HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 11-27 CCP Regular Session1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Invocation
4. Open Forum
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
NOVEMBER 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: October 28, 1989 - Special Session
7. Proclamation:
*a. Declaring December 3 -10, 1989, as Child Safety Week
8. Performance Bond Release /Reduction:
*a. Osseo Brooklyn Bus Company, 4435 68th Avenue North
*b. Lund- Martin, Inc. for Minnesota State High School
League Building, 2100 Freeway Boulevard
9. Resolutions:
a. Authorizing the Purchase of Additional Portable Radios,
Amending the 1989 General Fund Budget, and
Appropriating Forfeited Property
b. Authorizing the Dispensing of Liquor at the Convention
Center at Earle Brown Heritage Center
*c. Relating to $8,100,000 Commercial Development Revenue
Bonds (Brookdale Two Limited Partnership Project);
Authorizing the Execution of Supplement No. 1 to
Indenture of Trust in Connection with the Remarketing
Thereof
*d. Approving Specifications and Authorizing the
Advertisement for Bids for Delivery of One (1) Compact
Fire Sedan
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
-2- November 27, 1989
*e. Approving Purchase of Pickup Truck for Public Utility
Department
- This is a replacement for a 1980 truck. It is
recommended that the City accept the low bid.
*f. Amending City Council Resolution No. 86 -123 Regarding
the Schedule for Planning and Inspection Department
Fees
- This resolution would amend the permit fee schedule
for the installation, alteration, or repair of fire
sprinkler systems to more accurately reflect the plan
review and inspection time related to the permits for
such systems.
10. Discussion Item:
a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 to Establish a Planned
Unit Development Zoning District
11. Continuation of 1990 Proposed Budget Review
12. Consideration of Specified Licenses:
*a. On -sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses - Class A
- Red Lobster Restaurant
*b. On -sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses - Class B
- Applebee's
- Days Inn
- Earle Brown Bowl
- Ground Round Restaurant
- Holiday Inn
-La Casita
- T. Wright's
*c. On -sale Intoxicating Liquor License Class C
- Lynbrook Bowl
*d. On -sale Club License
-Duoos Bros. American Legion
*e. On -sale Wine Licenses
- Dayton's
- Denny's
-Yen Ching
*13. Licenses
14. Adjournment
MINUTES OF BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
OCTOBER 28, 1989
This special meeting was set for the express purpose of giving a
tour to the city councilmembers of the Earle Brown Heritage
Center, which is currently under construction. The meeting was
called to order at approximately 11:05 in the morning in the
upstairs conference room of the Earle Brown Commons
administrative building.
Members present: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Cohen, Paulson,
and Scott. Members absent: Councilmember Pedlar.
City Manager Splinter and EDA Coordinator Hoffman gave a brief
update to those city councilmembers present on the leasing
activity and construction progress of the Earle Brown Heritage
Center. Then the group adjourned to the actual construction site
and took a walking tour of all the buildings on the site and the
grounds.
The tour was complete at approximately 12:15 p.m.
Clerk Mayor
10/28/89 -1-
•
•
PROCLAMATION
DECLARING DECEMBER 3 -10. 1989, AS CHILD SAFETY WEEK
WHEREAS, in Minnesota every year the number of crimes against
children increase; including physical abuse,
kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder; and
WHEREAS, the impact of these attacks on children can be
emotionally devastating not only for the children, but
for the families; and
WHEREAS, there is a great need to increase public awareness
about the issue of self - protection for children in
order to keep children safer and to prevent future
attacks and assaults; and
WHEREAS, informed parents and an informed community can teach
the children how to develop safety skills and a self -
protective lifestyle.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State
of Minnesota, do hereby proclaim the week of December 3 -10, 1989,
as CHILD SAFETY WEEK.
Seal
Attest:
Date Mayor
Clerk
•
•
•
xtrifrOF „ B'ROOKLYN' CENTER Council Meets BWIe 11.- 27 713q
Agenda Item Number ga,14
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Performance Guarantee Release /Reduction
DEPARTMENT APP
Signa - title Director of Planning and Inspection
*************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** , * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: 1 ,, Q
No comments to supplement this report mments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
The following performance guarantees are recommended for release or reduction
as specified:
1. Osseo Brooklyn Bus Garage
4435 68th Avenue North
Planning Commission Application No. 88006
Amount of Guarantee - $10,000 Letter of Credit
Obligor - Osseo Brooklyn Bus Company
All improvements have been installed. Some landscaping was relocated to other
places on the site, but is equal in size and quantity to that on the approved
plan. Recommend total release.
2. Minnesota State High School League
2100 Freeway Boulevard
Planning Commission Application No. 88010
Amount of Guarantee - $58,000 bond
Obligor - Lund Martin Construction, Inc.
Most site improvements have been installed. Landscaping and parking lot are in.
One parking lot island is not bounded by curb and gutter. Rooftop mechanical
equipment is not screened. A gate valve needs to be raised and an as -built
utility survey must be submitted. Recommend reducing bond amount to no less
than $25,000 until remaining items are completed.
Submitted by Gary Shallcross, Planner
•
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date
A Rem Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
• ******************************************************************************************
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL
PORTABLE RADIOS, AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET,
AND APPROPRIATING FORFETI'ED PROPERTY
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVA
No comments to supplement this report
Requested is:
Signature'- title James Lindsay, Chief of Police
* * * * * * * * * ** * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** *.* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *, * *4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S IEW /RECOMMENDATION:
Comments below /attached
• *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes )
The department recently purchased twenty -six (26) portable radios using all the
monies in the drug forfeiture account. This provided one radio for each uniformed
officer on the department. The forfeiture fund currently has $25,896.72. The
portables were purchased through the Minnesota Fire Agencies Consortium bid. This
bid expires on December 31, 1989. The bid price is approximately four hundred
dollars ($400.00) per unit under list price.
(4) Portable radios @ $608.00 /ea $2,432.00
(4) Motorola Model H319 cases @ $46.00 /ea 184.00
(4) Model NTN 4635 Regular Rate Charger @ $35.00 /ea 140.00
(4) Speaker /Microphone @ $80.00 /ea 320.00
(4) Two -year Extended Warranty @ $55.00 /ea 220.00
(26) Extended Warranty for previously purchased
radios @ $55.00 /ea 1.430.00
TOTAL $4,726.00
•
•
•
Request for Council Consideration
Page 2
It is anticipated that personnel will be added during 1990. The additional four (4)
being requested will provide a handie- talkie for whatever personnel is added as well
as provide for future additions. Another concern is the technological advances make
radios purchased today somewhat incompatible with those purchased twelve to
eighteen (12 -18) months from now. The reserve radios will guarantee a uniformity
for the near future. I am also recommending the purchase of extended two -year
warranties at fifty -five dollars ($55.00) per unit for the previously purchased twenty -
six (26) units as well as the proposed four (4) units. If the units were added to our
existing maintenance contract, the cost would be eight dollars ($8.00) per month per
unit or one hundred ninety -two dollars ($192.00) during the next two years.
RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend the City Council approve the resolution authorizing the purchase of
four (4) additional portable radios and extended warranties on these and previously
purchased radios from drug forfeiture monies and authorizing the transfer of these
funds.
• Member
moved its adoption: introduced the following resolution and
•
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL
PORTABLE RADIOS, AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND
BUDGET. AND APPROPRIATING FORFEITED PROPERTY
WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter does provide for the increase
of a budget appropriation by the City Council if the actual receipts exceed the
estimates, but not to exceed the actual receipts; and
WHEREAS, 1988 Laws of Minnesota C. 665 provides for seizure and
forfeiture of property used in commission of crime and proceeds of crime and
contraband; and
WHEREAS, said laws require that said property kept under said laws may
be used only in the performance of official duties of the appropriate agency and
may not be used for any other purpose; and
WHEREAS, 70% of the sale of the property may be used by the Brooklyn
Center Police Department as a supplement to its operating fund for use in law
enforcement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by the adoption of Resolution No. 88 -195
on November 21, 1988, did authorize the Director of Finance to appropriate said
proceeds to the Police Department Budget as they are received to the extent that
said proceeds exceed five thousand dollars in any calendar year and then said
excess will be reported to the City Council for its appropriation; and
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 Manager and the Chief of Police have recommended
the purchase of four additional portable radios (handle- talkies) and extended
two -year warranties for thirty portable radios at a cost of $4,726, through an
existing Minnesota Fire Agencies Consortium bidder's contract with the Motorola
Company; and have further recommended that these costs be appropriated from
the balance of the drug forfeiture money.
•
•
•
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Brooklyn Center to authorize the purchase of four additional portable radios
(handie - talkies) and related equipment and two -year extended warranties on
thirty portable radios in the amount of $4,726 through the Minnesota Fire
Agencies Consortium bidder's contract with the Motorola Company; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to authorize an appropriation of $4,726
from forfeited property proceeds for this purchase; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to amend the 1989 General Fund Budget
as follows:
Increase the Appropriations for the following line items:
Police Protection #31, Other Equipment Account #4552 $4,726
Increase the Estimated Revenues from the following line items:
Forfeited Drug Money, Account #3897 $4,726
Date Mayor
A'FI EST:
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 ` % 7/?9
Agenda Item Number 91)
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DISPENSING OF LIQUOR AT THE
CONVENTION CENTER AT EARLE BROWN HERITAGE CENTER
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
RECOMMENDATION:
- James Lindsay, Chief of Poll
Signature - ti
* * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** *fir * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
MANAGER'S R /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
• SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
Minnesota State Statute 340A.404, subd. 4, allows the City Council to authorize the
holder of a retail on -sale intoxicating liquor license issued by an adjacent municipality
to dispense liquor at a convention facility. A copy of this Statute with the section
highlighted is attached. At this time, the City of Brooklyn Center cannot
independently license the convention facility for retail on -sale intoxicating liquor;
although a bill has been drafted and will be introduced at the next legislative session.
Omni Ventures d /b /a Atrium Catering holds a retail on -sale intoxicating liquor
license in Minneapolis. Omni Ventures has been contracted to provide catering
services at the Convention Center and Bed and Breakfast located at the Earle Brown
Heritage Center. We propose that the City Council authorize Omni Ventures to
dispense intoxicating liquor on the premises under this special provision until such
time as the bill and ordinances changes are passed allowing the City of Brooklyn
Center to license the Convention Center independently.
We recommend the City Council pass the resolution authorizing Omni Ventures
d /b /a Atrium Catering to dispense intoxicating liquor at the Convention Center
under their retail on -sale intoxicating liquor license held in Minneapolis.
-/
V
Comments below /attached
(supplemental sheets attached yes )
(b) Any person licensed to sell intoxicating liquor at off -sale shall not be required
to obtain an off -sale license under this section, and may sell nonintoxicating malt
beverages at off -sale without further license.
History: 1985 c 117 s 1,2; 1985 c 305 art 6 s 3; 1Sp1985 c 16 art 2 s 3 subd 1
340A.404 INTOXICATING LIQUOR; ON -SALE LICENSES.
Subdivision 1. Cities. A city may issue an on -sale intoxicating liquor license to
the following establishments located within its jurisdiction:
(1) hotels;
(2) restaurants;
(3) bowling centers;
(4) clubs or congressionally chartered veterans organizations provided that the
) rganization has been in existence for at least three years and liquor sales will only be
o members and bona fide guests;
(5) sports facilities located on land owned by the metropolitan sports commission;
and
(6) exclusive liquor stores.
Subd. 2. Special provision; city of Minneapolis. The city of Minneapolis may issue
m on -sale intoxicating liquor license to the Guthrie Theatre and the Cricket Theatre
notwithstanding the limitations of law, or local ordinance, or charter provision relating
•
o zoning or school or church distances. The licenses authorize sales on all days of the
week to holders of tickets for dramatic performances presented by the theatres and to
members of the nonprofit corporations holding the licenses and to their guests.
Subd. 3. Notice to the commissioner. A city shall within ten days of the issuance
of a license under subdivision 1, inform the commissioner of the licensee's name and
address and trade name, and the effective date and expiration date of the license. The
city shall also inform the commissioner of a license transfer, cancellation, suspension,
or revocation during the license period.
Subd. 4. Special provisions; sports, conventions, or cultural facilities. The govern-
ing body of a municipality may authorize a holder of a retail on -sale intoxicating liquor
license issued by the municipality or by an adjacent municipality to dispense intoxicat-
ing liquor at any convention, banquet, conference, meeting, or social affair conducted
on the premises of a sports, convention, or cultural facility owned by the municipality
or instrumentality thereof having independent policy making and appropriating author-
ity and located within the municipality. The licensee must be engaged to dispense
intoxicating liquor at an event held by a person or organization permitted to use the
premises, and may dispense intoxicating liquor only to persons attending the event.
The licensee may not dispense intoxicating liquor to any person attending or participat-
ing in an amateur athletic event held on the premises.
Subd. 5. Wine licenses. (a) A municipality may issue an on -sale wine license with
the approval of the commissioner to a restaurant having facilities for seating at least
25 guests at one time. A wine license permits the sale of wine of up to 14 percent alcohol
ly of a city or county by volume for consumption with the sale of food. A wine license authorizes the sale
:g malt liquor within of wine on all days of the week unless the issuing authority restricts the license's
authorization to the sale of wine on all days except Sundays.
iigious, or nonprofit (b) The governing body of a municipality may by ordinance authorize a holder of
e of nonintoxicating an on -sale wine license issued pursuant to paragraph (a) who is also licensed to sell
nonintoxicating malt liquors at on -sale pursuant to section 340A.411, and whose gross
xic ling malt liquor receipts are at least 60 percent attributable to the sale of food, to sell intoxicating malt
liquors at on -sale without an additional license.
s ount or city. Subd. 6. Counties. (a) A county board may issue an annual on -sale intoxicating
liquor license within the area of the county that is unorganized or unincorporated to
a bowling center, restaurant, or club with the approval of the commissioner.
(b) A county board may also issue up to ten seasonal on -sale licenses for the sale
be deposited promptly
sentation for payment
led delinquent for any
e between the licensee
)wing as a result of the
.tail liquor business at
spect to each location.
wo or more locations
tore ownership in two
of any retail licensee,
f this section shall be
this chapter.
10s5 -7
or indirectly, on any
dispose of alcoholic
btained a license
alien;
n has been convicted
verning the manufac-
ntoxicating or nonin-
icating liquor license
rson who at the time
an five percent of the
in the premises or in
o, association, enter-
er interested; or
Y
:ing liquor at on -sale
ction, and may sell
7296
7297
LIQUOR ACT 340A.404
• Member
moved its adoption: introduced the following resolution and
•
A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DISPENSING OF LIQUOR AT
THE CONVENTION CEN'T'ER AT EARLE BROWN HERITAGE
CENT'ER
WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute 340A.404, subd. 4, allows the City
Council to authorize the holder of a retail on -sale intoxicating liquor license
issued by an adjacent municipality to dispense liquor at a convention facility; and
WHEREAS, Omni Ventures d /b /a Atrium Catering holds a retail on-
sale intoxicating liquor license issued by the City of Minneapolis; and
WHEREAS, Omni Ventures d /b /a Atrium Catering has been contracted
to provide catering services including food and intoxicating liquor at the
convention center and bed and breakfast located at the Earle Brown Heritage
Center; and
WHEREAS, the Earle Brown Heritage Center is located within the City
of Brooklyn Center is owned by the Economic Development Authority which is
an instrumentality of the City of Brooklyn Center.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Brooklyn Center that Omni Ventures d /b /a Atrium Catering is authorized to
dispense intoxicating liquor to attendees of events at the convention center
facility located at the Earle Brown Heritage Center.
Date Mayor
Clerk
96
•
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.
•
zinratFiEfEtcarauxENTER Council Meeting Date 11/27/89
Agenda Item Number
REQU EST FOR CO1INOIL'CONSIDERATION
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION RELATING TO $8,100,000 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS
(BROOKDALE TWO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PROJECT); AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF
SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO INDENTURE OF TRUST IN CONNECTION WITH THE REMARKETING
THEREOF
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Signature - 41C-
************************ir************************** * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
i > r
U
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
Brad Hoffman. EDA Coordinator
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
On October 23, 1989, this resolution was passed by the City Council as Resolution No. 89 -207. At
that time there was a technical error, and this resolution supersedes Resolution No. 89 -207. This
bond needs to be dealt with prior to December 1, 1989; therefore, I recommend approval of this
resolution.
•
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO $8,100,000 COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS (BROOKDALE TWO LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP PROJECT); AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF
SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO INDENTURE OF TRUST IN CONNECTION
WITH THE REMARKETING THEREOF
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "Municipality "), as follows:
WHEREAS, the Municipality has issued its $8,100,000
Commercial Development Revenue Bonds (Brookdale Two Limited
Partnership Project), Series 1984, dated December 1, 1984 (the
"Bonds "), and loaned the proceeds to Brookdale Two Limited
Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the "Company "),
pursuant to a Mortgage Loan Agreement, dated December 1, 1984
(the "Loan Agreement "), to finance the acquisition and
construction of an office building on real estate located in the
City; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 2 -2 of the
Indenture of Trust, dated December 1, 1984 (the "Indenture "),
between the Municipality and First Bank National Association (the
"Trustee "), the interest rate on the Bonds is to be adjusted as
of the initial Purchase Date (December 1, 1989) and any Bonds not
retained by the Holders thereof are to be remarketed by Juran &
Moody, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota (the "Remarketing Agent "), on
behalf of the Company; and
WHEREAS, it is determined to be necessary and desirable
to specify the adjusted interest rate on the Bonds from and after
December 1, 1989, to the next succeeding Purchase Date
(December 1, 1994) to establish the form of Bonds to be delivered
to the Holders of the Bonds who elect to retain their Bonds and
to those who purchase Bonds upon remarketing and to modify
certain dates in connection with the establishment of the
adjusted interest rate and the purchase of Bonds so such dates
are more contemporaneous with the designated Purchase Dates; and
WHEREAS, to accomplish the foregoing; it is proposed
that the Municipality and Trustee execute Supplement No. 1 to
Indenture of Trust, dated as of November 15, 1989 ( "Supplement
No. 1 "), a draft of which has been presented to this Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows:
•
•
•
RESOLUTION NO.
1. Supplement No. 1 is hereby approved with such
variations, insertions, and additions as are deemed appropriate
by the parties and approved by the City Attorney. The Mayor and
the City Manager shall execute the same on behalf of the City and
shall execute such other certifications, documents, or
instruments as bond counsel shall require, subject to the
approval of the City Attorney, and all certifications, recitals,
and representations therein shall constitute the certifications,
recitals, and representations of the City. Execution of any
instrument or document by one or more appropriate officers of the
City shall constitute, and shall be deemed the conclusive
evidence of, the approval and authorization by the City and this
Council of the instrument or document so executed. The Mayor and
City Manager are also authorized to execute by facsimile
signature replacement Bonds substantially in the form attached as
Exhibit B to Supplement No. 1.
2. As noted in the Indenture and Bonds, the Bonds
shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any
constitutional or statutory limitation, and shall not be payable
from nor charged upon any funds other than the revenue pledged to
the payment thereof, and the City shall not be subject to any
liability thereon, and no Holder of the Bonds shall ever have the
right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to
pay the Bonds or the interest thereon, or to enforce payment
thereof against any property of the City other than those rights
and interests of the City which have been pledged to the Trustee
by the Indenture, and the Bonds shall not constitute a charge,
lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of
the City other than those rights and interests of the City which
have been pledged to the Trustee by the Indenture.
3. Resolution No. 89 -207 of the City, adopted
October 23, 1989, is hereby superseded, rescinded, and repealed.
ATTEST:
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 11/27/89
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Resolution Approving Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Delivery of One (1)
Compact Fire Sedan
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL
Signature - title
*********************** ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *gyp **#t * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: yr
"
Comments below /attached
No comments to supplement this report
Administrative Aide
** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X )
Attached are the specifications for one compact sedan for the fire department. If approved the bids
would be opened on December 12, 1989.
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) COMPACT
FIRE SEDAN
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the specifications for the delivery of one
(1) compact fire sedan are hereby approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby
authorized and directed to advertise for and receive bids for the
delivery of one (1) compact fire sedan in accordance with said
specifications.
ATTEST:
Date Mayor
Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
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.
1. GENERAL
2. GUARANTEE
3. DELIVERY DATE
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55430
PROVISIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
ONE (1) COMPACT SEDAN
All bids must be received at the office of the City Clerk on
or before 11 a.m., December 12, 1989, and shall be submitted
on the enclosed proposal form in a sealed envelope plainly
marked "Bid for Compact Fire Sedan."
It is also understood that the City Council reserves the
right to reject any or all bids, to waive informalities, and
to award the contract to the best interest of the City.
The fire sedan proposed and delivered to the City of
Brooklyn Center shall be complete in every respect and ready
for operation in accordance with these specifications, with
certificates of service, and inspection submitted at the
time of delivery.
Manufacturer's reference, trade name, brand, or description
mention in this proposal are descriptive, but not
restrictive, and used only to indicate type and standard of
material or equipment desired.
The fire sedan the bidder proposes to furnish must be of a
current production. Obsolete equipment is not acceptable.
Catalog information showing make, model, and complete
specifications of the sedans the bidder proposes to furnish
shall accompany the vendor's bid. Insufficient descriptive
information shall be cause for rejection of the bid.
The bidder must give assurance to the City of Brooklyn
Center in regard to patent infringements and in case of
suits against the City by other parties. He must defray all
cost in connection with such suit and save the City harmless
in all actions.
The bidder shall furnish a manufacturer's standard new car
warranty as a minimum and shall guarantee the equipment as
to the specified capacity and satisfactory performance and
to be free of defects in design, material, and workmanship.
All defective parts, material, and labor shall be replaced
free of cost to the City of Brooklyn Center.
The successful bidder shall schedule delivery to the City of
Brooklyn Center for the earliest date possible.
4. AWARD OF CONTRACT
Award of contract by the City of Brooklyn Center will be
based on, but not necessarily limited to, the factors of
price, delivery date, parts and service, as well as analysis
and comparison of specifications and performance.
5. OBJECTIONS TO SPECIFICATIONS
Any objections to the specifications must be submitted to
the City Clerk in writing five (5) days prior to the opening
of the bids.
6. PROOF OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION
Each bid shall be accompanied by proof that the bidder has
Worker's Compensation Insurance in force. Such proof shall
be in the form of a copy of the bidder's current insurance
certificate or certificate of exemption from the State
Insurance Commissioner.
GENERAL
The vehicle and /or equipment called for herein shall be new
compact sedans currently advertised, models incorporating all the
latest available changes and features, including all the safety
devices and tools to make a satisfactory operating unit. They
shall meet the requirements of Minnesota Department of Labor and
Industry, Division of Accident Prevention, and the U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration.
BODY
Four (4) door notchback. Euro style body sedan or equal.
SEATING
Front seat to be 60/40 split bench.
Standard seating, cloth upholstery, full foam padded seats.
Head room front 38" minimum.
Leg room front 42" minimum.
Shoulder room front 58" minimum.
TRUNK RELEASE
Power release within easy reach of driver.
WINDSHIELD WIPERS
Should have high and low setting and intermittent control.
MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT
Cigarette lighter.
Rear window defogger or defroster.
Tinted glass throughout.
Factory air conditioning.
Trunk light.
Right and left hand remote adjustable mirrors.
Speedometer.
Gauge package.
Electronic speed control
Door edge guards.
Tilt steering wheel.
Power door locks.
Carpet floor mats (front and rear).
Quartz clock (or clock in radio).
Electric windows.
OPTION
Left hand spotlight to be added or deleted at time order is
placed.
•
CHASSIS
Wheel Base: 107" minimum.
Brakes: Power disc front and rear.
Front and rear semi - metallic brake
linings.
Transmission: Automatic transmission.
4 -speed with overdrive.
Differential: Front wheel drive configuration.
Suspension:
Steering: Power assisted.
Wheels and Tires:
Engine Compartment:
Heavy duty front and rear
suspension, shocks and springs,
stabilizer bar front and rear,
manufacturer's maximum capacity
suspension for handling.
Wheels 15" belted radial tires with
full aero -type wheel covers.
Engine 3.1L - V -6 design, 191 cu.
in. displacement minimum, higher
cooling capacity radiator - heavy
duty, fuel filter, oil filter, air
cleaner, heavy duty transmission
cooler, etc.
ELECTRICAL
Heavy Duty Battery: Heavy duty (70 amp hour minimum).
Generator: 100 amp.
Radio: AM /FM electronically tuned with
speakers.
Lights: All lights to meet Minnesota
Vehicle Code.
COLOR
Manufacturer's standard color - bright red with gray interior.
MANUAL
One (1) Parts Manual and One (1) Service Manual to be provided.
TO:
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Gentlemen:
PROPOSAL
ONE (1) COMPACT SEDAN
We propose to furnish and deliver one (1) fire sedan according to
the specifications at the following bid price:
1. Bid Price Per Unit
2. Total Bid Price
3. Delivery Date
Signed:
Firm Name:
Address:
Date:
Bid Opening: December 12, 1989, 11 a.m.
(calender days)
•
Pre ' 8BOOKLYN . _CENTER Council Meeting Date 11/27/89
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF PICKUP TRUCK FOR PUBLIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
SY KNAPP DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *, * * * ** * * **
)
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report
* *
Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
City Council approval is requested to purchase a new midsize pickup truck with
extended cab. This truck would replace an existing 1980 pickup truck which has
approximately 85,000 miles, but which is seriously corroded (see attached
justification sheet and pictures).
Requests for proposals were sent to 5 dealers. Of these, 4 dealers submitted
proposals which are summarized as follows:
Accordingly, staff recommends acceptance of the proposal from Superior Ford.
Council Action Recuired
A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Viking Chevrolet $10,286.70*
Superior Ford $10,690.00
Win Stephens GMC Truck $10,805.11
Brookdale Ford $10,860.00**
*Note 1: Viking Chevrolet's bid does not meet the specifications for color
of the factory- applied paint. They have agreed to repaint it to
"meet specifications" for an additional $400. However, such a
repaint is unacceptable, since it is far less durable than a
factory - applied paint.
**Note 2: Brookdale Ford's proposal as shown above represents their base
bid price of $11,460 less $1,000 factory rebate "if on at time of
delivery." However, they are unable to assure the City that this
rebate would still be available at the time the truck is
delivered.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF PICKUP TRUCK FOR PUBLIC
UTILITY DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, the City Manager has advised the City Council that pickup
truck Unit Number 638 is unsafe and economically not repairable and that a
replacement vehicle is needed to assure continued functioning of the Public
Utilities Division; and
WHEREAS, the following proposals have been received in response to a
request for proposals in accordance with the City's specifications (copy
attached) for a replacement unit:
Viking Chevrolet $10,286.70*
Superior Ford $10,690.00
Win Stephens GMC Truck $10,805.11
Brookdale Ford $10,860.00 **
*Note 1: Viking Chevrolet's bid does not meet the specifications for
color of the factory - applied paint. They have agreed to
repaint it to "meet specifications" for an additional $400.
However, such a repaint is unacceptable, since it is far less
durable than a factory - applied paint.
* *Note 2: Brookdale Ford's proposal as shown above represents their
base bid price of $11,460 less $1,000 factory rebate "if on at
time of delivery." However, they are unable to assure the
City that this rebate would still be available at the time
the truck is delivered.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The proposal submitted by Superior Ford in the amount of $10,690.00
is hereby determined to be the lowest proposal meeting the
specifications.
2. All costs for purchase of this unit shall be charged to the Public
Utility Fund.
3. Existing Unit No. 638 is hereby declared as surplus property for
disposal as junk.
•
•
RESOLUTION N0.
ATTEST:
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.
(IBJOCOR)
1. Department: Utilities Dept. #: 7 Object #: 4553
2. Give description and quantity of item requested. Indicate date desired.
1 - Midsize Pickup w /extended cab ASAP
3. Describe the necessity for and /or benefits or savings expected from this
item.
The 1980 Ford Courier Unit No. 638 that is to be replaced has developed some
unsafe, unrepairable conditions. The front frame just behind the front
wheels has rusted to a point where it is beyond repair. The rear spring
shackles have rusted and pulled away from the frame. The frame is rusted to
a point where there is nothing to weld any planting to, to mount the spring
shackles to. This pickup was due to be replaced in mid -1990 so it went a
little earlier than expected. The replacement truck has an extended cab
which will give an extra 18" of storage space for water sample bottles,
also room for maps for the new one call locations.
4. If the item requires an increase in personal services for the activity,
state the job title(s) contingent upon the item.
N/A
5. Indicate any expenses necessary to place this item in operation and whether
these expenses are included in your budget request.
N/A
6. List any item which will be replaced by this purchase. State
recommendations for disposition of this item. For example, trade -in,
salvage, discard, etc.
1980 Ford Courier Pickup - W/84,492 miles will be sent to junk yard because
of unsafe conditions.
7. Estimated Net Cost: $
1
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
GENERAL FUND BUDGET
JUSTIFICATION OF CAPITAL OUTLAYS REQUESTS
Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Trade -in Net Total Cost
$12,000 $12,000
$ -0- $12,000
MY� } }� , �e� • 1 r � ,e ,�y,� }f`, ... sZ" ro.�' { rb* '�4 y t�A`�,S ,�j� '},�ay.`•r
r, q Yap v
p �.!F
o�ge, NEr"" `4.. 1 •¢ j`i" {9y•R
k M '� '.•1 Y.(�'".'S. p i �� YI �F ryY9•y,;.`t "-f�G z �+ �:M�y
y
', y "I. V ��•iYY S
I
�.. f'!�P y`h �. • yu../: /i9, •� ( w.w tq �^Mfll�y�a"`��r-' �
r.
A � �Q Y•1 Y i M .y� �' ' f i� W: k(r
.P , ,s� .,{� w T Y, .t��!«3 Mi'�"5t. � ! r1f 9• 1..;� I • } r ? �
Y4� 6eifu�r' X116#11 My ttdi'�bio�l•+4irW.� dM�k.•�aw� � .f �M �� Ya
y,
r "
K � } YR 1 ��,y��} >•.y AIr •}.�. � � t,+i�Y,� it• � +T
•
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Request for Written Quotations
for
One (1) 1990 midsize Pickup Truck
Ford Ranger, Chevrolet S -10, GMC S -15
Guarantee: The Bidder shall guarantee that the vehicle bid meets the
specifications as listed.
Delivery Date: The successful bidder shall schedule delivery to the City at the
earliest possible date.
Award: Award of the contract by the City of Brooklyn Center will be based on,
but not necessarily limited to the factors of price and delivery date.
Vehicle Specifications
Engine
Transmission
V6 cylinder, 173 CID, F.I.
Three (3) speed automatic
Cab and Body To 122.9 -125 inch wheelbase, 6 foot style side
Have Extended box, dual sun visors, dual exterior
Cab mirrors, a.m. radio, bench seats, all
window glass to be tinted
Brakes and Steering Power
Color Chrome Yellow
Bumpers Chrome front and painted rear step bumper
Windshield Wipers 2 speed, electric
Tires P205/75/14; Radial all weather tread
Other Heater /defroster
Disposable oil filter and air filter
Service and repair manual
Interior mirror
Complete Rustproofing
Written quotations must be received no later than
Quotes should be sent to:
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Attn: Dick Ploumen
For additional information you may call Dick Ploumen at 561 -5440, extension 179.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 11 - 27 -89
Agenda Item Number % P
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Resolution Amending City Council Resolution No. 86 -123 Regarding the Schedule for
Planning and Inspection Department Fees
DEPARTMENT A VAL:
-..0
Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection
**************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** *
fr
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: C`
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
No comments to supplement this report t
PP p Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
Upon review and evaluation of the current fees being collected for the installation,
alteration or repair of fire suppression systems, the Building Official has
recommended that the fee schedule be altered and increased to more accurately
reflect the amount of time spent in plan reviews and inspections for said systems.
Our current fee schedule does not recognize the magnitude of a job as a criterion for
fee calculation. For instance, a one - storey building the size of the Target store
would pay the same fee amount as a residential installation for a new fire sprinkler
system. The proposed amendment is based on charging permit fees based on the work
done and the equipment installed. Plan review time is not adequately compensated
under the current fee schedule. Large, complex jobs are often contracted out for
plan review and the fees collected do not cover such costs.
Recommendation
It is, therefore, recommended that the City Council consider amending the fee
schedule in the manner provided for in the attached resolution.
Member
its adoption:
Standpipes (each)
Fire Pump (including testing)
introduced the following resolution and moved
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 86 -123
REGARDING THE SCHEDULE FOR PLANNING AND INSPECTION DEPARTMENT FEES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center adopted
Resolution No. 86 -123 on August 11, 1986 which established new fees collected by the
Planning and Inspection Department; and
WHEREAS, it has been recommended that the City Council alter this fee
schedule relating to the permit fees charged for the installation, alteration or
repair of fire suppression systems to more accurately reflect the actual costs for
related plan review and inspections; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it appropriate to alter said permit fees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center to amend City Council No. 86 -123 which contains the Planning and Inspection
Department fee schedule in the following manner:
2. Plumbing Permit Fees
Plumbing permit fees shall be computed on the basis of the number of
plumbing fixtures and devices and of the type of system or plumbing
work as set forth below. A plumbing fixture is defined as a device
intended to be connected to the plumbing system, such as any sink,
bathtub, or any other such devices.
(o) Fire Suppression Systems
[Standpipes, 1 -3 floors]
[Each additional floor]
[Automatic Sprinklers, 1st floor]
[Each additional floor]
Fire Sprinkler System (New)
- 1st 10 heads
- Additional 10 heads or fraction thereof
Alteration, Repair of Existing System
- For For each $500.00 valuation or fraction
thereof
- Minimum Fee
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
[30.00]
[ 3.75]
[62.50]
[18.75]
40.00
8.00
50.00
200.00
17.00
35.00
RESOLUTION NO.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above fees shall become effective on
January 1, 1990.
ATTEST:
RESOLUTION NO.
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:
Date Mayor
Clerk
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
DEPARTMENT APP
•
tzoKf .Q# LYN F,t ILLa t t R Council Meeting Date 11/27/29
Agenda Item Number /e
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
• *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
An Ordinance ammending Chapter 35 to establish a Planned Unit Development
zoning district.
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report
.4.4"4 ) a
Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection
*************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
On the City Council's November 27, 1989, agenda, is a discussion item
relating to a Planned Unit Development Ordinance (PUD). The Planning
Commission has been considering a PUD Ordinance for some time, and at
their November 16, 1989, meeting, recommended adoption of such an ordinance.
The primary purpose of the ordinance ammendment is to provide the City
with a viable tool which will allow for flexibility in land development
and redevelopment. The PUD Ordinance gives the City the ability to mix
land uses and to approve development plans which may be different, to
some extent, from our normal development standards. Plans for such developments
or redevelopments become a principle part of the process, and development
agreements establish what can and cannot be undertaken in the project.
Attached for the City Council's review is a copy of the Planning Commission
Minutes from November 16, 1989. The Commission's consideration of the
PUD Ordinance can be found on pages 1 through 4 of those minutes. Also
attached, is a copy of a November 14, 1989, memo to the Planning Commission
from the staff relating to this ordinance proposal.
I have had a recent discussion with the City Attorney regarding the ordinance,
and he has suggested a more precise way of designating the various PUD
zones, giving them a specific zoning classification. This will involve
some modification to the ordinance language thus far proposed. For this
reason, it is recommended that the City Council discuss the ordinance
at Monday evening's meeting rather than to consider it for first reading.
The ordinance language will then be changed and the matter brought back
to the Council for first reading on December 18, 1989.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of
, 1989 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek
Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to establish a Planned
Unit Development zoning district.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours
in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 - 5440 to make
arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 TO ESTABLISH
A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is
hereby amended as follows:
Section 35 -355. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
Subdivision 1. Purpose.
The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district is to promote
flexibility in land development and redevelopment, preserve aesthetically
significant and environmentally sensitive site features, conserve energy and
ensure a high quality of design.
Subdivision 2. Permitted Uses.
a. Any permitted or accessory use within the zoning district for which the
site is designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan shall be permitted
within the PUD.
b. In a PUD containing property having more than one designation in the City's
Comprehensive Plan, any permitted or accessory use authorized under any of
such designations shall be permitted. In such cases, the City may require
development occurring on the site to include all uses or may limit the area
which may be dedicated to any particular use.
C. Any use permitted by special use permit within the zoning district or
districts for which the site is designated in the City's Comprehensive
Plan shall be permitted by special use permit within the PUD.
d. Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision to the contrary,
the City Council may authorize the use of up to one -third of the total gross
TIoor area of all buildings within the PUD for land uses other than those
for which the site is designated in the Comprehensive P
Subdivison 3. Development Standards.
a. A PUD shall have a minimum area of one acre, excluding land included within
The floodway or flood fringe overlay districts and excluding existing
rights of way, unless the City finds that at least one of the following
conditions exists: — —
ORDINANCE NO.
1. there are unusual physical features of the property or of the
surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve
a physical or terrain feature of importance to the neighborhood or
community;
2. the property is directly adjacent to or across a public right -of -way
from property which previously was developed as a PUD and the new PUD
will be perceived as and function as an extension of that previously
approved development; or
3. the property is located in a transitional area between different land
uses and the development will be used as a buffer between the uses.
b. Within a PUD, overall density for residential developments shall be
consistent with Section 35 - 400 of this ordinance. Individual buildings or
lots within a PUD may exceed these standards, provided that density for the
entire PUD does not exceed the permitted 'standards.
c. Setbacks, buffers and greenstrips within a PUD shall be consistent with
Section 35 -400 to 35 -414 and Section 35-700 of this ordinance unless the
developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser
standard should be permitted with the addition of a screening treatment or
other mitigative measures.
d. Parking provided for uses within a PUD shall be consistent with the parking
requirements contained in Section 35 - 704 of this ordinance unless the
developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser
standard should be permited on the grounds of the complementarity of peak
parking demands by the uses within the P1lD. The City may require
execution of a restrictive convenant limiting future use of the property
to those uses which will continue this parkimg complementarity, or which
are otherwise approved by the City.
Subdivision 4. General Standards.
a. The City may allow more than one principal building to constructed on
each platted lot within a PUD.
b. A PUD which involves only one land use or a single housing type may be
permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the purposes and
objectives of this section.
c. A PUD may be located only in an area designated as a redevelopment district
in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
d. All property to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership
or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be
necessary to ensure compliance with the approved development plan and site
plan.
e. The uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and standards for
streets, utilities, public facilities and the approval of land
subdivision may be subject to modifications from the City Ordinances
ORDINANCE NO.
generally governing them. The City Council may, therefore, approve
streets, utilities, pudic facliti s and land subdivisions wnich are not
in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements where
it is found that such are not required in the interests of the residents or
of the City.
Subdivision 5. Application and Review.
a. Implementation of a PUD shall be controlled by the development plan. The
development plan shall be approved by the City Council after evaluation by
the Planning Commission. Submission of the development plan shall be
made to the Director of Planning and Inspection on such forms and
accompanied by such information and documentation as the iC ty may deem
necessary or convenient, but shall include at a minimum the following:
1. street and utility locations and sizes;
2. a drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water
storage areas;
3. a grading plan;
4. a landscape plan;
5. a lighting plan;
6. a plan for timing and phasing of the development;
7. covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the
development;
8. a site plan showing the location of all structures and parking areas;
and
9. building renderings or elevation drawings of all sides of all
buildings to be constructed in at least the first phase of
development.
Such information may be in a preliminary form, but shall be sufficiently
complete and accurate to allow an evaluation of the development by the
City. — — — —
b. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the development
plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be published in the official
newspaper and actual notice shall be mailed to the applicant and adjacent
property owners as required by Section 35 -210 of this ordinance. The
Planning Commission shall review the development plan and make such
recommendations as it deems appropriate regarding the p1 within the time
limits established by Section 35 - 210 of this ordinance.
c. Following receipt of the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the
City Council shall hold such hearing as it deems appropriate regarding the
matter. The City Council shall act upon the development plan within the
time limits established by Section 35 -210 of this ordinance. Approval of
the development plan shall constitute rezoning of the property to PUD and
conceptual approval of the elements of the plan. In addition to the
guidelines provided in Section 35 -208 of this ordinance, the City Counci
shall base its actions on the rezoning upon the following critieria:
ORDINANCE NO.
1. compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent of
this section;
2. consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan;
3. the impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located;
and
4. the adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities,
circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreational
areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping.
The City Council may attach such conditions to its approval as it may
determine to be necessary to better accomplish the purposes of the PUD
district. — —
d. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall seek plan
approval pursuant to Section 35-230 of this ordinance. In addition to the
information specifically required by Section 35 - 230, the developer shall
submit such information as may be deemed necessary or convenient by the
City to review the consistency of the proposed development with the
approved development plan.
The plan submitted for approval pursuant to Section 35 -230 shall be in
substantial compliance with the approved development plan. Substantial
compliance shall mean that buildings, parking areas and roads are in
essentially the same location as previously approved; the number of
dwelling units, if any, has not increased or decreased by more than 5
percent; the floor area of non - residential areas has not been increased or
decreased by more than 5 percent; no building has been increased in the
number of floors; open space has not been decreased or altered from its
original design or use, and lot coverage of any individual building has not
been increased or decreased by more than 10 percent.
e. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall execute a
development agreement in a form satisfactory to the City.
f. Applicants may combine development plan approval with the plan approval
required by Section 35 - 230 by submitting all information required for both
simultaneously.
g. After approval of the development plan and the plan approved required by
Section 35 - 230, nothing shall be constructed on the site and no building
permits shall be issued except in conformity with the approved plans.
h. If within 12 months following approval by the City Council of the
development plan, no building permits have been obtained or, if within 12
months after the issuance of building permits no construction has
commenced on the area approved for the PUD district, the City Council may
initiate rezoningof the property.
ORDINANCE NO.
i. Any major amendment to the development plan may be approved by the City
Council following the same notice and hearing procedures specified in this
section. A major amendment shall be considered any change greater than
that permitted by subdivision 5.d. of this section. Any other change
shall be considered a minor change and may be made if approved by the
Planning Commission after such notice and hear ni g as may be deemed
appropriate by the Planning Commission.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 1989.
ATTEST:
Clerk
Mayor
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: PUD Ordinance
DATE: November 14, 1989
Attached is a slightly revised copy of the draft PUD Ordinance that we have
considered off and on over the past year. We will discuss at Thursday's meeting how
this ordinance would work. If you read through the ordinance, you will realize that
designating a site PUD is procedurally very similar to a rezoning. What the PUD
designation adds, which no other zoning designation does, is the flexibility to mix
uses, depart to a limited extent from the Comprehensive Plan, and approve
development plans which vary from normal development standards without actually
granting a variance. We feel it is important that the Comprehensive Plan and the
Zoning Ordinance still serve as the guide and point of departure in negotiating more
flexible development agreements. The Planning Commission should approach a PUD as
a method of making tradeoffs to accomplish quality development, not as an out and out
relaxation of standards.
We have added language in Subdivision 3d regarding parking. Subdivision 3 will
enable the City to review and approve development plans which, in the judgment of the
City, meet planning objectives without necessarily meeting every applicable
ordinance standard. At this point, we have not included a provision requiring a
minimum dollar investment, building to land ratio, or floor area ratio as suggested
by Commissioner Ainas. While we certainly agree with the objective of such a
provision - to foster high quality development - we feel that such a provision might,
in some cases, reduce the flexibility we are seeking to achieve with this ordinance.
If the Commission feels strongly that such a provision is appropriate, we will try to
work out approximate language at Thursday's meeting and include it in the ordinance
for City Council consideration, however, we do not believe such language is
necessary.
•
•
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by
Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:36 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Lowell
Ainas, Kristen Mann and James McCloskey. Also present were Director of Planning
and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki
noted that Commissioner Bertil Johnson was out of town and was excused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 26, 1989
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of
the October 26, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor:
Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and McCloskey.
Voting against: none. The motion passed.
RESOLUTION REGARDING CHANGE OF BROOKWOOD HOUSING DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINE
Chairperson Malecki introduced the first item of business, a resolution finding
that the modified project plan for the Brookwood housing development project and the
modified tax increment plan for the Earle Brown Farm tax increment district are
consistent with the plans for development of the City of Brooklyn Center. She asked
whether there were any comments.
Commissioner Bernards asked whether staff had met with the Brooklyn Center school
district. The Secretary responded that the City Manager and the Economic
Development Authority Coordinator have been meeting with the school district
officials. He stated that there was a public hearing scheduled for this matter at
the City Council meeting on November 27 and that the matter would probably be laid
over at that time.
ACTION ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 5 REGARDING CONSISTENCY OF A
CHANGE IN THE HOUSING DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINE AND TAX INCREMENT PLAN WITH THE CITY'
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 89 -5 regarding the modification of the Brookwood housing
district boundary and the modification of the tax increment plan for the Earle Brown
Farm as being consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Voting in favor:
Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Ainas, Bernards,Mann and McCloskey.
Voting against: none. The motion passed.
DISCUSSION ITEM
PUD Ordinance
The Secretary then briefly introduced the draft Planned Unit Development Ordinance
and stated that he would like to review it point by point in hopes that the Commission
would be ready to take action on it at this evening's meeting.
11 -16 -89
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
NOVEMBER 16, 1989
CITY HALL
-1-
Commissioner Ainas stated that he wished to withdraw his suggestion for a
restriction requiring a minimum investment or minimum building to land ratio since
it would be difficult to arrive at a precise figure and even more difficult to
administer in practice. The Secretary thanked Commissioner Ainas for his
comments. He stated that he agreed with the goal of the idea originally suggested
by Commissioner Ainas and that its objective of insuring high quality development
was consistent with the objective of the ordinance. He stated that the idea had
been considered by the staff . He added, however, that such a mechanism could reduce
flexibility and might have to be modified a number of times. Commissioner Ainas
stated that he wanted to avoid a PUD with a hot dog stand anchoring a mini warehouse
development. The Secretary answered that if the proposed ordinance would not allow
the City to avoid such a development then there is probably a problem with the
ordinance. He stated that, as the City deals with Planned Unit Developments, it is
likely that more standards for them will be set. He stated that the intent of the
ordinance, however, was to allow for more possibilities and that no use could
totally be ruled out ahead of time. Commissioner Ainas stated that, from the
perspective of a developer, it is important for a City to give a reasonably clear
indication as to what it really wants. He cited an example of a case in which he was
involved in private practice with a City which rejected a development proposal
without indicating what it did, in fact, wish to see.
The Secretary then began to review the draft ordinance point by point. He reviewed
the purpose section and the section on permitted uses. He noted the Comprehensive
Plan recommendations contained in the Land Use Revisions Map which would serve as
the basis for deciding what land uses would be allowed within a PUD. He explained
the relationship between some of the land use categories in that table in the
Comprehensive Plan and the zoning districts contained in the Zoning Ordinance. As
an example, he stated that the term "commercial retail" refers to the C2 zoning
district and the possibility of land uses other than purely retail uses. He added
that the Comprehensive Plan sometimes recommends mixed uses for a given area.
The Secretary then went on to review the section on development standards and gave
some examples of certain provisions regarding parking, setbacks, buffers, etc.
Commissioner Sander noted that she was in the real estate business and had seen a
number of problems in Maple Grove and Brooklyn Park. She stated that she felt the
draft ordinance covered some of the areas of concern that have arisen in those
cities.
The Secretary went on to review the subdivision of the draft ordinance relating to
general standards. He gave the Commission some examples of possible redevelopment
districts, primarily in areas along Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that one
question that the City will have to deal with is whether to predesignate certain
areas for a PUD classification or whether to deal with a PUD designation on a case by
case basis.
The Secretary then went on to review the provisions on application and review of a
PUD proposal. He noted that many of the procedural provisions are basically the
same as the rezoning process and that this is a lengthy procedure. He pointed out
that the ordinance would enable the City to approve not simply a general land use,
but a specific development plan which would have to be approved at least in a
preliminary manner along with the rezoning action.
There followed a brief discussion of Brooklyn Boulevard and the continuity of land
use in Brooklyn Center relative to that in Brooklyn Park. The Secretary discussed
this area and also County Road 10 as it enters Crystal.
11 -16 -89 -2-
•
•
•
•
•
•
Commissioner Sander asked what prompted the new PUD Ordinance. The Secretary
answered that the City was entering a time of its life as a community where there
would be more redevelopment and that redevelopment situations will call for more
flexibility on the part of the City. He stated that when a community is growing, it
needs tough standards. Otherwise, he went on, a city may simply give away the ship
to get new development. He stated that Brooklyn Center has a good commercial base,
but that the City may have to do some give and take in order to get quality
redevelopment in certain areas. He went on to discuss possible areas which would
need redevelopment, including 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard, the Lynbrook area, the
industrial area at 50th and France, etc.
The Secretary stated that Brooklyn Boulevard probably would not ultimately have as
much office development as is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated
that the market is certainly not there now and that the City probably could not
sustain that much office in the future.
The Planner commented that a PUD Ordinance would be a sword that could cut both ways.
He stated that while the ordinance would allow for greater flexibility in improving
innovative arrangements, the construction of those arrangements might build in
inflexibility in future use of the property. He stated that this was a problem that
is faced by ordinary developments, but can be compounded when there is a mixture of
uses and one use relies somewhat on another. He stated that it is important that the
mixed use arrangements be a good long term investment. He noted some developments
that had been built in the last ten years which have not been stable land uses.
Chairperson Malecki brought up the example of the 35' buffer required when C2 uses
abut Rl property. She asked how the City would deal with a situation where the
commercial development exists first. The Secretary noted the example of the
property east of the Humboldt Square Shopping Center in the Northeast Neighborhood.
He pointed out that it had been zoned C2 for many years and that the owner proposed to
rezone the property to R1 in the 1970's. He explained that the City's position at
that time was that the R1 development would have to provide a 35' buffer strip even
though the ordinance places the burden on the commercial use.
Chairperson Malecki asked what would be done when the residential use existed first.
The Secretary answered that the City may or may not vary from the basic 35' buffer
requirement. He pointed out that, while developers will want to shrink the buffer
strip, neighboring properties will want to expand it or see some other amenities
provided.
The Planner commented that having hard and fast standards for development can save
time and money. He stated that they let the developer know what the standard is and
what the City will accept. He stated that they tend to make the City Council's
decision easier and avoid the need for costly consultants. The Secretary agreed
and pointed out that the PUD Ordinance will add flexibility, but with that will go
additional responsibility to closely analyze whether developments are properly
planned. Commissioner McCloskey stated that it sounded to him like the choice
facing the City was between changing standards or adding flexibility and that the
staff has recommended added flexibility. The Secretary agreed with this analysis.
Commissioner McCloskey asked whether the PUD Ordinance would result in more input
for the citizen or for the public official. The Secretary answered that the City
does not presently have a public hearing for site and building plan approvals. He
pointed out that the PUD process would involve public hearings and more public
input. He added, however, that the public can be legally unreasonable. He pointed
11 -16 -89 -3-
out that the public probably would not have supported integrated schools and housing
30 years ago if it were left up to a local vote. He stated that the PUD Ordinance is
another tool for controlling development. He cited one of the original zoning
cases, Euclid vs. Ambler Realty as a landmark zoning case. He stated that that case
established the legality of basic zoning in the 1920's. He added that 20 years ago
special use permits became popular because they gave the City discretion to approve
or deny certain uses within zoning districts. He pointed out, however, that the
legal reality has been that the burden has shifted to the City to justify denial of a
special use permit rather than being on the developer to prove that the proposal
meets the special use standards. He stated that, with a PUD Ordinance, the City
could be found to be arbitrary and capricious in approving one development concept
while rejecting another.
The Planner added that the Commission may want to think in the future about the
possibility of expanding the time period in Section 35 -210 of the Zoning Ordinance
for considering rezonings and now PUD'S. He stated that the complexities of
gathering input on a proposed plan and seeking revisions could be a time consuming
process and that the 60 day time period may well be adequate. The Secretary
suggested that the City try working with the PUD Ordinance and see how the 60 day time
period works. He pointed out that the time limits in the Zoning Ordinance are
intended to keep the City from simply shelving a proposal and killing it by not
acting on it for an indefinite period of time.
MOTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PUD ORDINANCE
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner McCloskey to recommend
approval of an ordinance amending Chapter 35 to establish a Planned Unit Development
Zoning District in the City of Brooklyn Center. Voting in favor: Chairperson
Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and McCloskey. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
The Secretary then noted the date of the upcoming Planning Commission meeting on
December 7 and pointed out that the moratorium on development in the area of 66th and
West River Road would expire in mid December. He stated that he hoped to get the
Land Use Study to the Commission and ultimately to the City Council in December.
The Planner then showed the Planning Commission some building materials for the
Ethan Allen building. He noted that the wood trim would be lightened up and the
staccato board would also be lightened to an off -white color. He stated that he had
no problem with the color scheme proposed and recommended that the Planning
Commission not object unless the feeling is almost unanimous that the proposed color
scheme is unattractive. The Commission had no objection to the proposed colors.
ADJOURNMENT
Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded
by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The
motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:24 p.m.
11 -16 -89 -4-
Chairperson
•
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 5
RESOLUTION FINDING THE MODIFIED PROJECT PLAN FOR HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 01 AND THE MODIFIED TIF PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 02 CONSISTENT WITH
THE PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority has prepared
a modified Project Plan for Housing Development Project No. 01 (Project Plan) and a
modified Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District 02, (TIF
Plan); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Project Plan and TIF
Plan and has compared them with the plans for development of the City as a whole.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota as follows:
1. The modified Project Plan for Housing Development Project No. 01 and
the modified TIF plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 02 are
found to be consistent with the plans for development of the City of
Brooklyn Center as a whole.
2. It is recommended that the Economic Development Authority and the City
Council of the City of Br000klyn Center hold the public hearings
required by law and adopt the modified Project Plan and TIF Plan.
Date Chairperson
Secretary
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
•
•
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 11/27/89
Agenda Item Number /1
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
CONTINUING REVIEW OF 1989 PROPOSED BUDGET
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Signature - title
***************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * *�r *fir **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: � J�
E /C'1r
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )
The City Council, during its review of the Budget on September 21, 1989, completed reviewing the
Budget up to the public works vehicle maintenance budget, unit #43 on page 65 of the Proposed 1990
Budget. As a part of your initial review in September, you reduced the assessing budget by $12,500
and the city attorney budget by $12,300. You had the following questions or comments for staff
review:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
1. You stated you wished to further consider the League of Minnesota Cities'
membership fee.
2. You wished to further consider the approval process the League of Cities goes
through in raising dues.
3. You requested the city clerk's office review the method and arrangement of
handling voting in Precinct #1 (Centerbrook Golf Course).
4. You wished to consider further appropriations for improving communication with
the community on City issues.
5. You requested the staff investigate the feasibility of the City buying trees for
planting and selling them to citizens at quantity discounts.
6. The City Council also wished to possibly revisit and rediscuss the need for an
additional patrol officer in the police department and additional equipment for
sidewalk plowing.
The staff will be prepared to give you answers and comment on the above matter at your Council
meeting during consideration of the Budget. You should also understand that final consideration of
the 1990 Budget will be at the public hearing established under the truth in taxation state law
requirements to be held on December 6, 1989, at 7 p.m. in the city council chambers. The following
Wednesday, December 13, is tentatively scheduled as a date for further consideration of the Budget
should that time be needed.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police
DAZE: November 21, 1989
SUBJECT: Annual Liquor Report
Attached please find Captain Kline's annual report regarding calls for service
to liquor license holders in the City of Brooklyn Center. You will find the
report is rather routine as it has been in the past few years.
You will notice that the hotels and bowling alleys list a large number of calls.
The calls represent police service for the entire operation on a 24 -hour a day
basis and are not necessarily related to the liquor part of the business.
We can find nothing in this annual report which would preclude any license
holder from renewal of their liquor license for the 1990 calendar year.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chief James Lindsay
FROM: Captain Scott Kline
DATE: November 20, 1989
SUBJECT: Police Department Liquor License Annual Report
This report is a summary of all Police Department actions taken in and
around liquor establishments holding on -sale beer, wine and liquor
licenses within the City of Brooklyn Center. The reporting period is
December 1, 1988, through November 1, 1989.
There are 22 licensed establishments included in this report. At the
end of the report period there were only 21 establishments since the
Green Mill closed indefinitely after a failed restructuring of the
management.
• There were a total of 761 police actions involving licensed
establishments. There were 631 calls for service, 125 parking or
traffic citations issued and five (5) background investigations
involving license holders or managers.
None of the drug arrests made at or near the liquor establishments
were related in any way with the operation of the liquor portion of
the license.
The American Legion Club - 4307 70th Avenue North
There were seven (7) reported incidents at the American Legion Club.
1 - Detox
1 - Lockout
4 - Miscellaneous Public
1 - Motor Vehicle Theft
Applebee's - 1347 Brookdale Center
There were four (4) incidents reported at this location.
1 - Aid and Assist
1 - Forgery
2 - Miscellaneous Public
•
•
Memorandum to Chief James Lindsay
Page 2
November 20, 1989
Beacon Bowl - 6525 Lvndale Avenue North
There were three (3) reported incidents at this establishment during
the reporting period.
2 - Lockouts
1 - Miscellaneous Public
Chuck Wagon Inn - 5720 Morgan Avenue North
There were three (3) incidents at this establishment during the
reporting period.
1 - Burglary
1 - Miscellaneous Public
1 - Health Department tag for sanitation reasons.
III Davanni's - 5937 Summit Drive
There were 11 reported incidents at this establishment during the
reporting period. There was one (1) assault which was a traffic
related assault stemming from a driving incident prior to the parties
arriving at Davanni's.
1 - Assault
6 - Lockouts
1 - Miscellaneous Public
2 - Thefts
1 - Health Department tag for sanitation reasons.
Day's Inn (Formerly Holiday Inn) - 1501 Freeway Boulevard
There were 210 calls for service at the Day's Inn. Of the calls worth
noting, two (2) of them were robberies which were eventually cleared
up with the arrest of one person who had committed both, two (2)
suicides, both involving parties who had simply gone to the Holiday
Inn and rented a room in order to be alone to commit suicide as they
were despondent over personal problems, and one (1) sex crime which
was an incident where an uncle had rented a room and brought his
nephew to the Holiday Inn where he had supposedly molested him.
Additionally, none of the three (3) assaults were directly connected
with anyone drinking in the bar.
•
Memorandum to Chief James Lindsay
Page 3
November 20, 1989
24 - Aid and Assists
3 - Assaults
3 - Background Investigations
2 - Disturbing the Peace
1 - Drugs
2 - False Alarms
4 - Forgeries
1 - Hit and Run Accident
14 - Lockouts
5 - Medicals
37 - Miscellaneous Public
6 - Motor Vehicle Thefts
68 - Parking Violations
3 - Property Damage Accidents
1 - Personal Injury Accident
2 - Robberies
2 - Suicides
1 - Suspicious Activities
25 - Thefts
5 - Vandalism
1 - Sex Crime
Dayton's Restaurant - 1100 Brookdale Center
There were no calls to this liquor establishment during the reporting
period.
Denny's Restaurant - 3901 Lakebreeze Avenue North
There were 19 contacts with this establishment during the reporting
period none of which were related to the liquor operation.
2 - Aid and Assists
1 - Assault
1 - Detox
3 - Lockouts
4 - Miscellaneous Public
1 - Property Damage Accident
2 - Suspicious Activity
5 - Thefts
Memorandum to Chief James Lindsay
Page 4
November 20, 1989
Earle Brown Bowl - 6440 James Circle,
There were 111 calls at this liquor establishment during the reporting
period. Those of note would be three (3) assaults which all took
place in the parking lot and were unrelated to the liquor license.
There were five (5) drug arrests, three (3) of which took place out in
the parking lot and two (2) of which took place inside the
establishment, but only dealt with customers and were not related to
the management. One (1) party who was sent to Detox had arrived at
the establishment in an intoxicated condition and was not served at
all prior to the Police Department being called.
4 - Aid and Assists
3 - Assaults
1 - Detox
5 - Drugs
1 - Forgery
1 - Fire
1 - Hit and Run Accident
14 - Lockouts
5 - Medicals
27 - Miscellaneous Public
4 - Motor Vehicle Thefts
1 - Motor Vehicle Recovery
8 - Parking Violations
3 - Property Damage Accidents
1 - Personal Injury Accident
23 - Thefts
9 - Vandalisms
50's Grill - 5524 Brooklyn Boulevard
There were nine (9) calls for service at this liquor establishment
during the reporting period.
1 - Aid and Assist
1 - Fire
2 - Lockouts
1 - Medical
4 - Miscellaneous Public
•
•
•
Memorandum to Chief James Lindsay
Page 5
November 20, 1989
Green Hill Restaurant - 5540 Brooklyn Boulevard
There were 25 calls for service to the Green Mill Restaurant during
the reporting period. The only call for service of note is a drug
violation which was an arrest made in the back parking lot of the
restaurant of a party who was selling out of his car. This had
nothing to do with the management of the liquor establishment.
Of note is the fact that this establishment has closed and has ceased
operations in the City of Brooklyn Center. It will not be open again
unless it is sold and entirely new ownership takes over.
1 - Drugs
1 - False Alarm
8 - Lockouts
3 - Miscellaneous Public
8 - Parking Violations
1 - Suspicious Activity
3 - Thefts
Ground Round - 2545 County Road 10
There were 33 calls for service at the Ground Round Restaurant during
this reporting period. None of the contacts were of any particular
note and none was involved with the operation of the liquor
establishment.
1 - Aid and Assist
7 - False Alarms
9 - Lockouts
1 - Medical
2 - Miscellaneous Public
6 - Parking Violations
1 - Property Damage Accident
5 - Thefts
1 - Vandalism
Memorandum to Chief James Lindsay
Page 6
November 20, 1989
Holiday Inn - 2200 Freeway Boulevard,
There were 132 contacts with the Holiday Inn during this reporting
period. Of these, there was one (1) assault which took place in the
parking lot and was precipitated by a driving violation and had
nothing to do with the liquor license for the establishment.
There was also one (1) drug arrest which took place in one of the
rooms and involved a party who worked at the Holiday Inn, but did not
work in the liquor establishment. There was also one (1) disturbing
the peace which involved a room tenant who would not quiet down and
this could not be attributed to the liquor license either.
7 - Aid and Assists
1 - Assault
1 - Disturbing the Peace
1 - Drug
6 - False Alarms
1 - Fire
1 - Hit and Run Accident
25 - Lockouts
4 - Medicals
38 - Miscellaneous Public
2 - Motor Vehicle Thefts
1 - Motor Vehicle Recovery
7 - Parking Violations
1 - Property Damage Accident
2 - Personal Injury Accidents
3 - Suspicious Activities
20 - Thefts
11 - Vandalisms
LaCasita Restaurant - 2101 Freeway Boulevard
There were 14 incidents responded to by the Police Department at this
liquor establishment. None of the calls were related to the liquor
license or its operation.
1 - Burglary (in which a party was arrested)
- False Alarms
1 - Forgery
1 - Lockout
2 - Medicals
1 - Motor Vehicle Theft
1 - Vandalism
•
•
Memorandum to Chief James Lindsay
Page 7
November 20, 1989
Little Brooklyn - 6219 Brooklyn Boulevard
There were eight (8) calls for service at this liquor establishment,
none of which were related to the operation of the liquor license.
1 - Burglary
5 - Lockouts
1 - Miscellaneous Public
1 - Theft
Lynbrook Bowl - 6357 North Lilac Drive
There were 108 calls for service at this liquor establishment during
the reporting period. Of note were four (4) assaults and four (4)
drug arrests, all of which took place outside of the establishment in
the parking lot and were totally unrelated to the operation of the
liquor establishment itself.
3 - Aid and Assists
4 - Assaults
1 - Burglary (two arrests)
1 - Detox
4 - Drug Violations
1 - Forgery
1 - Hit and Run Accident
3 - Lockouts
4 - Medicals
35 - Mi,scellaneous Public
1 - Motor Vehicle Theft
26 - Parking Violations
1 - Property Damage Accident
1 - Personal Injury Accident
15 - Thefts
7 - Vandalisms
Pizza Hut - 6002 Shingle Creek Parkway
There were four (4) calls for service to this liquor establishment
during this reporting period.
1 - Lockout
2 - Miscellaneous Public
1 - Suspicious Activity
Memorandum to Chief James Lindsay
Page 8
November 20, 1989
Red Lobster Restaurant - 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard
There were 27 calls for service during this reporting period at this
establishment. Of these, only two (2) were noteworthy. One (1) was
an assault and one (1) involved a party who was taken to Detox.
Neither of these incidents had any connection with the liquor
establishment. The party taken to Detox had come into the building
drunk. The assault had taken place on Brooklyn Boulevard and the
assaulted party ran into the restaurant to call the police.
1 - Aid and Assist
1 - Assault
1 - Detox
3 - False Alarms
3 - Fires
7 - Lockouts
1 - Medical
5 - Miscellaneous Public
1 - Occupational Accident
3 - Thefts
1 - Vandalism
Rocky Rococo's - 1267 Brookdale Center
There were seven (7) calls for service at this liquor establishment
during the reporting period. None of these pertain to the operation
of the establishment.
1 - Fire
1 - Forgery
1 - Lockout
1 - Miscellaneous Public
1 - Motor Vehicle Theft
2 - Thefts
Scoreboard Pizza - 6800 Humboldt Avenue North
There were no calls for service at this liquor establishment during
the reporting period.
Memorandum to Chief James Lindsay
Page 9
November 20, 1989
T. Wright's - 5800 Shingle Creek Parkway_
There were 23 calls for service to this liquor establishment during
this reporting period, none of which were related to the liquor
operation.
4 - False Alarms
3 - Forgeries
2 - Lockouts
4 - Miscellaneous Public
2 - Parking Violations
7 - Thefts
1 - Vandalism
Yen Ching Restaurant - 5900 Shingle Creek Parkway
There were three (3) incidents reported to the Police Department
during this reporting period, none of which were related to the liquor
operation.
1 - Fire
1 - Miscellaneous Public
1 - Vandalism
Licenses to be approved by the City Council on November 27, 1989:
4110 CHRISTMAS TREE SALES
Roger Koskinen /Midwest Challenge
50's Grill
•
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Blum's Concession Corp.
Sears
GASOLINE SERVICE STATION
Brookdale Unocal
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Brooklyn Center Lions /Bill Mayland
Brooklyn Center High School
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES
ARA Services
Northwestern Nat'l. Life Ins.
PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES
4111 ARA Services
Northwestern Nat'l. Life Ins.
RENTAL DWELLINGS
Initial:
Gary Scherber
Chris Christianson
Gloria Lorentson
Gary Scherber
Robert and Catherine Lorvick
Jim Stalberger /Al Juhnke
Jim Stalberger /Al Juhnke
Renewal:
James Lupient /Midwest Mgmt.
George Lucht
Dorothy Follese
Robert Lerum
Bertil Anderson
Byron and Nancy Mach
Jerry Harrington /Eugene Berg
Janet Schenk
3049 Columbus Ave. S.
5524 Brooklyn Blvd.
500 W. Ohio Ave.
1297 Brookdale Center
5710 Xerxes Ave.
5618 Lilac Dr. N.
6500 Humboldt Ave.
2830 N. Fairview
6200 Shingle Ck.
2830 N. Fairview
6200 Shingle Ck.
N.
N.
Pkwy.
Pkwy.
Lilac Apartments
6815 Ewing Ave. N.
6805 Fremont Pl. N.
5820 Logan Ave. N.
5205 E. Twin Lake Blvd.
3129 49th Ave. N.
3135 49th Ave. N.
Basswood Apartments
5105 Brooklyn Blvd.
6933 Brooklyn Blvd.
4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #332
4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #336
4708 -12 Twin Lake Ave.
1200 67th Ave. N.
3118 67th Ave. N.
r) LO-Qs2j0
City Clerk
. , i7� (T { .l2U/Yv - urc
Sanitarian
10. tO.ada
City Clerk
Sanitarian
Sanitarian
Sanitarian
. O . /1/1,A11,_
Director of Planning
and Inspection
/3
SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT
ill Kohl's Department Store
Mr. Movies
GENERAL APPROVAL: , i !
D. K. Weeks, City Clerk
2501 Co. Road 10
1964 57th Ave. N.
- Ne..eqlzarK
Sanitarian
•
1r t 1 _'i'ION
FO12 i:P?OINTMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER I-;UR ".AtN
Submit to:
Name j ( / / *4 Age „RS
Address
UJ t-t 1 �'J S 1 i�rt `>
was{! 'To C 1 .2_S, ,A
RJGHTS COMTjTISSION
L/ oe. . Iv J . g. C 5 Telephone Slol�
Occupation fit= 1 F-_ 2 �v � � Years lived in Brooklyn Center
I have read the 1-Iuman Rights Commission Enabling Resolution (Resolution No.
68 -44, 69 -35, 71 -211 and 74 -68), which defines the purpose, authority and
responsibility of the Brooklyn Center Human. Rights Commission.
Yes X No Comments
I understand the importance of regular Commission meeting attendance and
participation, and feel I have the time available to be an active participant.
Yes � No Comments
Additional comments_on my Interest, experience, background, ideas, etc.
S L 7T (1 i A LL �i Inn (7A- 1 h�, 1 -� I
Gam. C tca,.t l 14,A-1 = r, ,�� -r�
t� ✓Vl i T� �.
t ti
�51 i."7 - /7 /
revzoatht
Mayor Dean Nyquist
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
V/7./
S ignatth
'- j
- S uC h 1/I* 44,0
•
•
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION
FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF DIANE ZIEGLER
(LEMKE)
WHEREAS, Diane Ziegler, (Lemke) is a lifelong resident
of Brooklyn Center; and
WHEREAS, she has been active in volunteer services in
and for the City including service on the Human Rights
Commission.
WHEREAS, she is the founder of ABLE (Association for
Blind Living and Education.)
WHEREAS, Diane Ziegler (Lemke) has been named by the
McKnight Foundation as one of the ten in the State of Minnesota
for their significant contributions in human services.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, on behalf of all citizens of Brooklyn Center,
congratulates and commends Diane Ziegler (Lemke) for achieving
the award and expresses thanks for her many contributions to the
City and State.
ATTEST:
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
B ROOKLYN
CENTER
6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE
911
November 28, 1989
Ms. Millie MacLeod, President
League of Minnesota Cities
1111 South 23rd Avenue
Moorhead, Minnesota 56560
Dear President MacLeod:
First, I want to thank you for taking your time to meet with us
on November 14 to respond to the City Council resolution of
September 11. While it appears that the position of the League
as you presented it still leaves us far apart on the issue, we
sincerely hope that you and the board recognize we are just as
firm in our position, which is that any surplus of the LMCIT
should go back to the participating cities.
The basic issue here is the use of funds from the insurance trust
to finance League functions that should more properly be paid for
by the dues of the general membership. To make the issue more
sensitive, we understand that the LMCIT intends to raise
insurance premiums to member cities by as much as 15% for some
insurance coverages. Under the so called "institutional fee,"
which is 1.5% of gross premiums of the workers compensation and
property casualty programs, the League could receive a windfall
while the costs of insurance goes up to member cities. This adds
further fuel to our concerns on this issue, especially when
everyone agrees that the LMCIT already pays the League for
administrating the program.
In reviewing our discussions, your letter, and the article in the
November issue of the League's magazine, I would like to recite
once more that the reason for creating the institutional fee and
the actual use of the funds do not square with each other. The
reason stated is to compensate the League for a variety of
services, i.e: institutional sponsorship of LMCIT by the League,
League lobbying, the Municipal Amicus Program, public relations
support, etc. etc. Then in the same breath the stated uses of
the funds are for three special projects i.e: a property tax
research project, an ecoc development and tax increment
finance data base project ai4 personnel information project. Mika
NM ALL lARKA QfT
111191
`7 ^Y%
Ms. Millie MacLeod, President -2- November 28, 1989
It would logically follow that if the reason for the
institutional fee was to compensate for the variety of services
so noted, then those funds should go to cover the labor cost
incurred by League staff. When the question was directed to Mr.
Slater, your Executive Director, as to the actual labor costs
incurred for those services, the response repeatedly was "IT'S
WORTH SOMETHING ". Our question was and still is "was it worth
$500,000." That we agreed was a matter that should be
documented.
I will be reporting to the Brooklyn Center City Council on the
meeting of the 14th and my comments will be while we did not
resolve the issue, the discussion was very frank. Further, that
it was your desire to try to resolve this issue and wanted the
opportunity to do so. As President of the LMC, we certainly will
honor your request for the opportunity to resolve the issue.
We would like to have a response from you within the next 30 days
as the institutional fee for 1990 will be imposed soon. We would
like to know the intent of the League prior to the end of the
year. As far as the issue of additional League dues to pay for
needed projects, if it can be demonstrated that those projects
are needed and the League can best perform the work, then as a
member city we would certainly favorably consider the request.
The financing of these projects should be brought up during a
general membership meeting of the League when all members could
vote on the issue.
I would make myself available to meet with you and other
municipal officials, if it would help in the resolution of this
matter. The City Council has always been a strong advocate of
the League and the LMCIT, but we as members also are concerned
about the direction the League has taken on the LMCIT
institutional fee.
Yours truly,
Dean A. Nyquist, Mayor
City of Brooklyn Center
cc: Robert Benke, Vice President
Don Slater, Executive Director