site along with property on the west side of the channel (1.0 Acre) and north of the railroad R.O.W. This would involve Crystal acquiring one (1) parcel north of and including the unimproved 51st Ave. totalling approximately 1.5 acres; 8.2 acres from Tri State Land, south of the unimproved 51st Ave. and north of the Soo Line Railroad; 15.8 acres south of the Soo Line Railroad and north of Twin Lake Ave. (former Joslyn Manufacturing Property); 4.1 acres for the private residence west of the channel and north of the railroad R.O.W. The access to this parcel (1.0+ Acre) is located in Crystal. Acquire land or easement as necessary to establish a road and trail route along Twin Lakes Blvd. E. between Oak Street and 51st Avenue. I. Acquire the .9 acre parcel at Twin Lake Blvd. and Lakeside .9 Acre. Avenue adjacent to the Twin Lake Beach site. This would increase or at least maintain the size of the site after the perceived open space is lost with the upgrading of Highway 100. J. Acquire the 5.0+ acres south of Highway 100 between 5.0 + Acre. France Avenue & Indiana Avenue. TOTAL RECOMMENDED ACRES TO BE ACQUIRED ITEMS A -L 48.6 ACRES. Development - Twin Lakes The following facilities are recommended for development in the Twin Lakes Portion. SITE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT A. Kylawn Park - East Side 250 - 300 L.F. Wetland Trail Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 27 2.5 Acres. B. South Kylawn Park site and 820 L.F. Paved Trail 59 1/2 Ave. R.O.W. 1 - bridge or culvert crossing • • Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 27 C. Shores Drive Buffer Strip D. Bass Lake Road /Shores Drive Crosswalk E. Bass Lake Road Park Site F. Big Island Access Site G. 57th Ave. /58th Ave. (Major to Bass Lake Road) H. Bass Lake Road /58th Avenue Crosswalk (Crystal) I. The Preserve southeast to Bass Lake Road Crosswalk J. Thompson Parcel K. Crosby Parcel L. Indiana Ave. R.O.W. (Crosby Parcel to 56th Ave.) M. Eckberg Drive Site and West Portion of 5531 Halifax Ave. N. Eckberg Drive to 51st Ave. 0. Eckberg Drive to Northport Park 800 - 825 L.F. Paved Trail Painted Crosswalk with Signals o 1200 L.F. Paved Trail o Paved Parking Lot With Access Drives (15,000 Sq.Ft.) 30 Spaces o Canoe Landing - Sand Pad o Picnic Tables and /or Shelters o Playground /tot lot o Site Fixtures - lighting and trash receptacles. o 700 L.F. Paved Trail o Canoe Launch o Trail Node o Potential Bridge to Big Island o 800 L.F. Trail Undesignated Service o Painted Crosswalk with Signals o 1200 L.F. Paved Trail with 550 L.F. existing sidewalk along Bass Lake Road o 1 Trail Node o 400 L.F. Paved Trail 1 - bridge or culvert Crossing to Crosby Parcel o 600 L.F. Paved Trail o 475 L.F. Striped road shoulder o 2800 L.F. Paved Trail o 3 Trail Nodes o 3 potential culvert crossing(s) o 3600 L.F. Striped Road Shoulder o 900 L.F. - undesignated Surface • Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 28 P. North Middle Lake Site Plus: o Expanded Beach o Canoe Launch o Picnic Tables and /or Picnic Shelters o Seating Nodes o 2 Softball fields o 4 Tennis Courts o 2 Half Court Basketball o Play Equipment Q Lake Breeze Trail Corridor (France Ave. to Twin Lake Ave.) R. Twin Lake Ave. Trail Corridor S. South Middle Lake Site T. Boat Launch Site (Robbinsdale) U. Lakeview Ave. (Robbinsdale) V. 46th Ave. No. Trail Corridor (Robbinsdale) W. Indiana Ave. (Robbinsdale) X. Azelia Ave. Y. Wetland Trail - south of Hwy. 100 Frontage Road Z. Halifax Ave. (Robbinsdale) AA. Orchard Ave. /Quail Ave. Bass Lake Road Corridor (Crystal) o 2400 L.F. Paved Trail (includes segment in Crystal) o 2300 L.F. Trail 51st Ave. o Alignment, France Ave. to Soo Line Bridge Crossing Undesignated Surface o Crossing under Soo Line Bridge o Channel Crossing (Bridge) o Restrooms /Shelter o 2100 L.F. Trail Undesignated Surface o 1150 L.F. Trail Undesignated Surface o 2300 L.F. Paved Trail Includes link to Indiana Ave. Ped. Bridge and new Highway 100 Channel Bridge o 1600 L.F. Paved Trail new Channel Bridge to Lakeview Ave. o 1200 L.F. Trail Undesignated Surface o 1800 L.F. Trail Undesignated Surface Humphrey Park to New Channel Bridge o 500 L.F. Paved Trail New Pedestrian Bridge to 46th Ave. o 800 L.F. Trail Undesignated Surface. o 2400 L.F. Woodchip Trail or alternate o 1250 L.F. Paved Trail Humphrey Park to Lake Drive o 8500 L.f. Striped Road Shoulder Hwy. 100 Channel Bridge to 58th Avenue. Utilizes an add2tional • Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 29 BB. Lake Drive (Robbinsdale) o Existing Sidewalk CC. France Ave. (Brooklyn Center) o Existing Sidewalk DD. 61st Ave. - Kylawn Park to Wangstad Park EE. Bass Lake Road - North and South o Existing Sidewalk Sides FF. Major Access Road to North Middle Lake Site GG. Develop signage system for the complete Twin Lakes Trail Corridor Alternate Trail Routes: HH. "B" June Ave. - South of 58th II. "B & C" Halifax Ave. - South of 58th Development - The Preserve A. Upgrade all existing trails to maintain to a minimum 8' trail width. B. Reconstruct and upgrade the major section of boardwalk - approx. 400 lineal feet. C. Review policy of wood chip trails in wetland areas. Make decision on upgrading to granular trails. D. Construct 4750 lineal feet of paved trail linking the south Kylawn Park site and The Arboretum to the existing gravel parking lot on the southwest corner of The Preserve. E. Construct an additional 2400 L.F. of wood chip trails or upgrade to granular. This number is above the 2100 L.F. of trails to remain in the same alignment. F. Expand open water areas as generally shown on the concept plan to create increased waterfowl habitat. G. Construct an additional 600 L.F. of wood chip trail or upgrade to granular in the west Kylawn park segment. H. Construct 12 trail nodes and /or interpretive areas. 2000 L.f. of existing sidewalk along Bass Lake Road. Plan for an on grade trail crossing over 700 L.f. Striped Road Shoulder 1600 L.F. Trail Undesignated Surface • • t Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 30 I. Upgrade the gravel parking lot (60th & Regent) to a bituminous surface. Create a better identified trail head. J. Review existing small timber foot bridges and determine transition and modification to 8' wide trail corridor. Also determine modification on and around these for maintenance purposes. K. Expand and develop picnic facilities. Review coordinating a facility with the Babe Ruth Baseball Field. L. Build additional bridge and /or culvert crossings as determined in the field (5 to 6 ?). M. Enclose The Preserve with a minimum 6' high fence to control cat /dog predation problems N. Review policy on trapping /hunting in The Preserve and take appropriate action, i.e. signage. . VI. Summary With the three (3) Lakes being linked, all three (3) Communities are obligated to work cooperatively in order to realize the opportunities identified in this plan. The following benefits are a result of the acquisition of parcels and the subsequent development of the Twin Lakes trail and park system: A. Recreation facilities and open space opprotunities are maintained or increased, offsetting the loss of open space to future developments. B. Cohesiveness of functional neighborhoods without regard to municipal boundaries. C. The trail corridor presents an alternate means of movement within and between the community(s). D. Natural Resources are preserved and /or improved. E. Water Quality is improved. F. Control of Lake usage is facilitated, equalizing use opportunity and maintaining public safety. The implementation of the elements of the Preserves' goals, policies and development recommendations will result in several benefits: A. The Preserve dramatically expands open space facilities in this area of Brooklyn Center. • • 1 r M Twin Lakes & The Preserve Study Page 31 B. Development creates increased recreation facilities for Brooklyn Center and Crystal. C. The Preserve provides educational opportunities for the school district(s) and the residents of Brooklyn Center and Crystal. D. Promotes preservation and upgrading of wildlife and wildlife habitat. E. The Preserve accomplished coordination and linkage to the proposed Twin Lake Park and trail system, mutually enhancing all facilities. The implementation of this plan will take 5 to 10 years, possibly longer for some parts. This plan will be needed to provide direction for a long term implementation process. Internally, the steps toward implementation include: 1) approval of a concept plan and goals; 2) development of a project feasibility study; 3) project funding; 4) acquisition and 5) design and construction. The bulk of the funds needed to implement a plan of this size would likely be a public referendum. Outside of the internal municipal process, several things need to occur: 1) coordination planning with adjacent municipalities; 2) coordination planning and timing linkages to the Highway 100 upgrading; 3) coordination with private and other public landowners on acquisition, dedication, or usage agreements. These interests have different mandates, constituents and funding sources which are not influenced heavily by Brooklyn Center's preferences on timing even if plan agreement has occurred. • 4 1.4 * • O ! • 1 6 t:s t' Ji E b ' r , TA r i • :7 • iL --1 if Tv, • •••• 7 LARE 7, r 41 . 1 1111t[111 ---- 1 , — •••••■••60/ :\\\ -- 1;; L TIRS4 Vo. 1 L `‘,/ 1 N - L AKE: r • ; • • • / It o te \ I S i tre CONCEPT PLAN A N K I LA It. 4 . 1, _ \ . ' 44. 40j1_,- ..".:: _ il I ( e1i - -------, i— ---; /7"- I ( .1 117 11 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2/27/89 Agenda Item Number / /e_, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: BROOKLYN CENTER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title ************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** No comments to supplement this report v Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) As a part of the 1989 budget, the City Council authorized $8,500 to conduct a professional survey of Brooklyn Center residents in conjunction with our annual strategic planning process. Approximately two months ago the City Council authorized the staff to work with Decision Resources, Ltd. to develop a questionnaire for this purpose. Attached please find a copy of a proposed Brooklyn Center residential questionnaire with 87 units or questions on it. The estimated cost of this questionnaire is $8,930. Your staff has reviewed the questionnaire. It is being placed before you this evening for the purpose of final approval. To bring the questionnaire cost within the budget limit of $8,500 it will require removing five questions from the attached proposed questionnaire. Suggested as possible questions for removal are questions #95 through #98 relating to traffic congestion and #77, #78, and #79 relating to redevelopment and the use of redevelopment incentives. Please understand that we believe all the questions are good, but to get down within the budget we are suggesting these possible eliminations for the following reasons: 1. Traffic congestion question - with the construction of the major highways in the area, traffic congestion caused by that construction will warp people's view of the effectiveness of the current traffic system. I am sure everybody will say the traffic is terrible if we ask them that question because of the current status of the reconstruction. 2. Questions regarding redevelopment and development incentives - I question whether or not a sufficient number of citizens are familiar with a site such as the Joslyn pole yard to make a judgment and answer the question effectively. To a lesser extent, this could be said of Lynbrook Bowl and the 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard area. RECOMMENDATION: The staff requests the City Council eliminate at least five questions from the attached questionnaire and by motion approve the questionnaire and directing Decision Resources to proceed with the project. • • DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. BROOKLYN CENTER RESIDENTIAL 3128 Dean Court QUESTIONNAIRE Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 Version 1.1 Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd., a nationwide polling firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the City of Brooklyn Center to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing the city. The survey is being taken because your city representatives and staff are interested in your opinions and suggestions. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE) 1. Approximately how many years LESS THAN ONE YEAR 1 have you lived in Brooklyn ONE OR TWO YEARS 2 Center? THREE TO FIVE YEARS 3 SIX TO TEN YEARS 4 ELEVEN TO TWENTY YEARS 5 OVER TWENTY YEARS 6 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 7 2. In what city and /or state was your immediately prior residence located? 3. As things now stand, how long LESS THAN ONE YEAR 1 in the future do you expect to ONE TO TWO YEARS 2 live in Brooklyn Center? THREE TO FIVE YEARS 3 SIX TO TEN YEARS 4 OVER TEN YEARS 5 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 6 4. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT 1 life in Brooklyn Center -- excel- GOOD 2 lent, good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR 3 POOR 4 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 5 5. What do you like MOST about living in Brooklyn Center? 6. What do you like LEAST about it? 7. In general, do you usually spend your leisure time in outdoor activities, weather permitting, or indoor activities? As you may know, Brooklyn Center's park and recreation system is composed of playgrounds, the golf course, city parks, the swimming pool, bicycle paths, pedestrian trails, and the community center. Let's examine each of these facilities from the point of view of making the city more attractive to residents and potential home buyers. For each, please tell me whether you think it is very important, somewhat important, or not at all important that Brooklyn Center have that recreational facility.... 8. City playgrounds. 9. The golf course. 10. The swimming pool. 11. The community center. 12. Bicycle paths. 13. Pedestrian trails. 14. City parks. Now, during the past year, please tell me if you or members of this household have used each facility. For those you have used, could you tell me whether the use was frequent or only occasional. For seasonal activities, please consider only the appropriate season. 15. City playgrounds. 16. The golf course. 17. Bicycle paths. 18. Pedestrian trails. 19. The swimming pool. 20. The community center. 21. City parks. 2 VERY IMP OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES 1 INDOOR ACTIVITIES 2 BOTH 3 NO LEISURE TIME 4 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 5 SMWT NOT D.K./ IMP IMP REF. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NOT USED D.K./ USED FREQ OCC REF. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 22. Overall, would you rate the park and recreational facilities in Brooklyn Center as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? 23. Are there any facilities not currently in the parks that you or members of your family would use, if they were there? (IF "YES," ASK:) What are they? Changing focus.... 24. Would you favor or oppose an in- crease in city property taxes if it were needed to maintain city services at their current level? 25. Do you consider property taxes in Brooklyn Center to be excessively high, relatively high, about average or comparatively low? As you may know, property taxes are divided between the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, and local school districts. 26. For each dollar of property taxes you pay, about what percentage do you think goes to city govern- ment? (READ CHOICES, IF NEEDED) 27. Police protection? 28. Fire protection? 29. City street repair and maintenance? 30. Water quality? 31. Sewers? EXC GOOD FAIR 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 EXCELLENT 1 GOOD 2 ONLY FAIR 3 POOR 4 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 5 FAVOR 1 OPPOSE 2 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3 EXCESSIVELY HIGH 1 RELATIVELY HIGH 2 ABOUT AVERAGE 3 COMPARATIVELY LOW 4 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 5 UNDER TEN PERCENT 1 10% TO 20% 2 21% TO 30% 3 31% TO 40% 4 41% TO 50% 5 51% TO 60% 6 OVER SIXTY PERCENT 7 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 8 I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? POOR 4 4 D.K. 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 • • • 32. Snow plowing? 33. Animal control? 34. Park maintenance? 35. Why did you rate EXC 1 1 1 36. How would you rate the general appearance of your neighborhood -- excellent, good, only fair, or poor? 37. Other than voting, do you feel that if you wanted to, you could have a say about the way the City of Brooklyn Center runs things? 38. How much do you feel you know about the work of the Mayor and City Council -- a great deal, a fair amount, or very little? 39. From what you know, do you ap- prove or disapprove of the job the Mayor and City Council are doing? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel strongly that way? 41. How much first -hand contact have you had with the Brooklyn Center City staff -- quite a lot, some, very little, or none at all? 42. From what you have seen or heard, how would you rate the job per- formance of the Brooklyn Center City staff -- excellent, good, only fair, or poor? 4 GOOD 2 2 IF OPINION STATED IN QUESTION #39, 40. Why do you feel that way? 2 ASK: FAIR 3 3 POOR 4 4 3 4 as (only fair /poor)? D.K. 5 5 5 IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR" IN QUESTIONS #27 -34, ASK FOR EACH: EXCELLENT 1 GOOD 2 ONLY FAIR 3 POOR 4 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 5 YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3 GREAT DEAL 1 FAIR AMOUNT 2 VERY LITTLE 3 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 4 STRONGLY APPROVE 1 SOMEWHAT APPROVE 2 SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE 3 STRONGLY DISAPPROVE 4 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 5 QUITE A LOT 1 SOME 2 VERY LITTLE 3 NONE AT ALL 4 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 5 EXCELLENT 1 GOOD 2 ONLY FAIR 3 POOR 4 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 5 IF RATING GIVEN IN QUESTION #42, ASK: 43. Why did you rate city staff as ? 44. Did any members of your household participate in organized activities sponsored by the City of Brooklyn Center? (IF "YES," ASK:) What were they? IF "YES" IN QUESTION #44, ASK: 45. Were you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the program(s)? 46. Would you or members of your again? Why or why not? 47. Are there any programs for adults and senior citizens not now in operation you would like to see offered? (IF "YES," ASK:) What are they? 48. Are there any programs for children or youth not now in operation that you would like to see offered? (IF "YES," ASK:) What are they? 49. Are there any programs for either adults or children which you feel should be discontinued? (IF "YES," ASK:) What are they? 50. Would you favor or oppose the construction of a city -wide off - street bikeway system? (IF "FAVOR," ASK:) Would you still favor it if a property tax increase were required to fund construction? 51. Would you support or oppose the SUPPORT 1 City spending funds to provide OPPOSE 2 for the winter -time maintenance DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3 of trailways for walking, cross - country skiing, and other purposes? 5 SATISFIED 1 DISSATISFIED 2 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3 household participate FAVOR /STILL FAVOR 1 FAVOR /NO OPPOSE 2 FAVOR /DON'T KNOW 3 OPPOSE 4 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 5 • • • Changing focus.... 52. Would you favor or oppose the FAVOR 1 City developing a systematic OPPOSE 2 program for acquiring run -down DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3 homes incapable of rehabilitation and razing them? 53. Should the City enact ordinances YES requiring residents to maintain NO property appearance to a stringent DON'T KNOW /REFUSED community standard? 54. Would you favor or oppose the City establishing a program to provide economic assistance for housing the poor? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel strongly that way? 55. Are you aware of the city -spon- sored Senior Citizen Telephone Assurance Program? (IF "YES," ASK:) Do you have a favorable or unfavorable perception of the program? Personal safety from violent crime Burglary Traffic and pedestrian safety Drugs Juvenile crimes and vandalism Other None are serious Don't Know /Refused 6 STRONGLY FAVOR SOMEWHAT FAVOR SOMEWHAT OPPOSE STRONGLY OPPOSE DON'T KNOW /REFUSED NOT AWARE AWARE /FAVORABLE AWARE /UNFAVORABLE AWARE /NO PERCEPTION DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Let's talk about public safety in Brooklyn Center.... I would like to read you a short list of public safety problems. 56. Please tell me which one you consider to be the greatest problem in Brooklyn Center. If you feel that none of these problems are serious in the city, just say so. (READ LIST) 57. Which do you consider to be the second major concern in the city? Again, if you feel that none of the remaining problems are serious in the city, just say so. (DELETE FIRST CHOICE AND RE -READ LIST) FIRST SECOND 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 58. How would you rate the amount of TOO MUCH 1 patrolling the police department ABOUT RIGHT 2 does in your neighborhood -- NOT ENOUGH 3 would you say they do too much, DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 4 about right, or not enough? 59. In general, do you hear the Civil YES Defense sirens on the first NO Wednesday of each month at DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 1:OOPM? 60. Should the City spend funds to develop a full maintenance program for the trees lining boulevards in Brooklyn Center? 61. Are there any further services which the City of Brooklyn Center should provide to assist landscape improvements on residential streets? (IF "YES," ASK:) What are they? 62. Would you favor or oppose the institution of a program for installing curbs and gutter on residential streets not currently having them? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And, do you feel strongly that way? Moving on.... 63. During the past twelve months, YES have you contacted anyone working NO for the City of Brooklyn Center DON'T KNOW /REFUSED other than the police or fire departments, whether to obtain information, to get service, or make a complaint of any kind? IF "YES" IN QUESTION #63, ASK: 64. What was the nature of your most recent inquiry, that is, what information or service did you want? 65. Which department or official did you contact first about this inquiry? 66. In general, were you satis- fied with the way your in- quiry was handled? IF "NO" IN QUESTION #66, ASK: 67. Why were you dissatisfied? 7 1 2 3 1 2 3 YES NO DON'T KNOW /REFUSED STRONGLY FAVOR 1 SOMEWHAT FAVOR 2 SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 3 STRONGLY OPPOSE 4 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 5 1 2 3 YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3 68. Do you feel the City is too tough, about right, or not tough enough in enforcing the City Code on such nuisances as animal control, garbage disposal, junk cars, and noise? IF "TOO TOUGH" OR "NOT TOUGH ENOUGH" IN QUESTION #68, ASK: 69. Why do you feel that way? 70. During the past two years, have NO CONTACT 1 you had contact with code enforce- CONTACT /SATISFIED 2 ment officials? (IF "YES," ASK:) CONTACT /DISSATISFIED 3 Were you satisfied or dissatisfied CONTACT /NO OPINION 4 with their courtesy and job per- DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 5 formance? The inspection of housing in Brooklyn Center for code violations is a function of city government and staff. I would like to read you a short list of proposals; for each one, please tell me whether you strongly support it, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose it. 71. Regular inspections on the outside of all owner occupied housing? 72. Regular inspections on the inside of all owner occupied housing? 73. Increased and rigorous en- forcement standards for rental dwelling units? 74. Do you think that the City of Brooklyn Center has too much, too little, or about the right amount of commercial and retail development? Many cities are being squeezed financially to maintain their current services levels while holding the line on property taxes. One possible alternative is to attract commercial and retail development and expand the tax base. It has the disadvantage of sometimes creating more congestion on city streets. But, it has the advantage of providing additional sources of city revenue. 8 TOO TOUGH 1 ABOUT RIGHT 2 NOT TOUGH ENOUGH 3 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 4 STR SMW SMW STR D.K. SUP SUP OPP OPP REF. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 5 TOO MANY 1 ABOUT RIGHT 2 TOO FEW 3 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 4 75. Would you support or oppose an aggressive effort by the City of Brooklyn Center to attract new and retain existing commercial and retail development? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel strongly that way? 76. Would you favor or oppose pro- viding development incentives, such as tax breaks, to attract new and retain existing retail and commercial developments? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel strongly that way? Let's consider some actual locations in the City where development incentives could be used. Would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose offering development incentives to potential retail and /or commercial projects at: 77. 69th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard? 78. The Lynbrook Bowl Area at 65th and Camden Avenues North? 79. The Joslyn Pole Yard at 49th and France Avenues North? 80. Does your current residence generally meet the current needs of your household? 81. Do you feel that your current residence will meet the needs of your household during the next decade? IF "NO" IN QUESTION #81, ASK: 82. Could you current residence be improved to meet those future needs? IF OPINION GIVEN IN QUESTION #82, ASK: 83. Why do you feel that way? 9 STRONGLY SUPPORT 1 SOMEWHAT SUPPORT 2 SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 3 STRONGLY OPPOSE 4 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 5 STRONGLY SUPPORT 1 SOMEWHAT SUPPORT 2 SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 3 STRONGLY OPPOSE 4 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 5 ST F SM F SM O ST O D.K. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3 YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3 YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3 84. If you were to move, what type of housing would you seek? IF ANSWER GIVEN IN QUESTION #84, ASK: 85. How likely do you think it is that you would find that type of housing in Brooklyn Center -- very likely, some- what likely, or not at all likely? As you may know, the original buildings in the Civic Center were built in 1970. The City is currently considering an expansion of the City Hall and Community Center buildings there. 86. Would you favor or oppose the STRONGLY FAVOR 1 expansion of the Brooklyn Center SOMEWHAT FAVOR 2 Civic Center? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 3 And do you feel strongly that way? STRONGLY OPPOSE 4 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 5 I would like to read you a list of potential components of an expansion of the civic center. For each one, please tell me if you would strongly favor it, somewhat favor it, somewhat oppose it, or strongly oppose it. 87. Addition to the City Hall, providing more space for police, fire, and general offices. 88. Construction of a new gymnasium. 89. Construction of a Senior Citizens Drop -In Center? 90. Handball courts? 91. Expansion of the exercise and fitness room? 92. An indoor walking and jogging track? 10 VERY LIKELY 1 SOMEWHAT LIKELY 2 NOT AT ALL LIKELY 3 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 4 ST F SM F SM O ST O D.K. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 93. Are there any other facilities you would like to see in an expanded Civic Center? (IF "YES," ASK:) What are they? The building of a Civic Center expansion might require passage of • a bond referendum. Taxpayers could be asked to pay for the expansion of the facility and to share in the cost of operating the center. User fees would also underwrite its operation to some extent. 94. How much would you be willing to NOTHING 1 pay in additional property taxes $25 2 to support the construction and $50 3 partial operation of an expanded $75 4 Civic Center? $100 5 (START WITH A RANDOM CHOICE) Let's $125 6 say, would you be willing to pay $150 7 $ per year? (MOVE TO NEXT $175 8 CHOICE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING ON DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 9 ANSWER. REPEAT.) traffic congestion has been a topic of discussion in many parts of the Metropolitan Area. For each of the following, please tell me whether you feel it is a very serious problem, major problem, minor problem, or not a problem at all.... 95. Traffic at the accesses to 494 and 94? 1 2 3 4 5 96. Traffic around Brookdale Center? 1 2 3 4 5 97. Traffic on the major arterial streets in the city? 98. Thinking about you neighborhood, are there serious traffic problems there? (IF "YES," ASK:) What are they? Let's talk about water.... VRY SER MAJOR MINOR NOT ALL D.K. 1 99. Thinking back on the water use re- STATEMENT A 1 striction imposed during the STATEMENT B 2 drought of 1988, would you say STATEMENT C 3 they were: DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 4 A. Too restrictive and totally unacceptable; B. About right in view of the problem; C. Not tough enough and would support more stringent ones if the need arose. 11 2 3 4 5 • 100. Would you be willing to see your NO 1 water rates increased in order 10% INCREASE 2 to fund measures to reduce the 25% INCREASE 3 need for future use restrictions? 50% INCREASE 4 (IF "YES," ASK:) How much of an 75% INCREASE 5 increase? (CHOOSE RANDOM START 100% INCREASE 6 POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN) DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 7 Thinking about water quality now, how serious a problem do you feel the following characteristics of water are in Brooklyn Center -- very serious, somewhat serious, or not at all serious? VERY 101. Hard water? 1 102. Red water from iron? 1 103. Black specks from manganese? 1 2 104. Taste or odor? 1 109. Do you or any members of your household regularly read it? 12 SMWT 2 2 105. Would you be willing to see your water rates increased in order to improve the quality of water in the city? (IF "YES," ASK:) How much of an increase? (CHOOSE RANDOM STARTING POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN) 108. Do you recall receiving "The City Manager's Newsletter," the city's information publication, during the past year? IF "YES" IN QUESTION #108, ASK: NOT ALL 3 3 2 3 3 4 D.K. 4 4 4 NO 1 25% INCREASE 2 50% INCREASE 3 100% INCREASE 4 150% INCREASE 5 200% INCREASE 6 300% INCREASE 7 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 8 106. What is your principal source of information about the recreational programs offered by the City of Brooklyn Center? 107. What is your primary source of information about City government and its activities? YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3 YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3 110. How effective is the city newsletter in keeping you informed about activities in the City -- very effec- tive, somewhat effective, or not at all effective? 111. Does your household receive the "Brooklyn Center Post" news- paper? (IF "YES," ASK:) Do you generally read it? Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes.... Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let's start oldest to youngest.... 112. First, persons 65 or over? 113. Adults under 65? (including yourself)? 114. School -aged children? (Grades K - 12) 115. Pre - schoolers? 116. Do you own or rent your present residence? 117. Which of the following best describes your residence? (READ CHOICES) OTHER: 118. What is your age, please? (READ CATEGORIES, IF NEEDED) 13 VERY EFFECTIVE 1 SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE 2 NOT AT ALL EFFECTIVE 3 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 4 RECEIVE /READ 1 RECEIVE /DON'T READ 2 DON'T RECEIVE 3 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 4 OWN 1 RENT 2 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 3 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING..1 DUPLEX 2 APARTMENT 3 TOWNHOUSE /CONDOMINIUM 4 OTHER 5 DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 6 18 -24 1 25 -34 2 35 -44 3 45 -54 4 55 -64 5 65 AND OVER 6 REFUSED 7 119. What is the occupation of the head of this household? • 120. What is the last grade of school LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL 1 you completed? HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE 2 VO -TECH SCHOOL 3 SOME COLLEGE 4 COLLEGE GRADUATE 5 POST - GRADUATE 6 REFUSED 7 And now, for one final question 121. Could you tell me your approximate UNDER $12,500 1 pre -tax yearly household income. $12,500 - $25,000 2 Does the income lie.... $25,001 - $37,500 3 $37,501 - $50,000 4 $50,001- $62,500 5 OVER $62,500 7 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED 9 122. Sex (BY OBSERVATION: DO NOT ASK) MALE 1 FEMALE /AT HOME 2 IF "FEMALE," ASK: Do you work FEMALE /WORKS OUTSIDE 3 outside the home? Thanks very much for your time. TELEPHONE NUMBER LIST INTERVIEWER DATE 14 Licenses to be approved by the City Council on February 27, 1989: 41, BULK VENDOR K -Mart • CIGARETTE Boulevard Superette Duke's Standard Five Star Vending Hiawatha Rubber Co. Mikros Engineering The Pipeseller Shop FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Centerbrook Golf Course GASOLINE SERVICE STATION Duke's Standard ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Knights of Columbus MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Custom Mechanical, Inc. Environ -Con, Inc. Minndak Mechanical Riccar Heating NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES J. R. Vending Brooklyn Law Office Royal Business Forms K -Mart Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home Minnesota Vikings Food Service, Inc. Hennepin Co. Service Center Hiway 100 N. France Health Club Silent Knight Security Systems State Farm Insurance NSI /Griswold Corporation Brookdale Pontiac Lynbrook Bowl Travelers North Don Waletzko Humboldt Square Cleaners 5930 Earle Brown Drive 6912 Brooklyn Blvd. 6501 Humboldt Ave. N. 15034 Fillmore St. NE 1700 67th Ave. N. 3715 50th Ave. N. 1301 Brookdale Center 5500 N. Lilac Drive 6501 Humboldt Ave. N. 7025 Halifax Ave. N. 5973 3rd St. NE 500 Apollo Ave. NE 14918 200th Ave. NW 2387 136th Ave. NW 5312 5637 6840 5930 5401 5200 6125 4001 1700 5930 8300 6801 6357 6601 8751 6824 Perry Ave. N. Brooklyn Blvd. Shingle Creek Pkwy. Earle Brown Drive 69th Ave. N. West 74th Street Shingle Creek Pkwy. Lakebreeze Ave. N. Freeway Blvd. Shingle Creek Pkwy. 10th Ave. N. Brooklyn Blvd. N. Lilac Drive Shingle Creek Pkwy. Dallas Lane Humboldt Ave. N. 4. - 1-1 Sanitarian */. 011)40_ Sanitarian City Clerk 4.4. ekmax Sanitarian City Clerk 44C Sanitarian , /' tklA41-1M, Building Official ark ‘ • PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Five Star Vending Hiawatha Rubber Co. Mikros Engineering Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home Minnesota Vikings Food Service, Inc. Hiway 100 N. France Health Club Schmitt Music State Farm Insurance NSI /Griswold Corporation Travelers North RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: RFCI Renewal: L. A. Beisner Kenneth & Jeanette Solie Invespro II Limited Partnership Eugene J. Sullivan Jerry & Karen Fobbe Edward C. Sass Howard & Harriet Oien Leo J. Vogel Ruth Kalanquin Curtis H. Cady SIGN HANGER Signart Company, Inc. SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT Children's Palace M & S Drug Emporium Total Petroleum, Inc. TAXICAB Airport Cab Suburban Taxi Corporation Town Taxi Yellow Taxi Service Corporation GENERAL APPROVAL: , % }, 2 D. K. Weeks, City Clerk 15034 Fillmore St. NE 1700 67th Ave. N. 3715 50th Ave. N. 5401 69th Ave. N. 5200 West 74th Street 4001 Lakebreeze Ave. N. 2600 Freeway Blvd. 5930 Shingle Creek Pkwy. 8300 10th Ave. N. 6601 Shingle Creek Pkwy. 5805 Shores Drive Earle Brown Commons Evergreen Park Manor The Village at River West 5401 Brooklyn Blvd. 4811 Lakeview Ave. N. 5101, 03 Xerxes Ave. N. 3606 58th Ave. N. 2841 67th Lane 5348 70th Circle 1312 72nd Ave. N. 2535 Pilot Knob Road 5900 Shingle Creek Pkwy. 5900 Shingle Creek Pkwy. 6830 Brooklyn Blvd. 3010 9614 2812 3555 Minnehaha Ave. S. Humboldt Ave. S. University Ave. SE 5th Ave. S. Sanitarian . Director of Planning,: and Inspection (. O. iaI2 t Building Official /k 4/e.e/n Sanitarian , t) C of of Police ink