Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 04-10 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER APRIL 10, 1989 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum 5. Approval of Consent Agenda -All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. 6. Approval of Minutes: *a. March 27, 1989 - Regular Session 7. Resolutions: *a. Accepting Work Performed and Approving Revised Final Payment for Work under Contract 1987 -L (Camden Avenue Sidewalk Improvement Project No. 1987 -10) *b. Accepting and Approving Environmental Assessment Worksheet Relating to the Reconstruction of West River Road between Interstate Highway 694 (I -694) and 73rd Avenue North *c. Accepting Bid and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1) Four Wheel Pavement Marking Machine *d. Declaring Surplus Property - Spring auction list e. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract for Tree Removal Project No. 1989 -03, Contract No. 1989 -B -This project covers the removal of trees in accordance with the City's diseased tree removal program. It is recommended that the contract be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. f. Approving Private Sale of One Parcel of Nonconservation Land to the Owner of an Adjacent Property CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- April 10, 1989 8. Planning Commission Items: (7:30 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 89002 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center requesting rezoning from R5 to Cl the land at the southwest quadrant of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard and the neighboring lots to the south -This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its January 12, 1989, meeting and was referred to the west central neighborhood advisory group for review and comment. The Planning Commission then reviewed the application at its March 30, 1989, meeting and recommended approval of the application. 1. Resolution Regarding Disposition of Application No. 89002 Submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center b. Planning Commission Application No. 89011 submitted by Public Storage for an appeal from a determination by staff that mini - storage facilities are not permitted in the Cl zoning district - Public Storage wishes to locate a facility at the southwest quadrant of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. Public Storage wishes to use the appeal as a vehicle for proposing an ordinance amendment to allow mini - storage by special use permit in the Cl zoning district. The Planning Commission recommended denial of this application at its March 30, 1989, meeting. 9. Discussion Items: a. Preliminary Design Study Report (8 p.m.) -69th Avenue North from Zane Avenue North to Dupont Avenue North 1. Resolution Initiating the Preparation of a Discretionary Environmental Worksheet (EAW) for Improvements to the 69th Avenue North Corridor from the West City Limits to Dupont Avenue North b. Outdoor Liquor and Food Service under Our Liquor Licensing Ordinance C. Delivery and Takeout Food as a Factor in Liquor Ordinance Food to Liquor Percentage *10. Licenses 11. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MARCH 27, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Todd Paulson, and Jerry Pedlar. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, EDA Coordinator Brad Hoffman, and Administrative Aide Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Elaine Bernards of the Brooklyn Center Prayer Breakfast Committee. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the open forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist stated he would like item 7a removed from the consent agenda and inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed. No other requests were made. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 13 1989 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the minutes of the March 13, 1989, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO 89 -50 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR ONE 3/4 -TON PICKUP TRUCK AND ONE 1 -TON DUMP TRUCK WITH UTILITY DUMP BOX The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO 89 -51 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 3/27/89 -1- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR REHABILITATION OF WELLS NO. 2 AND 3 (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -22) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -52 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING MNDOT AGREEMENT NO. 65711 PROVIDING FOR COST PARTICIPATION IN DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATING TO RECONSTRUCTION OF WEST RIVER ROAD (OLD T.H. 252) FROM 66TH AVENUE NORTH TO 73RD AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -18) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -53 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING EARLE BROWN DAYS AS A CIVIC EVENT FROM JUNE 21 THROUGH JUNE 25 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -54 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 6,000 FEET OF FIRE HOSE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION No. 89 -55 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the following list of licenses: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Applebee's 1347 Brookdale Center Arby's 1341 Brookdale Center Bakers Square Restaurant 5601 Xerxes Avenue N. Berean Evangelical Free Church 6625 Humboldt Avenue N. 3/27/89 -2- Breaktime Services 6660 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Bridgeman's 1272 Brookdale Center Bridgeman's 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. Brook Park Baptist 4801 63rd Avenue N. Brookdale Assembly of God 6030 Xerxes Avenue N. Brookdale Christian Center 6030 Xerxes Avenue N. Brookdale Cinema 5801 John Martin Drive Brooklyn Center American Legion #630 4307 70th Avenue N. Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Avenue N. Burger King 6110 Brooklyn Blvd. Country Club Market 5715 Morgan Avenue N. Country Store 3610 63rd Avenue N. Cross of Glory Lutheran Church 5929 Brooklyn Blvd. Days Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. Denny's Restaurant 3901 Lakebreeze Avenue N. Duke's Amoco 6501 Humboldt Avenue N. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Earle Brown Commons 6100 Summit Drive Earle Brown Elementary School 5900 Humboldt Avenue N. 50's Grill 5524 Brooklyn Blvd. Kim Fung 5704 Morgan Avenue N. Garden City School 3501 65th Avenue N. Ground Round, Inc. 2545 County Road 10 Hickory Farms Kiosk in Brookdale Mall Kentucky Fried Chicken 5512 Brooklyn Blvd. Korean Presbyterian Church 6830 Quail Avenue N. Lutheran Church of the Triune God 5827 Humboldt Avenue N. • Neil's Total 1505 69th Avenue N. Northbrook Alliance Church 6240 Aldrich Avenue N. Nutrition World 1271 Brookdale Center Orchard Lane School 6201 Noble Avenue N. J. C. Penney 1265 Brookdale Center Price Candy Company Brookdale Center Red Lobster Restaurant 7235 Brooklyn Blvd. Rocky Rococo 1267 Brookdale Center St. Alphonsus Church 7025 Halifax Avenue N. Scoreboard Pizza 6816 Humboldt Avenue N. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 1297 Brookdale Center Super America Service Station 6545 West River Road Super America Service Station 1901 57th Avenue N. Taco Bell 1150 Brookdale Center Taco Bell 5532 Brooklyn Blvd. Target 6100 Summit Drive N. Tombstone Pizza Corporation 6850 Shingle Creek Pkwy. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center American Legion William Vetter 5921 Lyndale Avenue N. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Able Mechanical Services 8701 Hillswick Trail All Season Comfort, Inc. 55 Mound Street 3/27/89 -3- Allan Mechanical, Inc. 6020 Culligan Way American Burner Service 601 North Prior Avenue Louis Degidio, Inc. 6501 Cedar Avenue S. Ditter, Inc. 820 Tower Drive Harris Mechanical Contracting Co. 2300 Territorial Road Maple Grove Heating and A/C 8870 Zealand Avenue N. Milts Gas Heating Service, Inc. 2500 Longview Drive Minnegasco 291 South Seventh St. Noel's Heating and A/C Inc. 4920 Zachary Lane N. Owens Services Corporation 930 East 80th Street P. & H. Services Co., Inc. 208 73rd Avenue N. Pride Mechanical, Inc. 3025 NE Randolph St. Rapid Heating and Air Conditioning 5514 34th Avenue N. Sedgwick Heating & Air Cond. Co. 8910 Wentworth Ave. S. Standard Heating Air Cond. Co. g 410 West Lake Street Superior Contractors, Inc. 6121 42nd Avenue N. Thermex Corporation 4850 Park Glen Road Fred Vogt & Co., Inc. 3260 Gorham Avenue Yale, Inc. 9649 Girard Avenue S. READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE Metz Baking Co. - Taystee Bread 4215 69th Avenue N. RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Ron and Ruth Shodeen 5448 Dupont Avenue N. Lyle Miller and Russell Domke 3513 47th Avenue N. Renewal: Miller Management Company Willow Lane Apartments Luann Falenczykowski 6000 Abbott Avenue N. Boyer Palmer 6101 Beard Avenue N. C. C. Hogen 5030 Brooklyn Blvd. Curtis & Audrey Cady 6915 Brooklyn Blvd. Earl James Backer 7018 Brooklyn Blvd. Dennis F. Deering 5409 Fremont Avenue N. Richard Olson 5818 Humboldt Avenue N. Nelson S. Gregg 6715 Humboldt Avenue N. William F. & Bonnie L. Shutte 6717 Humboldt Avenue N. William F. & Bonnie L. Shutte 6719 Humboldt Avenue N. Nelson S. Gregg 6721 Humboldt Avenue N. Roland Scherber 4714 Lakeview Avenue N. William P. Kelly 5724 Logan Avenue N. Richard Bergstrom 5400 Russell Avenue N. Julie Haugen and Sharon Haugen 4806 Twin Lake Avenue N. Deep Root Investments 6908, 6912 Unity Avenue N. Joseph Veidel 7104 Unity Avenue N. Fred Beier 5300, 04 Vincent Avenue N. Harold Swanson 7230 West River Road Harold Swanson 7250 West River Road Raymond and d Betty Anderson 7113 Willow Lane Robert and Patricia Bobleter 4807 Wingard Place 0 3/27/89 -4- Catherine P. Shefeluk 3018 51st Avenue N. Larry Pederson 5401 63rd Avenue N. George T. Hanson 1510 69th Avenue N. SIGN HANGER Arrow Sign Company 18607 Highway 65 NE Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. 1700 West 78th Street Suburban Lighting, Inc. 6077 Lake Elmo Avenue N. SWIMMING POOL Realty Management Services, Inc. Beach Condominiums L & D Management Chippewa Park Apartments Earle Brown Farm Apartments 1701, 07 69th Avenue N. Norman Chazin Four Court Apartments Redevco, Inc. Marvin Garden Townhouses Moorwood Homeowners Association Moorwood Town Houses Norman Chazin North Lyn Apartments Norman Chazin Northbrook Apartments The motion passed unanimously. MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS Mayor Nyquist noted he had received two additional applications which were not included in the Council packets. He inquired if the Councilmembers wanted to approve the commission appointments this evening or wait until the next meeting. There was a general consensus among Councilmembers to approve the commission appointments this evening. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded b y Councilmember Pedlar to appoint Pamela Frantum and Neal Nelson to the Housing Commission. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to appoint Mona Heitzig to the Human Rights and Resources Commission. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving Proposed Program for Year XV Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Funds and Authorizing Its Submittal. The EDA Coordinator stated the City of Brooklyn Center will receive $202,316 from Year XV of the Community Development Block Grant Program. He noted a new program which is being recommended this year is the scattered site acquisition program which will provide a source of funding to acquire distressed properties in Brooklyn Center. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -56 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR YEAR XV URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL 3/27/89 -5- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Authorizing the Establishment of a Recycling /Refuse Collection Utilities Fund. The Finance Director stated it is necessary to establish this fund to account for the expenditure of funds and the billing /collection activity. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -57 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RECYCLING /REFUSE COLLECTION UTILITIES FUND The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution to Elect Not to Enforce the Mandatory Retirement Age for Certain Volunteer Firefighters. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -58 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO ELECT NOT TO ENFORCE THE MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGE FOR CERTAIN VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. RECESS TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 7:14 p.m. and reconvened at 7:50 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 89010 SUBMITTED BY BEISNER LTD. ZIM COMPUTERS REQUESTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO ALLOW RETAIL SALES OF COMPUTERS AS A SECONDARY USE TO A WHOLESALE BUSINESS IN 6601 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY The City Manager noted this item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its March 16, 1989, meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspection directed the Mayor and Councilmembers to pages two through four of the March 16, 1989, Planning Commission minutes and information sheet. He briefly reviewed the site location and noted this proposed use is an allowed special use in the I -1 zone. He noted there is a parking agreement governing the parking allocation in the central parking lot for Parkway Place, Shingle Creek Eleven, and the Holiday Inn which should be amended before permits are issued. He went on to explain there were three conditions recommended for approval of the application and reviewed them for the Council. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 89010 submitted by Beisner Ltd. /Zim Computers and 3/27/89 -6- inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 89010. The motion passed unanimously. The City Attorney noted there should be a clarification of the wording "nontransferable." The Director of Planning and Inspection stated this is a standard condition which is used in special use permits. The City Manager stated it may be best to have the City Attorney's office review this condition. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve Planning Commission Application No. 89010 submitted by Beisner Ltd. /Zim Computers subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is issued to Zim Computers to comprehend retail sales of computers as a secondary use within their tenant space at 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway. No other uses are comprehended and the special use permit is nontransferable. 2. The Easement Agreement and Declaration governing the parking allocation in the central parking lot serving Parkway Place, Shingle Creek Eleven, and the Holiday Inn shall be amended to accord Parkway Place a minimum of six (6) additional parking stalls from the central lot. Said amendment shall be approved by the City Attorney and filed at the County prior to issuance of the special use permit and prior to issuance of any related building permit. 3. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:12 p.m. and reconvened at 8:24 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS CIVIC CENTER SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT The City Manager noted in July of 1988, the City Council executed a contract with Carlson Mjorud Architecture Ltd. (CMA) for the first phase architectural services relating to the development of a senior center complex, field house /athletic facility, and the expansion of City Hall. He noted the first phase study has now been completed, and a copy of the consultant's report is attached. He noted there are representatives of CMA present this evening, and they are prepared to present and discuss the report. He noted staff does not expect approval this evening, and he would like to take a walking tour of the buildings at a later date. 3/27/89 -7- Mr. Al Mjorud of CMA stated the project was based on input from a number of people within the City staff. He noted CMA found the space needs for the years 0 -10 and 10 -20 to be very close. He stated there is not a significant amount of additional needs 20 years in the future than there is right now. He went on to review the questions which were answered by the study. He then briefly reviewed each departments present space allocation and the findings of the report. Councilmember Scott stated she is concerned with the soil boring costs and inquired if the proposed estimate would cover these costs. Councilmember Pedlar inquired if staff is sure that the space we presently have is being used to its fullest extent. The City Manager stated he is sure after taking a walking tour through the facilities, the Council will find it quite evident there are space shortages in most every department. REVIEW OF CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PRIORITIES LIST The City Manager noted this is basically an update on the priorities listing which was created at the Planning Session in 1988. He explained under the top priorities category, the Earle Brown Farm project plans to be breaking ground in late April or early May. He noted bids would be taken on this project on April 5. He then went on to review the status of the other top and high priorities. Councilmember Pedlar inquired how the top and high priorities are defined and what the difference is between the two. The City Manager went on to explain the process which has been used the past two years in developing the priorities list and noted the Council will be receiving more information on the 1989 Planning Session within the month. WEED CUTTING CHARGES - 1989 Councilmember Lhotka stated he feels the City should recover the costs that are expended for running the program. The EDA Coordinator explained his proposal for adding an additional service charge to those properties which must be notified a second time within one season to cut their weeds. A brief discussion then ensued regarding the charges which will be added to the weed cutting fees. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the new procedure for weed cutting charges. The motion passed unanimously. PROPOSED REAL ESTATE PROPERTY TAX RESTRUCTURING PLAN The City Manager referred the Mayor and Councilmembers to a letter and proposal which were sent to him by the City of Bloomington. He noted the proposal represents a significant departure from the current property tax system and noted he believes it is a step in the right direction. OTHER BUSINESS Mayor Nyquist stated at a recent Earle Brown Days Committee meeting they discussed the grand opening of the Earle Brown Heritage Center. He inquired if the City should be considering a grand opening event as a budget item for 1990. The City Manager stated this would be considered under the EDA budget. Mayor Nyquist stated the Brooklyn Center Prayer Breakfast has been planned for April 15 and asked the Council to pass a proclamation regarding the Brooklyn Center Prayer Breakfast. 3/27/89 -8- PROCLAMATION Councilmember Celia Scott introduced the following proclamation and moved its adoption: PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 15, 1989, AS A DAY OF SPIRITUAL REDEDICATION IN BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing proclamation was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager noted the Director of Public Works requested a resolution be approved this evening authorizing execution of an easement agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and Robert and Michelle Milavetz. He noted the easement is needed to allow for completion of a trail on the south side of 57th Avenue North from Lilac Drive to Logan Avenue North. RESOLUTION N0. 89 -59 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF EASEMENT AGREEMENT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9 :34 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 3/27/89 -9- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 4/10/89 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING REVISED FINAL PAYMENT FOR WORK UNDER CONTRACT 1987 -L (CAMDEN AVENUE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1987 -10) DEPT. APPROVAL: c� * * * * * * * * * * * **N * * ,* DIRECTOR OF U W � * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Explanation On November 9, 1987, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 87 -206, accepting the work and approving final payment for Contract 1987 -L in the total amount of $37,459.35. That action was based on a recommendation from our office based on incorrect information that the amount then certified represented a final payment rather than a partial progress payment. That error was recently called to my attention by the Contractor. Attached hereto is a resolution which corrects that error and approves payment in the corrected final amount of $41,464.47. Please note that while the amount previously approved represented an 8% underrun of the $40,858.05 contract, the corrected amount now represents a 1.5% overrun. City Council Action Required Adoption of the attached resolution. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING REVISED FINAL PAYMENT FOR WORK UNDER CONTRACT 1987 -L (CAMDEN AVENUE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1987 -10) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1987 -L signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, THOMAS & SONS CONSTRUCTION, INC. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: CAMDEN AVENUE SIDEWALK, 53RD TO 55TH AVENUE NORTH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1987 -10 AND WHEREAS, on November 9, 1987, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 87 -206 approving payment in the final amount of $37,459.35; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has now advised the City Council that the amount of $37,459.35 was incorrectly reported as a final amount for contract payments when in fact it was a partial payment amount, and that the correct final contract amount should be $41,464.47. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: As Shown in Corrected Final As Awarded Resolution 87 -206 Amount Original Contract $47,958.05 $44,559.35 $48,564.47 Change Order No. 1 (7.100.00) (7.100.00) (7.100.00) TOTAL $40,858.05 $37,459.35 $41,464.47 2. The value of work performed is more than the original contract amount and approved change order by $606.42 due to a general under estimation of planned quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $41,464.47. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/10/89 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ® *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET RELATING TO THE RECONSTRUCTION OF WEST RIVER ROAD BETWEEN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 694 (I -694) AND 73RD AVENUE NORTH DEPT. APPROVAL: * * * * * * * * * * * * **! PP O *R* ** O R *O PUBL PUBLIC WOR * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation • On February 13, 1989, the City Council adopted two resolutions regarding the proposed reconstruction of West River Road, i.e.: • The first resolution approved a contract for Engineering services for this project with Short- Elliott - Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH). • The second resolution designated the City of Brooklyn Center as the Responsible Governmental Agency for development of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for that project. SEH has initiated work on the design of this project and they have now completed the following work items: 1. preliminary cost estimates have been developed for 3 alternative designs, 2. a public informational meeting was conducted on March 8," by City staff and SEH staff, 3. the EAW has been completed (copy enclosed). The EAW must now be released for public review and must be submitted to other governmental units and agencies for their review and comment. A resolution approving the EAW and ordering its release and submittal is provided for consideration by the City Council. Concurrently, SEH is continuing work on the project design, including the • development of responses to the issues discussed at the first informational meeting. A second informational discussion /meeting will be conducted on May 17. At this time we expect that the final feasibility report will be completed this fall, that a formal public hearing on the proposed improvement would then be conducted, and that plans and specifications will be completed so that bids can be received and a contract awarded by mid - winter, for construction in 1990. City Council Action Required Adoption of the attached resolution. �b l Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET RELATING TO THE RECONSTRUCTION OF WEST RIVER ROAD BETWEEN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 694 (I -694) AND 73RD AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), has declared that a discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be prepared in accordance with rule 6 MCAR S 3 of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB); and WHEREAS, the EAW has now been prepared and has been submitted to the City Council for consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. the EAW is hereby received, accepted and approved; 2. a press release shall be issued; and 3. distribution of copies of the EAW shall be made to other governmental units and agencies as determined by the Environmental Quality Board. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 4 0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET WEST RIVER ROAD BETWEEN I -694 AND 73RD AVEMIE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA f �� 1986 AIiA.MFRKA QfY =� • E. R. # (filled in by EQB) r ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) MARK APPROPRIATE BOX: ] REGULAR EAW T7 SCOPING EAW NOTE TO REVIEWERS: For regular EAWs, written .comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the EAW information, potential impacts that may warrant investigation and /or the need for an EIS. For scoping EAWs, written comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information and suggest issues for investigation in the EIS. Such comments must be submitted to the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) during the 30 -day period following notice of the EAW's availability in the EQB Monitor. Contact the EQB (metro: 612/296 -8253: non - metro: 1- 800 - 652 -9747, ask for environmental review program) or the RGU to find out when the 30 -day comment period ends. 1. Project Name West River Road Between I -694 and 73rd Ave. 2. Proposer City of Brooklyn Center 3. RGU City of Brooklyn Center Contact Person Sy Knapp, Contact Person (See Left) Director of Public Works Address 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy and Title Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Address Phone (612) 561 -5440 Phone 4. Project Location: 1/4 1/4 Section 25 & 36 Township 119N Range 21W a. County Name Hennepin City /Township Name Brooklyn Center b. Attachments 1. General Location Map, Exhibit 4.b.1 2. USGS Map, Exhibit 4.b.2 3. Project Site Plan, Exhibits 4.b.3, 1 -3 4. Existing Zoning, Exhibit 4.b.4 5. Soil Classifications, Exhibit 15 6. Air Quality Analysis Receptor Sites, Exhibit 23.a 7. Estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT), Exhibit 28.1 8. P.M. Peak Hour Estimated Volumes, Exhibit 28.2 - 1 - • 5. Describe the proposed project completely (attach additional sheets as necessary). The proposed project consists of improving West River Road (Old T.H. 252) from 66th Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North. The present roadway is a rural section. Widths vary from 24 feet to 34 feet wide. There are gravel shoulders and minimal storm sewer. Storm water runoff is conveyed by shallow ditches to storm sewer or is absorbed by the atmosphere and soil. Alternative designs being considered include overlay, a combination of pavement overlay and total reconstruction or total reconstruction of the entire roadway. Storm sewer is proposed to be extended to serve West River Road. Curb and gutter is proposed for the two later design alternatives. The proposed roadway width is 28 feet with turn lanes at the major intersections. 41 The newly constructed T.H. 252 borders West River Road on the west side permitting no access to West River Road from the west between 66th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North. A study of the existing traffic delineators at 73rd Avenue North will coincide with the Feasibility Report. No parking will be permitted on the roadway. Trail and sidewalk or combination trail /sidewalk are proposed to be constructed along West River Road. The trail will be a continuation of the trail from the City of Brooklyn Park. As part of this project, the trail is proposed to extend south from 66th Avenue North along Willow Lane to a cul -de -sac near I -694. The trail will be continued in conjunction with the Mn /DOT I -694 Bridge Improvement Project across the Mississippi River and under the bridge to the south. The trail route is consistent with the City of Brooklyn Center's comprehensive trail plan and also the Metropolitan Council's Regional Bicycle Corridor Plan. No additional right -of -way is expected to be required for the combination reconstruct /overlay and reconstruct alternatives. Some temporary construction easements may be necessary for sloping purposes. Right -of -way is anticipated to be required for the rural overlay alternative to accommodate reconstructed ditches, if selected. Landscaping is proposed for the berm located on the west side of West River Road. 6. Reason for EAW preparation: Discretionary List all mandatory category rule #'s which apply: N/A 7. Estimated Construction Cost: Alternate 1 Rural Roadway Section $825,500 Overlay Alternate 2 Urban Roadway Section $830,400 Reconstruct 2 - i . Alternate 3 Urban Roadway Section $804,100 Combination Overlay and Reconstruct 8. Total project area (acres) or length (miles) 1.28 miles 9. Number of residential units N/A or commercial, industrial, or institutional square footage N/A i 10. Number of proposed parking spaces N/A 11. List all known local, state and federal permits /approvals /funding required: LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT TYPE OF APPLICATION STATUS Federal: Corps of Engineers Drainage Facilities To be applied for State: Mn. Dept. of Health Watermain Construction To be applied for Mn. Dept. of Trans. Plan Approval Pending West Mississippi Watershed Commission Drainage Facilities To be applied for Mn. DNR Drainage Facilities To be applied for LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT TYPE OF FUNDING State: Mn. Dept. of Trans. Funds provided by cooperative agreement between City and State prior to turnback Local: City of Brooklyn Center 1. Special assessments in accordance with Mn. Statute 429 2. Public Utility Fund 3. General Fund 12. Is the proposed project inconsistent with the local adopted comprehensive land use plan or any other adopted plans? X No Yes If yes, explain: 3 - t • 13. Describe current and recent past land use and development on and near the site. The majority of the land use is single family residential. A small portion is 2 family residential and multiple family residential. TH 252 borders on the west. There is a 3.7 acre city park on the east side of the roadway. ! 14. Approximately how many acres of the site are in each of the following categories? (Acreages should add up to total project area before and after construction.) Before After Before After Forest /Wooded Wetland (Types 3 -8) * Cropland Impervious Surface 2.3 2.6 Brush /Grassland Other (Specify) 4.0 3.7 (Boulevard Area) 15. Describe the soils on the site, giving the SCS soil classification types, if known. The majority of soils on site belong to the Hubbard - Isan -Duelm Association. These soils are a loamy sand or sandy loam underlain by a sandy soil. The soils are generally well drained but include some poorly drained, broad flat areas. The classification types are DS, IV, IS, HUA, and BTB. Existing watermain was uncovered during recent TH 252 construction. Corroded bolts on mechanical joints were discovered. Corrosion of the joint bolts imply that there may be highly corrosive low resistivity soils. Borings will be taken to verify subsurface soil conditions. 16. Does the site contain peat soils, highly erodible soils, steep slopes, sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, abandoned wells, or any geologic hazards? If yes, show on site map and explain: X No Yes 17. What is the approximate depth (in feet) to: a. Groundwater 3 min. 7 avg. b. Bedrock _ min. — avg. greater than 50'. 18. Does any part of the project area involve: a. Shoreland zoning district? X No Yes b. Delineated 100 -year flood plain? X No Yes c. State or federally designated river land use district? No X Yes If yes, identify water body and applicable state classification(s), and describe ! measures to protect water and related land resources: This project will comply with Critical River Area Regulations. 4 - 19. Describe any physical alteration (e.g., dikes, excavation, fill, stream diversion) of any drainage system, lake, stream, and /or wetland. Describe measures to minimize impairment of the water - related resources. Estimate quantity of material to be dredged and indicate where spoils will be deposited. Existing drainage ditches are anticipated to be reconstructed in conjunction with the rural, overlay alternative. 4:1, mowable slopes with a minimum profile grade ! to convey storm water runoff will be constructed. If the urban street section alternatives are constructed, the existing ditches will be filled. 20. a. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water? X No Yes ~ If yes, explain (indicate quantity and source): b. Will the project affect groundwater levels in any wells (on or off the site? X No Yes r If yes, explain: 21. Describe the erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after construction of the project. During construction, erosion and storm water runoff will be controlled with silt fences, interceptor ditches and hay bale ditch checks. Areas disturbed by construction will be reseeded, sodded or paved during the construction phase. A special quick growing seed mixture or would be utilized for ditch vegetation. ! Erosion control will be in accordance with the West Mississippi Watershed Commission requirements, the State of Minnesota erosion control requirements and any other applicable city, county or state requirements. 22. a. Will the project generate: ! 1. Surface and stormwater runoff? No X Yes 2. Sanitary wastewater? X No Yes 3. Industrial wastewater? X No Yes 4. Cooling water (contact and noncontact? X No Yes If yes, identify sources, volumes, quality (if other than normal domestic f sewage), and treatment methods. Give the basis or methodology of estimates. Stormwater runoff will be conveyed either by storm sewer or ditch to an existing City of Brooklyn Center 72" R.C.P. trunk sewer located at 70th Avenue North or into the existing storm sewer system provided by T.H. 252. This is consistent with the City of Brooklyn Center's comprehensive Plan. (Exhibit 4.b.3, 1 -3). 5 - • • b. Identify receiving waters, including groundwater, and evaluate the impacts of the discharge listed above. If discharges to groundwater are anticipated, provide percolation /permeability and other hydrogeological test data, if available. The Mississippi River ultimately receives all storm water runoff. The TH 252 system is retained in ponds before discharging into the river. No appreciable increase through existing storm sewers is anticipated. 23. Will the project generate (either during or after construction): a. Air pollution? No X Yes b. Dust? No X Yes c. Noise? No X Yes d. Odors? X No Yes If yes, explain, including as appropriate: distances to sensitive land users: expected levels and duration of noise; types and quantities of air pollutants from stacks, mobile sources, and fugitive emissions (dust): odor sources; and mitigative measures for any impacts. Give the basis or methodology of estimates. 23.a. Air Pollution To insure the provisions of a healthy air quality environment, the number of potential receptors were analyzed in the project vicinity. West River Road provides access to a number of abutting land uses such as low and medium density residential and recreational. The most potentially sensitive receptors in the project vicinity are located near the inter- sections of West River Road and 66th Avenue North and West River Road and 73rd Avenue North. a Model parameters and traffic volumes were chosen to forecast elevated carbon monoxide levels resulting from the poorest air quality conditions which might exist. Ultimate future traffic volumes for year 2010 were used for all analysis. Vehicle emission rates for year 2010 were calculated from a base emission # rate and correction factors from the model. These calculations were performed using the EMFAC7PC microcomputer program. The emission rates were calculated to be 65 grams per vehicle per mile within the vicinity of the intersections in 1989 and 49 grams per vehicle per mile in 2010. The receptors that were studied in detail are single family homes located in the northeast and southeast quadrants of the intersections at West River Road and 66th Avenue and West River Road and 73rd Avenue. Both homes are located approximately 120 feet from the intersection. Dispersion modeling was performed using the Caline 3 computer program. A summary of the emissions and dispersion assumptions is presented below: 6 - i i i • Emission Assumptions Year of Analysis = 2010 Temperature = 20 Degrees Fahrenheit Vehicle Classification Mix Light Duty Vehicles = 86.6% Light Duty Trucks = 5.8% r Heavy Duty Gas Trucks = 4.5% Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks = 3.1% Percent Cold Starts = 20.0% No platooning of vehicles assumed Dispersion Analysis Assumptions ~ Wind Speed (u) = 1.0 Meter /Sec. (2.24 Miles /Hr.) Wind Angle (BRG) = Variable 0 to 340 D. Stability Class = D Mixing Height = 1000 Meters (3267 Ft) Averaging Time = 60 Minutes Surface Roughness (ZO) = 200 Centimeters Settling Velocity (VS) 0 Centimeters /Sec. Deposited Velocity (VD) 0 Centimeters /Sec. A conservative future ambient carbon monoxide concentration of 3.0 parts per million (PPM) was also used in the one hour analysis and 1.5 PPM for 8 hour analysis. The analysis of air quality at the receptors found maximum hourly readings projected to be in the range of 6 to 9 PPM. These values are considerably less than the state 1 -hour standard of 30 PPM. Using a typical persistence factor of 0.7, the equivalent average 8 hour CO concentration would range from abut 4 PPM to 6 PPM or well below the state 8 -hour standard of 9 PPM. All predicted concentration levels of CO are shown in Table 1. Based on this analysis, no mitigating measures are anticipated to be A required. 7 - I• 7 S TABLE 1 PREDICTED CONCENTRATION OF CO (IN P.P.M.) 1 HOUR AVERAGE 8 HOUR AVERAGE 1988 2010 1988 2010 LOCATION A. West River Road 8.9 8.9 4.4 6.0 at 66th Avenue 1. Rect. #1 B. West River Road at 73rd Avenue 1. Rect. #1 6.4 6.4 4.7 4.7 2. Rect. #2 6.3 6.4 4.7 4.7 Note: General receptor locations are shown in Exhibit 23.a. 23.b Dust • During construction, airborne particulate fugitive dust emissions will temporarily increase. All available mitigation measures will be employed to reduce the dust emissions from the construction activities. The mitigating measures will include the watering of areas undergoing grading or earthmoving, planned selective grading and staged development, timely job site cleanup, and haul road maintenance. 23.c Noise Construction noise impacts were considered. Most of the construction activities which will generate the most noise (grading, heavy truck hauling, etc.) will be of fairly short duration. The impact of construction noise can be minimized by restricting the activity hours and by ensuring that the construction equipment is properly muffled. Future projected traffic volumes carried by the roadway will be a potential source of noise. Currently most residential areas east of the West River Road from 66th Avenue to 93rd Avenue are now protected by • earthen berms approximately 6 feet high along T.H. 252. It is anticipated that these berms will be retained. Landscaping of the berms is proposed as part of this project to help further screen the residential homes from T.H. 252. Most current and future daytime noise levels have been calculated to be • within state standards. These are shown in Table 2. Current and future (2010) nighttime noise levels were found in some cases to exceed state standards. These were found to occur during the 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. hour near major intersections which are unprotected by the berms along T.H. 252. T.H. 252 is the major source of noise in the area. Mn /DOT previously anticipated noise levels exceeding P Y p 9 state standards with the it construction of T.H. 252. Mitigation of this noise is constrained by 8 - f costs and construction feasibility near the intersections. With the exception of unprotected homes near 73rd Avenue, all locations were within 3db of the state standards. Thus, this level of noise should not be perceptible. TABLE 2 NOISE ANALYSIS SUMMARY 1989 DAY 1989 NIGHT 2010 DAY 2010 NIGHT L 10 L 50 L 10 L 50 L 10 L 50 L 10 L 50 INTERSECTION WRVR at 73rd 66.3 61.9 59.7 48.9 68.1 62.5 60.7 52.3 State Stds 65.0 66.0 55.0 50.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 50.0 Note: Receptor locations for noise analysis are the same as those used for air quality analysis. 24. Describe the type and amount of solid and /or hazardous waste including sludges and ashes that will be generated and the method and location of disposal: N/A 25. Will the project affect: a. Fish or wildlife habitat, or movement of animals? X No _ Yes b. Any native species that are officially listed as state endangered, threatened, or of special concern (animals and /or plants)? X No _ Yes * If yes, explain (identify species and describe impact): 26. Do any historical, archaeological or architectural resources exist on or near the project site? (If yes, explain (show resources on a site map and describe impact): X No _ Yes 27. Will the project cause the impairment or destruction of: a. Designated park or recreation areas? X No _ Yes b. Prime or unique farmlands? X No _ Yes c. Ecologically sensitive areas? X No _ Yes d. Scenic views and vistas? X No _ Yes e. Other unique resources (specify)? X No _ Yes If yes, explain: 28. For each affected road indicate the current average daily traffic (ADT), increase in ADT contributed by the project and the directional distributions of traffic. 9 - A 1 1 • West River Road serves many varied types of land uses. As the area continues to • develop and mature, traffic volumes are anticipated to increase. New T.H. 252 has removed most the thru traffic from the West River Road. Existing traffic counts and existing land uses were analyzed to determine the amount of through traffic along West River Road as well as the amount of traffic generated by the surrounding land. The current and future (2010) vehicles per day + along West River Road are shown in Exhibit 28, 1, p.m. peak hour estimates are shown in Exhibit 28, 2. The T.H. 252 D.E.I.S. predicted a year 2000 ADT of 5,000 vehicles per day north of 85th Avenue on West River Road and 12,000 vehicles per day on West River Road south of 85th Avenue North. Existing traffic counts, future land use projections and Mn /DOT and Hennepin County future traffic forecasts were reviewed. That study estimated that average daily traffic volumes in the year 2010 immediately south of 93rd Avenue would be approx- imately 3,300 vehicles per day. Additionally, average daily traffic for year 2010 on West River Road north of 85th Avenue is estimated to be 4,300 vehicles per day. ♦ This is the highest estimated ADT for the year 2010 along West River Road. 29. Are adequate utilities and public services now available to service the project? If not, what additional utilities and /or services will be required? _ No X Yes SUMMARY OF ISSUES For regular EAWs, list the issues as identified by "yes" answers above. Discuss alternatives and mitigative measures for these issues. For scoping EAWs, list known issues, alternatives, and mitigative measures to be addressed in EIS. 22.a. Storm water runoff will be mitigated by conformance with the City of Brooklyn • Center's comprehensive plan and the West Mississippi Watershed Commission requirements. 23.a.b.c. See attached statements. Any additional issues can be mitigated by compliance with City and State Agency permits. • CERTIFICATION BY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT I hereby certify that the information contained in this document is true and complete to the best of my knowledge and that copies of the completed EAW have been made available to all points on the official EQB distribution list. Signature Title -. Date ✓ - 10 - � �• ; , �� r» .,,ms � \•�' \� zv ~ I=NEPIN COUNTY - T : >:. ,�•,.• >rron>oawaoaaalu�laaaor wed Com1 001M AAVID. R.OBW, room cows ILW %!Ert01raL PARR -�_ -[ — ...- _ — • mfr ..a r'•a� f �p w{ . 7 a •' 11 v . j - ••) ) I [1 Mwrr[L ' .1 •`I `. 1 I ` I • ) 4NO Z 0 so _' � 1 1 � f • O 7 1 +moo... `! ni 1 , __ _ >n.• «. PARK •y 4 �� 77 j 75 :... i v t r a y _ < rillauY • 3 t { " >.p KBR • LYN r i i ao a PROJECT AREA F ILE N0. BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA 89160 • DRG. NO ENCIN CHMECTS8PLANNERS EXHIBIT 4.b. IF ii • WIN f� � �� . �) �J� ��►� `y�' � � X11 -- � - � ?s* Ch km PROJECT LOCATION P. lilt sue, ► ���� ��,`'�' �, �I { _1, MINNE APOLIS NOR I+ l SCALE 1:24000 .... :. . —•fi :� , 8c� BROO ME 140. EXHIBIT -. Ul a D m � z WILLOW LA. N • • • • • • • • • • • • DURNAM (SLAW LEGEND MISSISSIPPI RIVER IEEEEEEIEEEEIFEE TRAIL SITE ONLY ••••.•.•••• TRAIL CONSTRUCTED BY MN /DOT EXHIBIT 4.b.3,1 FILE NO BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA D G O. N WEST RIVER ROAD ac No. t ENLINEEg51ARCNIIFCIS /PLANNERS i c D D 5th ST. m m m 1 m Z Z z z - - - -- i �— — — -- T.H.252 Q - n T.H. 252 — —. ERM — "— W ST RIVER ROAD I I tarn DAL S z I � < I I AVE N. m 1 u WILL W LA.I N. z O� N W1`LOW LA i I I I I t I I R LEGEND RIV E R —o —<<— EXISTING STORM SEWER MI S S I g S/ p ?I - --t- -« — PROPOSED STORM SEWER ALTERNATES 2 & 3 PROPOSED ROADWAY DURNAM ISLAND .................TRAIL SITE ONLY EXHIBIT 4.b.3,2 FILE NO ��� BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA FRG N0 -- FRG N 0. WEST RIVER ROAD 2 ENGINEERS ■ ARC-rECTS • PLANNERS 0 s ELF 2 rn z I T.H. 252 T.H. 252 �BER Mme- _ ES R1 ER RD. L�J w i DALLAS RD. a DALLAS RD. z O N ? a < c LEGEND m m EXISTING STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER ALTERNATES 2 & 3 PROPOSED ROADWAY EXHIBIT 4.b.3,3 FILE NO BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA DRG N DRG N0. WEST RIVER ROAD 3 ENGINEERS / ARGMItEC�S � YIANNERS millio m 1=41m Mop" Za ee too m MR . ew 11t■ 11/11 ■�titt / //- '�Y m" ICE /tRon man 11x11 �.:� i�1 • �.7 ■ ��11 °¢ mss■ 11111 111111 •— -- �� ♦ . �.._ son 11/11 �.. ss 1111 � ��r =• r.. -° -- 10W .es .. •� IN 1 ■.1 i• �5 __ us all _ - . - i+� • 1111 i!!t MAN �• •: == 1111 � �•� • 111 �L7! � 4 was = . FILE NO. AW • BR OOKLYN CENTER 891 60 Z ONING .- • f� w _r cf 9y^iE x ..:� v:, :......,,,.. . �.h.: - kY.,.. � { €' {LF� � . �h �S. S� C;fi� F � • 3 yi�'k \J k� b ^. '. 9 tt �*kS y . : "'\,`"ti "� €"€i:F�k { {� ;+•, r z�.b,y �� f•F:'� 5 sk3 5 i$�;t hKFFo y y �'a.f. 4 k } Jf t'TStA (yl� �' "`�'i � � � �• OWN � • k .:. y '�.� � �{� s r r,:.Y �`f :: + s � � & � zz .. � bs 1 x. .fi €af yew. :H; � > L)i3 � � � � 2✓/'fi � r A k{.' Fi' SC 4 A fia �; �` {,EO���{ � � : it ✓^ 9 �. 'A�9., �xf'� a ,�� 'H �y 46 �� f � n _� :�' r F+� 4 Y / q . ,; ' t :. '.. ^"".- „• S tea �`�Sk : qo- �2 {.fii� -. ,a s 9 �� y 1Hk } xt ttuti fiJki e krf�J € bS f i y Vic\ l • a - y ✓ ^F s ( j� ) 4 � 3y 1 �{ kk � �' k #���� 2 J. � 0 PROJECT AREA c BROOKLYN CENTER (�1 INNES TA $9 0 SOL CLASSIFICATIONS G, NO. E M BIT 15 ' • CH AVE. N • • 85TH AVE. Q • 81ST AVE. N cr cr t,u 5 t� BROOKDALE DRIVE w rL > a z W y O N F— N 3 73RD AVE. ! z f- N W 3 69TH AVE. PROJECT AREA = 66TH AVE. • 94 694 z z '• a 100 o EXHIBIT 23 , a FILE NO. WEST RIVER ROAD 89160 ! !wMEffRSffARC .vuNNEas RECEPTOR LOCATION DRG. NO. 1233 1900 CH AVE. N 2200. 3300 2650 3900 2900 t1 85TH AVE. 4300 2500 3700 3100 0 3800 • 81 ST AVE. NO. Q. 4430 rz 3300 > 2000 5 2500 2700 BROOKIIALL 3300 ac > > °` 1000 a W c 1200 y Z to O fn N 3 73RD AVE. 2200 i 2700 (n 750 -1988 ADT. (TYP.) LU 3 950 -2010 ADT. (TYP) 69TH J I AVE. • PROJECT AREA = 66TH AVE. C94. 694 z � Z O CL 100 o EXHIBIT 28,1 FILE NO. WEST RIVER ROAD 89160 A& -- oRG. No. ENCONEERS8ARCNITECTS8PLANNERS ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 120 190 c 938 AVE. N , 220 330 • 2TO 390 290 • 85TH AVE. 0. 430 250 310 370 380 c a • 81ST AVE. NO. cc 443 w 540 200 5 250 2T0 40 BROOKCIALE DRIVE cc 330 ui > a ui FE N 100 z 120 o c • w 73RD AVE. 75 -1988(TYPICAL) Z 95- 2010(TYPICAL) w 3 69TH AVE. • PROJECT AREA = 66TH AVE. • 94 694 z • O 100 EXHIBIT 28,2 0 FILE N0. Ar WEST RIVER ROAD 89160 Amw • PA4. PEAK HOUR ESTIMATED VOLUMES DRG. N0. ENGINEERS i ARCHITECTS 1 PLANNERS CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/10/89 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1) Four Wheel Pavement Marking Machine DEPT. APPROVAL Su erintendent of Public W orks Signature - title MANAGER'S R EVIEW RE / COMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached On March 9, 1989, bids' were opened for a Four Wheel Pavement Marking Machine. Two bids were received. It has been determined the bid submitted by Linear Dynamics, Inc. (L.D.I.) does not meet the bid specifications and, therefore, should be rejected. The bid does not meet specs for the following reasons: 1. The operator's seat is designed for one person, not two as noted in the specs. 2. The solvent tank is only 1.5 gallons, not 10 gallons as specified. 3. The air supply tank is 3.0 gallons, not 10 gallons as specified. There are two other concerns I have with the L.D.I. machine and though they do not pertain to the bid specs, they should be given some consideration. 1. The i pa nt tanks are located to the front and side of the operator. I feel this is a potential safety hazard. If a gasket were to break, the paint would spray up into the operator's face. 2. The L.D.I. machine has only one engine to propel the striper and to operate the air compressor. I am concerned that if the operator was striping uphill or an similar P 9 P ( Y load were to be applied), pP )+ the R.P.M. loss could result in a loss of air supply and /or a change in speed resolution causing non - uniform lines. STAFF RECOMMENDATION I recommend rejecting the bid from L.D.I. on the ground it does not meet bid specs and accepting the bid from Ruffrid e- Johnson Equipment 9 Co. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) FOUR WHEEL PAVEMENT MARKING MACHINE WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1989 budget for the purchase of one (1) four wheel pavement marking machine; and WHEREAS, the bid received from Linear Dynamics does not meet the bid specifications and, therefore, is rejected; and WHEREAS, the approved appropriation is $23,500 for the purchase of one (1) four wheel pavement marking machine; and WHEREAS, one qualified bid was received from Ruffridge- Johnson Equipment Co. in the amount of $23,400. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the bid received from Ruffridge- Johnson Equipment Co. is hereby accepted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid received from Linear Dynamics is hereby rejected on the grounds it did not meet the bid specifications. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Count Meeting Date 4/10/89 Agenda item Number c� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Declaring Surplus Property DEPT. AP ROVAL: n Y Administrative Aide Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X ) The attached list of surplus property is being submitted for council approval. I recommend approval . of the Resolution Declaring Surplus Property. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the list of property submitted by the City Clerk at April 10, 1989, City Council meeting is hereby declared surplus property and is hereby authorized for public sale at the annual City auction to be held on April 29, 1989. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. BICYCLES FOR AUCTION 04 -29 -89 101 Blue /Green Free Spirit BMX 88 -08575 102 Blue Huffy girl's 10 -speed 88 -08702 103 Blue Raleigh boy's 12 -speed 88 -08817 104 Green Schwinn Varsity men's 10 -speed 88 -09141 105 Yellow Vista 10 -speed 88 -12394 106 Blue Sekaf Spring 1000 boy's 10 -speed 88 -12472 107 Red Firenze boy's 15 -speed 88 -12678 108 Silver Murray 10 -speed 88 -12772 109 Blue (was yellow) 10 -speed 88 -12959 110 Light blue Sears Free Spirit BMX 88 -13048 ill Gray Huffy 10 -speed 88 -13274 113 Red Raleigh boy's 12 -speed 88 -13562 114 Maroon Skyway girl's 1 -speed 88 -13576 115 Chrome boy's BMX 88 -13668 117 Silver Raleigh 10 -speed 88 -13744 118 Yellow Huffy 10 -speed 88 -13800 119 Maroon Sears boy's 3 -speed 88 -13847 120 Blue Schwinn boy's 10 -speed 88 -13891 121 Black Raleigh 3 -speed 88 -14010 122 Yellow Schwinn 10 -speed 88 -14057 123 Red AMF Scorcher boy's 10 -speed 88 -14228 124 Red Huffy Durasport boy's 10 -speed 88 -14357 125 Gold Columbia Tourist boy's 3 -speed 88 -14427 126 Red Galaxy women's 10 -speed 88 -14432 127 Black Huffy boy's i -speed 88 -14432 128 Blue Free Spirit boy's 12 -speed 88 -14561 129 Red Northwind 500 boy's 10 -speed 88 -14648 130 Green Huffy Pulsar girl's 10 -speed 88 -14713 131 Blue /silver Huffy Nova girl's 10 -speed 88 -14763 132 Silver Sears Free Spirit boy's 10 -speed 88 -14779 133 Red Huffy boy's BMX 88 -14855 134 Silver Columbia boy's 10 -speed 88 -14881 135 Green Schwinn Varsity boy's 10 -speed 88 -14885 136 Red Murray 10 -speed 88 -15082 137 Black /White boy's 10 -speed 88 -15389 138 Chrome boy's (frame only) 88 -15389 139 Black Murray boy's 10 -speed 88 -15657 140 Pink /Gray Huffy girl's 88 -15914 141 Red Murray boy's 10 -speed 88 -16185 142 Brown Holiday boy's 3 -speed 88 -16354 143 Black Nishiki boy's 10- speed 88 -16501 144 Gold Wards girl's 3 -speed 88 -16613 145 Red Fuji boy's 1 -speed 88 -16671 146 Gray Huffy girl's 10 -speed 88 -16691 147 Red Huffy USA boy's BMX 88 -16924 148 White Red Line boy's 88 -17264 149 Blue Huffy Omni girl's 88 -17435 150 Gray Fuji girl's 88 -17435 151 Red Huffy boy's BMX 88 -17447 152 Black Ross men's 10 -speed 88 -17496 153 Black Vista men's 10 -speed 88 -17496 154 Black High Point boy's 1 -speed 88- 17808 155 Blue Huffy Medalist boy's 10 -speed 88 -18211 156 Blue Master boy's BMX 88 -18634 157 Black /White Open Road 12 -speed 88 -19030 158 Blue Huffy girl's BMX 88 -19574 159 Gold Roadmaster boy's 3 -speed 88 -19952 160 Black Huffy boy's BMX 88 -20567 161 Black Huffy men's 3 -speed 88 -22255 162 Maroon Murray boy's 10 -speed 88 -22325 163 White Meister boy's 10 -speed 89 -00988 164 Red Murray boy's 1 -speed 89 -01383 165 Blue Huffy boy's 12 -speed 89 -01937 166 Bike seat 83 -07632 167 Bike seat 83 -11920 168 Red Raleigh boy's 10 -speed 87 -05111 169 Maroon Sear's 10 -speed 87 -08112 170 Blue Kent boy's 10 -speed 87 -12158 171 Murray boy's 87 -13041 172 Purple scooter frame 87 -17705 173 White Murray BMX 87 -19425 174 Red Raleigh boy's 10 -speed 88 -05289 175 Red Galaxy boy's 10 -speed 88 -06597 176 Black and white Huffy boy's 12 -speed 88 -06711 177 Three wheels and tires 88 -07215 178 White Kent BMX 88 -07265 179 Black Huffy girl's 10 -speed 88 -07419 180 27" Bike wheel with tire 88 -07583 181 Hutch chrome dirt bike 88 -08041 182 Silver Huffy boy's 10 -speed 88 -09217 183 Maroon Ross boy's 10 -speed 88 -11982 184 Blue Master boy's 88 -13562 185 Blue Huffy boy's 10 -speed 88 -14201 186 26" bicycle rim with tire Unknown 187 White bike seat Unknown 188 Red Magna bike frame Unknown 189 Holiday 20" girl's Unknown 190 Bicycle parts Unknown PROPERTY FOR AUCTION 04 -29 -89 201 Silver colored neck chain 85 -00020 202 Red and white cooler with 26 tapes 86 -04742 203 Black tape case with 8 tapes 86 -04742 204 Two speakers 86 -04742 205 Two small flashlights 86 -04742 206 Five broach /pins 86 -04852 207 Blue sweater dress 86 -04852 208 Stevens single -shot 20 -gauge shotgun with case 86 -06445 209 Savage 12 -gauge pump shotgun 86 -06445 210 Two duffel bags 86 -11880 211 Blue portable typewriter 86 -20337 212 Grey portable typewriter 86 -20337 213 Alpin brand radio 86 -20905 214 Winchester 410 shotgun and case 87 -02359 215 J. C. Higgins 12 -gauge pump shotgun 87 -02359 216 Red knit dress 87 -06152 217 Two sweaters and tie 87 -06152 218 Remington 22- caliber rifle with case 87- 09987 219 Excel single- barrel shotgun 87 -09987 220 One pair sunglasses and tire gauge 87 -13735 221 Mitsubishi AM /FM car sterio 87 -13735 222 Automate cassette player 87 -13735 223 Cassette tape 87 -17230 224 Panasonic AM /FM tuner 88 -02868 225 Panasonic cassette deck 88 -02868 226 White Shoulders cologne 88 -02901 227 Six pairs men's socks 88 -02901 228 Woman's purse 88 -02901 229 Two Oneida silverware sets 88 -02901 230 Two pair earrings 88 -02901 231 Seiko quartz clock 88 -02901 232 Woman's hat 88 -02901 233 Panasonic cordless telephone 88 -02901 234 Gold colored chain 88- 05367 235 Two record albums - "Eric Bifrankin" & "L. L. Cool" 88 -05367 236 Aluminum 12 -foot ladder 88 -05449 237 Cassette tape case with 23 tapes 88 -07474 238 Gold colored Benrus watch 88 -07474 239 Cassette tape case with 30 tapes 88 -07474 240 Three music books 88 -09174 241 Casio pocket television 88 -09174 242 Pansonic boom box 88 -09174 243 Two pioneer speakers 88 -11320 244 Pioneer cassette player 88 -11320 245 Bevada power booster 88 -11320 246 Stadia brand tennis shoes 88 -15143 247 Pick -up camper jack 88 -16617 248 Seiko men's watch 88 -17187 249 Two music books 88 -20856 250 Child auto restraint seat 88 -22214 251 Ladies engagement ring 88 -22532 252 Three drums, cymbal, and foot pedal 89 -01917 253 One box Pampers diapers Unknown f ADDITIONAL PROPERTY FOR 4/29/89 AUCTION 254 ITT Telephone 88 -07306 255 Cal Custom "Hawk" hubcap Unknown 256 Anne Klein wool jacket Unknown 257 Baseball cap Unknown 258 One pair gray denim jeans Unknown 259 Toshiba AM -FM Walkman with headphones Unknown 260 Black belt, gray slacks, blue slacks, white shorts, Unknown two shirts ADDITIONAL PROPERTY FOR AUCTION 2 Pr gold earrings 89 -01258 63 Gucci watch 89 -01258 264 Gold wrist chain 89 -01258 265 Gold Ring 89 -01258 266 Gold Ring 89 -01258 267 Gold Ring 89 -01258 268 Gold Ring 89 -01258 269 Gold Ring 89 -01258 270 Gold necklace 88 -22194 271 Gold necklace 88 -22194 272 Gold necklace 88 -22194 273 Silver necklace 88 -22194 274 Silver necklace 88 -22194 275 Silver necklace 88 -22194 276 Silver necklace 88- 22194 277 Silver ring 88 -22194 278 Silver ring 88 -22194 279 Gold ring 88 -22194 280 Collector Coins (7 Kennedy Half Dollars, 4 Eisenhower Dollars, 2 Silver certificate dollars,3 wheat pennies, 1 Susan Anthony Dollar) 88 -22194 281 Benrus watch 88 -22194 282 Gold Necklace 88 -22194 283 Gold Necklace 88 -22194 10 4 Gold Necklace 88 -22194 5 Gold Necklace 88 -22194 286 Gold Bracelet 88 -22194 287 Gold ring 88 -22194 POLICE DEPARTMENT PROPERTY FOR AUCTION 04 -29 -89 301 Metal- framed bulletin board (22 1/2" x 34 1/2 302 Metal coat rack 303 Remington 760 Carbine 30 -06 Pump with Redfield 2x -7x scope POLICE OFFICERS ONLY - Starting Price $150.00 • t No. ITEM DESCRIPTION FIXED ASSET NO. 0 Standing lan File 2 "x 2" g , holes 313 402 Stacking � " king Plan File, 2 x 2 holes 315 403 Stacking Plan File, 2 x 2 holes 316 404 Stacking Plan File, 2" x 2 holes 318 405 Standing Plan File, 3" x 3 holes 311 406 Traffic Counter, 15 minute serial #T22753 407 Traffic Counter, 15 minute serial #T22754 408 Boston Draftsman Sharpener 409 Unicom Printing Calculator 309 410 Bruning Pantograph 411 Bruning Electric Eraser 412 Sharp Compet Calculator (CS -2167) 2453 413 Wayne Air Compressor (1970), 7 1/2 hp 6300 series 414 Craig Cassette Recorder Model 2706A serial 29301915 415 Craig Cassette Recorder serial 28400913 FA2465 416 Craig Cassette Recorder serial 28400859 417 2 Shelf Bookcase 471 418 2 Shelf Bookcase -metal 470 419 2 Shelf Bookcase -metal 574 420 Gray Desk - metal - 6 drawers 584 421 Guest Chair - purple 059 422 Guest Chair - blue 458 423 Guest Chair - blue 457 424 Bookcase - wooden 4 Desk - metal - six drawers 569 Guest Chair - purple 195 4 3 Shelf Bookcase with Sliding Glass Doors 428 Gray Desk - metal - 6 drawers Village #11 429 Guest Chair - purple 430 Desk - six drawers partial 48 431 Desk - metal - 6 drawers 578 432 3 Shelf Bookcase with Sliding Glass Doors 433 Guest Chair - purple 196 434 2 Drawer Filing Cabinet 5 x 8 (side by side) 435 Craig Electronic Notebook 1595 436 Single Pedestal Desk - 54" x 30" 437 Typing Return 181 438 Lead Sharpeners - 3 439 Leroy Drafting Pen Holder 440 6 foot aluminum ladder 441 6 foot aluminum ladder 442 20 gal. garbage can - organe 443 2 boxes register tapes 444 Hunt - Boston Pencil Sharpener 445 Metal Coat Rack 446 Wood Door 447 Wood Wall Cabinet with sliding doors 448 Plastic Stack Chairs - 12 449 Tread Mill 450 Exercycle 45 Toro Snowblower "Snowmaster 4 Toro Snowblower "S -200" No. ITEM DESCRIPTION FIXED ASSET NO. 0 World Hair Dryers - 6 and assorted parts 454 Windowshades and hardware 455 Space heater (electric) 456 Round Table with folding legs 457 Trailer - homemade 458 Trailer - homemade 459 Lawn Sweeper 460 Lawn Sweeper 461 Tire Changer - Coates model 10 -10 462 Fencing sections 463 Calculator - Victor #1245 464 Engine Anylizer - Marquette 40 -175 #2266 465 Fuel Anylizer - Marquette 42 -076 #2267 466 Craftsman 7 Electric Hand Saw 467 Black & Decker Saw - model 63 H.D. 468 Light Bars 469 Guest Chair - tan 301 470 Guest Chair - orange 202 471 Guest Chair - orange 191 472 Guest Chair - orange 203 473 Guest Chair - tan 474 Metal Bookcase - 3 shelf with glass door 475 File Cabinet - 2 drawer 524 476 Talkaphone - model KLR3M 47 4 x 6 file boxes - 3 Bulletin Board with cork 4 Bulletin Board with cork 480 Motor 481 Motor 482 Motor 483 Desk Organizer - 5 shelf 484 Wood cabinet with 44 compartments i • J VEHICLES FOR AUCTION 04 -29 -89 501 1980 Buick Skylark (serial no. 4C375AW103985) 88 -12858 502 1981 Kawasaki motorcycle (serial no. KZ5500011043) 88 -14866 503 1974 Honda motorcycle (serial no. 2345892) 88 -15200 504 1982 Kawasaki motorcycle (serial no. JKAKZHD19CB512536) 88 -18434 505 1982 Chevrolet van (serial no. 1GCEG25H3C7161255) 88 -18576 506 Alovette snowmobile (serial no. 068197) 88 -19809 507 1977 Buick four door (serial no. 4N69C7X135769) 88 -20010 • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/10/89 Agenda item Number �L REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FOR TREE REMOVAL PROJECT NO. 1989 -03, CONTRACT NO. 1989 -B DEPT. APPROVAL: * * * * * * * * * * * **N * *PP4* DIRECTOR OF U W � * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached On March 13, 1989, the City Council approved specifications for the City's annual Diseased Tree Removal program. Three bids for that work were received on April 6, 1989. As shown in the attached resolution, the low bidder is the North Wood Company, with a total bid of $64,864.00. The company held the City's contract in 1987 and 1988, and their overall performance was very satisfactory. Accordingly, I recommend award of the contract to the North Wood Company. A resolution for that purpose is provided for consideration by the City Council. City Council Action Required Adopt the attached resolution accepting bid and approving contract. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FOR TREE REMOVAL PROJECT NO. 1989 -03, CONTRACT 1989 -B WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1989 -03, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 6th day of April, 1989. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount North Wood Company $64,864.00 Outside Services 67,175.00 Ceres Tree Company 69,090.00 WHEREAS, it appears that North Wood Company of Coon Rapids, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $64,864.00, with North Wood Company of Coon Rapids, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1989 -03 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders and deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. 3. In accordance with "Section 15.00 - AWARD OF CONTRACT TO OTHER BIDDERS ", the City will hold the proposals of all bidders for the purpose of awarding a secondary contract in the event the primary contractor fails to meet the requirements of the contract, or is unable or unwilling to agree to remove more than the minimum requirements specified by the contract. i RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/10/89 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING PRIVATE SALE OF ONE PARCEL OF NON- CONSERVATION LAND TO THE OWNER OF AN ADJACENT PROPERTY DEPT. APPROVA : * * * * * * * * * * * **N * *P *�4* *R * * *O *O PUBLIC WO * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached YeS Explanation • The City has received notice that a lot located on 68th Avenue North near Zenith Avenue (see attached map) has again been forfeited for non - payment of taxes. This is at least the third time that this lot has been forfeited during the past 10 years. Discussion with previous owners and neighbors indicate that the reason for this continuing occurrence is that the soil conditions which exist on this lot are very severe, i.e. - there is more than 20 feet of unstable soil on the portion of the lot where a house would normally be built. In addition, these unstable soil conditions extend to the adjacent properties so that any effort to provide soil corrections or to install piling would be complicated by the adverse effects on these adjacent properties which would result from the work on this property. Accordingly, City staff has discussed the following options and arrived at the conclusions noted: Option No. Option Description Conclusion 1 Recommend that County again sell This has been done 3 times this property on the market to in the past 10 years, always the high bidder for development with negative results i.e. - by itself. the buyer attempts to find an economically feasible way to develop the property. After failing to do so, the buyer then defaults on the purchase and the cycle comes around again. Option • No. Option Description Conclusion 2 Have the Brooklyn Center EDA Because of the costs for soil purchase the property and make correction or piling, and the needed soil corrections or probable liability for damages install piling; and /or proceed to adjacent homes which would with full development of a home occur during development, this on the property. is not considered to be a cost effective option. 3 Approve the sale of this parcel This appears to be the most only to the owner of one of cost effective and permanent the adjacent properties, with solution. the condition that the properties then be combined for use as a single property. City Assessor, Pete Koole, has made preliminary contact with all adjoining property owners and reports that the owner of the property which lies westerly of the lot in question (i.e. - the owner of Lot 6) has expressed a willingness to purchase this parcel under these conditions. City Council Action Required Adoption of the attached resolution. • • Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 89 -65 RESOLUTION APPROVING PRIVATE SALE OF ONE PARCEL OF NON- CONSERVATION LAND TO THE OWNER OF AN ADJACENT PROPERTY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center has received from Hennepin County a list of lands which became the property of the State of Minnesota for non - payment of real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, each parcel of land described in said list has heretofore been classified by the Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County, Minnesota as non - conservation land and the sale thereof has been authorized by said Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Inspections and the Director of Public Works have advised the City Council that the following parcel is not a buildable site due to the existence of severe soil conditions which makes this parcel unsuitable for development by itself, and that this parcel would best be developed in conjunction with an adjoining property: Property Identification No Description 34- 119 -21 -11 -0076 Lot 5, Block 3 Elsen's City View 2nd Addition NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, acting pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 282: 1. That said classification as non - conservation land be and the same is hereby approved with respect to said parcel. 2. That said land is hereby approved for sale to an adjacent property in accordance with Minnesota Statutes relating to the sale of unbuildable parcels of land, provided that the purchaser be required to request the City Assessor, following conveyance, to combine the two parcels for tax purposes. Such combination may not be rescinded without City ouncil approval. Y PP April 10, 1989 Date Ma r ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Todd Paulson, and Jerry Pedlar; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRIVATE SALE OF ONE PARCEL OF NON- CONSERVATION LAND TO THE OWNER OF AN ADJACENT PROPERTY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center has received from Hennepin County a list of lands which became the property of the State of Minnesota for non - payment of real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, each parcel of land described in said list has heretofore been classified by the Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County, Minnesota as non - conservation land and the sale thereof has been authorized by said Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Inspections and the Director of Public Works have advised the City Council that the following parcel is not a buildable site due to the existence of severe soil conditions which makes this parcel unsuitable for development by itself, and that this parcel would best be developed in conjunction with an adjoining property: Property Identification No. Description 34- 119 -21 -11 -0026 Lot S, Block 3 Elsen's City View 2nd Addition NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, acting pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 282: 1. That said classification as non - conservation land be and the same is hereby approved with respect to said parcel. 2. That said land is hereby approved for sale to an adjacent property in accordance with Minnesota Statutes relating to the sale of unbuildable parcels of land, provided that the purchaser be required to request the City Assessor, following conveyance, to combine the two parcels for tax purposes. Such combination may not be rescinded without City Council approval. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. * 1 BROOKLYN - . Y CENTER 22 I � � � -..... U Z U4 Res. •-•••• S.D. No 188002.47 "E -__- ice= (1025) CUND (6 r, y I }.9 9•�� l JIO) l m lcv I� E T E R Y �° goo, Q e 2 6/ r s s9O ST r 147.5 . =J II( 9 2 56 b� �� 330.0 I _'•. $, B 2 \. 15.25 3 \�5 1 0 .. 3.5 c `' 141.35 ft =�0� ,53 IZ P (11 ` �P A :t 143 iIS 2 T - 50 R= 397.96 - `, �S I� • �1��� 1, ' �D 4 � B5 \ N �� ti �1 Addition 131 - 'Dvri�L1 13.36" 16691 - �1.1�' q ` ; II 12^ � 0 ou n d 3 f (',a • ...� �•1 �4 z .� y 1 eo n I 123) zl> " v /_ 0 J W 4 o W L l 2 11 �. 29 I &2 19' C eterylr s� 3 (4 , W g(�)' 4�3 a �Zy3 2 x� t)b ;a J ° = 6 y `e)�5. 17 2 ui 3 Z z ye o o.. U b o y y i)O L �Q� A � ev a c�v N N 3 7 � c3 ,, l o a z ti \ 6 +— m 4 4 R '� ++f"m ,o '� e W 5 41 0 16 ti N N N 371 7S 7¢00l0 lY N N v /� � S a 68th • E'' /„ =>63� 6 \ 4 7Zo ^F _ 6° 7R4f Y S i• \ (55 'I (k w _� %\ ^ t ' N e� ys' 6G , 9 4 3,� e 3i LOT 2 to �5 p� �e4 E s:' r �5 ee o N W l`�� 94� w q 4) o �1 46 Si /j BS o9 1� `` /'� '311; q 3 7s I 12 j 6) r. 2. 5 = t'w•ir � 1 c ` � � B I 1.01 oe ?. t' %:: 1 � 'fir .10 � Sn 9Z ��Z) 30? - / �` .•r• r t: ? •11 +' 3 ties. 5g.. 25 9 2g 7 ^y 8j BB6s l7j¢577'� r � rNI d3 ', 0 3 1; •o o t. . 9 CgQ) / 6 u /$G) 7S /s isrg ? 31 N A! •o o _ t ` •� r., > > a ) BSS ' +,� �5 �► of 1107 ? �'12l' d s h(//� x 1 0 5 s7 O• W _ ''�14 .13c� w ?s1� aF a BfR C 4 �0 4 0 ' ¢ 2 Q !1 •s St,r +.5• .� ,; lgt� �v 1 q g �j 2 Vy V1 �i v �i� � � d "f • z �S= .1r y �! I g4;�+ 8 1• ` 8 1� ` / ' 83- 1 R 7 W ,u ; �.�,.,19��` Z h 21 'J 22 1 ,Se y �S 6 5 lgp ����� 1 llrf �„5i -,• ,. '• '!� ; ry� f BB aj 4 ,r • 67/ A d s r- 1 rl� l 23 j r1L�."1' B ire / 3 l I c r r.• • [ v `Ir, Bg ?•v o "' ;�/`4�1'� r , i�'Y j• • 13 ti (�\• �S2- 1v • T '�� �5 1• ;. •r iv .r"S•• •��• •i J'�ols' f '�` • '�� [ •h\ 7 � /8 •�9. • • >A �� e • . I •� � 29 r) . 1 s V 1 j , , 1 f b•,. , 7 rj At 31 Is ti MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION MARCH 30, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Mike Nelson at 8:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson, Ella Sander and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 16, 1989 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the March 16, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Johnson and Sander. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89002 (City of Brooklyn Center) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request to rezone from R5 to C1 the land at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard and the neighboring lots to the south. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report and the draft resolution recommending approval of the rezoning request (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89002, attached). PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89002) There being no comments or questions from the Commission, Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing on the application and asked whether anyone present wished to speak. No one spoke on the matter. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner ioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89 -3 (Application No. 89002) RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION N0. 89002 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -3 regarding disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 89002. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89011 (Public Storage) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, an appeal from a determination by staff that mini - storage facilities are not permitted in the C1 3 -30 -89 -1- r r zoning district. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89011 attached). The Secretary added that the I -1 zoning district which acknowledges warehousing and storage as a special use, is centrally located and is not a high crime area. Regarding control of special use permits, the Secretary stated that, once a special use permit is granted and if the conditions are abided by, a property right has been established and that the City does not have extensive control over the operation of special uses. There being no questions or comments from the Planning Commission, Chairman Nelson asked the appellant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Don Jensen, of Public Storage, approached the Commission. He showed them a rendering of a similar mini - storage facility located in Golden Valley. He stated the mini - storage industry has changed considerably since 1973. Mr. Jensen then read extensively from an APA study done in 1985 on mini - storage. He noted that mini - storage started in the 1960's in the sunbelt and that the use spread to other areas of the country in the 70's and 80's. He stated that offices use self - storage for excess files and that private individuals use self - storage because they cannot afford additional storage space at their apartment or on their property. He stated that one distinction between warehousing and mini - storage is that warehouses have employees which stay and do work during the day and self - storage has customers who come and go. Mr. Jensen stated that many communities throughout the country have begun to allow self - storage in commercial and even residential zoning districts because they recognize its customer orientation. He stated that he and other representatives of Public Storage have met with neighbors in the area and that several people feel this is a good use for the location at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. He again referred the Commission's attention to the rendering of the Golden Valley project which he said is compatible architecturally with a residential neighborhood. Mr. Dan Rooney, also of Public Storage, then addressed the Commission. He discussed the financial strength of Public Storage at some length. He stated that the market has changed and that self - storage is now a long term land use of 20 to 30 years. He stated that Public Storage has institutional investors as well as individuals. He stated that Public Storage was interested in a commercial location because the location is safe, convenient, attractive and secure. He stated that Public Storage generally locates in or adjacent to commercial areas along major thoroughfares. He stated that the general public is 80% of the customers and businesses the remaining 20 %. He stated also that Public Storage seeks to serve people in transition, such as empty nesters. Mr. Tim Malloy, of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, then addressed the Commission at some length. He stated that the mini - storage use has changed in response to market concerns. He pointed out that self- storage is a low traffic generator. He stated that self - storage can develop in commercial areas and can have an attractive facade. He noted the use of landscaping and the presence of a 24 hour on -site manager. Mr. Malloy stated that Public Storage can serve as a buffer between more intense and less intense land uses. Mr. Malloy went on to distinguish Public Storage from a warehouse use. He stated that self - storage does not generate as much truck traffic as a warehouse would. He also stated that warehouses have employees who may cause some disturbance to the neighborhood on their lunch hours and that warehouses store volatile materials. He explained that self - storage has few semi trailers coming to its property. He also 3 -30 -89 -2- stated that forklifts are not necessary. He added that the self- storage use would not permit the storage of volatile materials. Regarding buffer requirements, Mr. Malloy pointed out that the purpose of buffers includes the need to screen one use from another. He pointed out that screening can be accomplished in a narrow buffer area. He explained that wide buffers are used for industrial uses because of noise and vibration from trucks, manufacuturing, etc. He stated that self - storage does not involve these kinds of activities and, therefore, a narrower buffer is sufficient. Regarding ground coverage, Mr. Malloy pointed out that an office development would have a ground coverage of approximately 30 %. He noted that the proposed site plan calls for a 37% ground coverage. He explained that ground coverage controls limit the density and intensity of various land uses. He stated that a low intense use such as public storage can have greater coverage because they have less of an impact per square foot of building. Regarding parking, Mr. Malloy stated that the parking ratio for self - storage is very low. Regarding aesthetics, Mr. Malloy pointed out that the draft ordinance proposed a general guideline for aesthetic controls on self - storage uses. He pointed out that the City has a site plan approval process and that the developers would have to submit site and building plans for review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Don Jensen then addressed the Commission again. He showed the Commission photos of other self- storage developments around the country. He also showed the rendering of the Golden Valley project which is not yet complete. He acknowledged that not all self - storage projects look like the Golden Valley project. He acknowledged that Public Storage has bought some older style mini - warehouses around the country. He stated that Public Storage looks for transition areas between residential neighborhoods and commercial areas. He stated that self- storage has been used as a buffer use between residential and commercial areas and is often in a PUD district. Mr. Jensen briefly reviewed the discussion which took place in 1973 by the City Council. He stated that the limitations placed on the location of self - storage facilities would limit the potential sites to very few parcels in the City, perhaps only the subject parcel. He concluded by stating that the taxes from the parcel in question would increase fivefold with little impact on public facilities if the self- storage use were developed. Chairman Nelson stated that he had come into the meeting disposed to act on the application quickly. He stated that he was concerned that the Commission may be swayed by a classy developer, but that the City has to be concerned with the unclassy developers as well. He asked the Secretary how the City would deal with other self - storage companies. Mr. Tim Malloy showed the Planning Commission a map of the City with commercial development and commercial zoning outlined. He pointed out that there would be a 2 acre minimum for self - storage uses. He stated that the map shows that there are very few parcels in the City which would be eligible for self- storage. The Secretary interpreted the Chairman's question to be what controls the City would have over this or other developers. He explained that the controls that would be adopted would have to be applied the same to all applicants. The Secretary acknowledged that the City can develop regulations which would, in effect, limit self - storage to a few available parcels. He stated, however, that the basic 3 -30 -89 -3- question at issue is a use question. He stated that he had no difficulty in classifying the self - storage use as industrial. He pointed out that if self - storage were allowed in the C1 zoning district, it would certainly be allowed in the C2 district as well. The Secretary stated that staff are not opposed to self - storage facilities per se, but added that there is land available in the I -1 and I -2 zoning districts for such a use. He also pointed out that in 1973, the City Council was looking at a similar proposal on a C2 zoned parcel. He noted that the C2 zoning district is a much more intense zoning district than the C1 district. He noted further, however, that the application for that location was denied. Commissioner Ainas stated that there was nothing wrong with the aesthetics of a Public Storage facility, but that in reading over the permitted and special uses in the C1 zoning district, he concluded that self - storage would be too far a departure from these other uses if it were allowed. He stated that, if self - storage were allowed in the C1 zone, other uses might also be allowed and the C1 zoning district would become meaningless. He stated that he felt the self - storage use could be okay along Freeway Boulevard, but not along Brooklyn Boulevard. Commissioner Johnson noted that one concern regarding the property in question is traffic at that location. He stated that the freeway exit and the congestion of traffic in Brooklyn Boulevard would make a low traffic generator for the parcel a logical choice. Commissioner Bernards stated that people in the neighborhood must have found out what uses were allowed in the C1 zoning district at the previous meeting. He stated that he did not feel it was fair to change the rules regarding the C1 uses while the rezoning application was proposed. He recommended sticking with the C1 zoning district as is and not to change the ordinance. He also pointed out that industrial property is fairly close to residential and commercial property in Brooklyn Center. He stated that he felt the self - storage use belonged in the industrial park. Commissioner Malecki acknowledged that self - storage would be a low traffic generator, but stated that the City has to consider other C1 parcels in the City. She stated that self - storage would be a departure from the general uses allowed in the C1 zone. She also noted that the industrial park in Brooklyn Center is not that far from residential and commercial areas and can be seen from the freeway. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 89011 (Public Storage) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial of Application No. 89011, on the grounds that the use proposed is not similar in nature to other C1 uses and would undermine the integrity of the C1 zoning district. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Ainas, Sander and Mann. Voting against: Commissioner Johnson. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) Group Home Studies The Secretary referred the Commission's attention to two studies regarding group homes. The first was a market value study done by Peter Patchin, which concluded that there is no measurable impact of group homes on residential property values. The second study, he noted, was done by Donn Wiski of Resolution, Inc. and the first three chapters were available for the Commission's review. He stated that no 3 -30 -89 -4- Planning Commission action was needed tonight, but the staff will answer questions if the Commission has any. Chairman Nelson asked about the time line on the options available to the City. The Secretary explained that the moratorium on group homes would stay in effect through April, 1989. He stated that originally the City wanted a recommendation from the Planning Commission by the end of March, but that that would be impossible because the studies are not complete. He stated that the City could extend the moratorium for an additional period of time, or it could let it lapse and deal with the Kelly House as proposed. b) PUD Ordinance The Secretary then referred the Commission to the draft PUD Ordinance from the City Attorney. He stated that, again, the City was not looking for a recommendation this evening. He stated that staff have looked at the draft ordinance and are still reviewing it. He pointed out that a PUD Ordinance can be used effectively in redevelopment situations and, in some cases, new development. The Secretary explained that the process of designating an area for a Planned Unit Development is similar to the rezoning process. He added that PUD districts can accommodate mixed uses of residential and commercial. He stated that a PUD Ordinance would basically give the City some flexibility to grant variances implicit in a proposed development plan. The Secretary then updated the Planning Commission on the rezoning of land south of Freeway Boulevard. He stated that the City Attorney has advised that the ordinance language regarding retail sales in single tenant buildings would be problemsome. He stated that staff have concluded that they should take out any reference to retailing other than retailing as an accessory use to a wholesale, manufacturing or processing use in the I -1 zone. He stated that the new PUD district could allow the City to approve a retail development in the I -1 zone without necessarily opening the entire I -1 zone to retail sales. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Bernards to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Chairman 3 -30 -89 -5- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89002 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: Southwest quadrant of 194 and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Rezoning Application No. 89002, submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center, proposes to rezone from R5 to C1 the lots located at 6451 to 6533 Brooklyn Boulevard, including a 4.5 acre vacant parcel at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. The property is bounded on the north by 194, on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard, on the south by some four plexes and single- family homes, and on the west by single- family homes. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its January 12, 1989 meeting, at which a public hearing was opened. The application was tabled by the Commission and referred to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group met on February 21, 1989 at City Hall to consider the matter. (Minutes of that meeting are attached for the Commission's review.) The neighborhood advisory group unanimously recommended the C1 zoning as proposed. One property owner, Mr. Dave Paulat of 6521 Brooklyn Boulevard, was mildly opposed to the rezoning since it would prohibit any further expansion of his home. We feel this area is simply not a good location for single - family homes and any further additions to these properties would be counterproductive. Other property owners generally favored the rezoning. Neighbors were generally concerned regarding access to the large vacant parcel and screening of that parcel from the single- family homes around it. We explained that the City is still opposed to any access from Indiana Avenue North to the west. We also noted the requirements for a 15' buffer and a minimum 4' high fence. The neighbors expressed a desire for higher fences. Representatives of Public Storage also made a presentation at the neighborhood meeting. They desire to build a mini - storage development on the 4.5 acre vacant parcel at the southwest quadrant of 194 and Brooklyn Boulevard. (see appeal Application No. 89011 in this agenda packet.) As we stated at the neighborhood advisory group meeting, mini - storage is not acknowledged as either a permitted or special use in the C1 zoning district. The purpose of the City - initiated rezoning to C1 is in no way intended to accommodate the mini - storage use. Public Storage wishes the City to amend its Zoning Ordinance to allow mini - storage as a special use in the C1 zone and has set forth its arguments and draft ordinance language under appeal Application No. 89011. Staff are opposed to allowing warehousing and storage in the C1 zone. The neighborhood advisory group did not comment on the question of mini - storage. The public hearing on Application No. 89002 has been continued to this Thursday's meeting. Notices of the hearing, scheduled for 8:00 p.m., have been sent. A resolution recommending approval of the rezoning application has been drafted and is attached for the Commission's review. Adoption of the resolution is recommended. 3 -30 -89 Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89 -3 l RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 89002 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, Application No. 89002 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center proposes rezoning from R5 (Multiple Family) to C1 (Service /Office) the lots at 6451 through 6533 Brooklyn Boulevard at the southwest quadrant of 194 and Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on January 12, 1989 when testimony regarding the request was taken; and WHEREAS, the request was tabled and referred to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment, which met on February 21, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Commission on March 30, 1989 again held a duly called public hearing regarding the matter; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning has been reviewed by the Planning Commission in light of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 89002, submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center, be approved in consideration of the following: 1. The proposed C1 zoning district is consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications (R1 primarily to the south and west and major thoroughfares to the north and east). 2. All permitted uses in the C1 zoning district can be contemplated for development and /or redevelopment of the subject property. 3. The increased traffic on 194 and on Brooklyn Boulevard make residential development inappropriate in this location. 4. The subject property will, if combined to achieve greater lot areas, bear fully the ordinance development restrictions of the C1 district. 5. The proposed C1 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this area of Brooklyn Boulevard (specifically area #33 on the Land Use Revisions Map). 6. In light of the above, it is believed that the proposed rezoning meets the guidelines for rezonings set forth in Section 35 -208 of the I Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -3 March 30, 1989 Date Chairman ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kristen Mann and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Mike Nelson, Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson, Ella Sander and Kristen Mann and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. G Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. PP 89 011 Applicant: Public Storage Location: Southwest quadrant of 194 and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Appeal This application is classified as an appeal. However, it is actually a request for an ordinance amendment to allow self - storage as a special use in the C1 zoning district. The appellant wishes to develop the vacant, 4.5 acre parcel at the southwest quadrant of 194 and Brooklyn Boulevard with mini - warehouses. Staff have conveyed to the appellant that warehousing and storage are acknowledged uses only in the I -1 and I -2 zoning districts and are not acknowledged in the C1 district. The property in question is included in a City - initiated rezoning proposal for this area to C1 from R5 (see Application No. 89002). The purpose of the rezoning is to eliminate multi- family residential development as an option for the land at the southwest quadrant of 194 and Brooklyn Boulevard and to allow service /office development, but it is not to allow for self- storage development which we feel is more appropriately located in the I -1 and I -2 zones as presently provided for. The appellant's representative, Mr. Tim Malloy with Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, has submitted written arguments (attached) which address the guidelines for evaluating rezonings from Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance (also attached). He has also submitted draft ordinance language (attached) for Sections 35 -320, Subsection 3 (special uses in the C1 zone) and Section 35-411 (special requirements in C1 and C1A districts). The appellant's arguments are summarized below: A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit. The appellant argues that mini - storage provides a valuable service to the general public. The facilities are used by a variety of groups. Elderly residents who move to smaller accommodations, renters who have limited storage space in apartment buildings, small businesses and offices seeking temporary storage of surplus stock or old files - all these users have a need for storage space. Mr. Malloy notes that industrial districts tend to be more secluded and less frequently patrolled making safety an issue for elderly and single females who frequently use mini - storage facilities. Allowing mini - storage in the C1 zone by special use permit would make it more accessible to the people who use it. B. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Mr. Malloy notes that C1 zoning has been cited by the City as a buffer use. He states mini - storage could be required to provide generous landscaping making them "ideal as a buffer use between major thoroughfares or more intense uses and residential or other sensitive uses." Mr. Malloy points out that mini- storage is compatible with other C1 uses because it is a low traffic generator and, therefore, does not contribute to traffic congestion in a commercial district. Mini - storage also can provide convenient storage to surrounding office uses. 3 -30 -89 -1- Application No. 89011 continued C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Mr. Malloy notes the specific use proposed and offers an alternative question: "could the development of this use be contemplated on any given vacant parcel within the Cl District? In answer, Mr. Malloy points out that the draft language proposes the use as a special use which would "give the City substantial control of how the facilities are constructed and operated." Secondly, location would be limited to properties in the Cl district which are located with primary vehicular access off a major thoroughfare or arterial street. The sites would thus be limited and there would be no traffic generated on residential streets. D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Not applicable. E. In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Self - storage is not proposed by the City. The rezoning should be based on sound planning principles. The applicant believes that the benefits outlined in item A demonstrate a broad public purpose for allowing mini - storage as a special use in the Cl district. F. Will the subject ,7 property fully bear the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district.? Mr. Malloy states that this question is not directly applicable, but raises important issues that might be better addressed separately as follows: " 1) Do the development characteristics of mini - storage facilities generally comply with the development restrictions set forth in the Zoning Code for the Cl District, as well as the general requirements of the Code? Yes. 2) Are the development restrictions outlined in the Code adequate enough to ensure that the development of mini - storage facilities within the Cl District will be compatible with surrounding land uses and that they will meet the health, safety and welfare standards of the City of Brooklyn Center ?" Mr. Malloy answers this last question by making two points: a) classification of mini - storage as a special use will allow the City to address inadequacies in the existing requirements through conditions of approval; and b) the ordinance proposed would place restrictions on lot size, building coverage, security, screening, aesthetics, etc. and thus mini - storage can be adequately controlled. 3 -30 -89 -2- Application No. 89011 continued G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography, or location? "Not Applicable." H. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) comprehensive planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? "The proposed rezoning does not expand the area of a district." I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? "See Item A." We will not review the proposed ordinance language point by point in this report. It is attached for the Commission's consideration. The ordinance language calls for mini - storage to be allowed as a special use in the C1 zone provided the facility is located with the primary vehicular access off a "thoroughfare or minor arterial street." A minimum lot size of 2 acres and a maximum lot coverage of 40% (by buildings) is proposed. Hours of operation would be determined by the City Council. Dead storage only would be permitted; no transfer stations would be allowed. No garage sales would be permitted. Security provisions would include a minimum 6' high barrier around the perimeter of the site, a gate for vehicular access, and a resident manager. Parking requirements would be one space per 35 storage units, equally distributed throughout the site. The draft ordinance proposes driveway and parking stall widths below the City's current standards, but adds that drive widths and turning radii must be adequate for emergency vehicles. Landscape requirements would be applied "to minimize the environmental impacts of self- service storage facilities such as: visual blight, parking or recreational vehicle storage, lighting, noise, and dust, on adjacent properties or public streets." A "view obstructing barrier not less than 6 feet in height and providing a minimum year -round opaqueness of 60 percent" would be required. Further specifications of landscape treatment and screening devices are added. The draft ordinance also calls for fairly vague aesthetic controls. Exterior materials would have to be "attractive" and "durable ", and "harmonious with surrounding developments." Restrictions governing noise, waste handling and storage, vibration and odor, glare and heat would be the same as applied in the I -1 and I -2 districts under Section 35 -413, Subsections 3 through 8. Staff Response Staff are opposed to the draft ordinance language as it applies to the Cl zoning district. We feel that the proposal would simply introduce an industrial use (warehousing and storage) into the service /office zoning district. The building to land ratio, the parking requirement, the use itself, and the restrictions applied to environmental impacts such as noise, odor, and vibration - all are similar to or precisely the same as for industrial uses. Conveniently, the buffer provisions are 3 -30 -89 -3- Application No. 89011 continued not. While the draft ordinance language spends a lot of verbage on landscaping and screening requirements, the bottom line is that they are not much different than for a standard C1 use. A C1 use that abuts Rl zoned land at a property line must provide a 15' buffer and a 4' high fence. An industrial use that abuts R1 zoned land at a property line must provide a 100' buffer and an 8' high fence. We believe that our landscape point system and the requirement for underground irrigation, for the most part, adequately addresses the landscape issue. The appellant will no doubt show the Commission renderings of similar projects around the country with stucco walls and hip roofs. The aesthetic criteria proposed, however, are fairly vague and will not insure quality. We believe the most effective way to insure quality development in the C1 zone is to restrict it to service /office uses which invest far more per square foot of building than any mini - warehouse, however designed and landscaped. As Mr. Orgas stated at the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting, mini - storage is an interim land use until market forces dictate a more intense use of the land. It does not tend to be a permanent use, justifying substantial investment. We do not argue that there is no need for mini - storage facilities, but we simply do not believe they are appropriate for the C1 or even the C2 district. They are an industrial use and belong in the industrial district. Security can be adequately addressed in the I -1 and I -2 zones. A proposal in those zoning districts involving a resident manager would certainly have merit and some of the proposed ordinance provisions could be considered for the industrial districts, including allowing a resident manager. The Commission should be aware that there was a proposal for mini - warehouses in 1973 for the property now occupied by the Osseo - Brooklyn Bus Company Company at 68th and Lee Avenues North. That proposal was considered at some length over a period of approximately one year and was denied by both the Planning Commission and City Council. The resolution of denial adopted by the City Council (attached) , cited three basic reasons for the denial: 11 1 ) The proposed use is neither a recognized permitted or special use in the C2 District per Section 35 -322 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2) The proposed use is not deemed similar in nature to other recognized C2 District uses per Section 35 -322 (j) of the Zoning Ordinance. 3) The proposed use is deemed similar to and more compatible with recognized uses in the I -1 (Industrial Park) and I -2 (General Industry) Districts." While simply put, these findings state the basic facts of the case in 1973 and, we believe, today as well: namely, that mini - storage is an industrial use and should only be comprehended in the industrial zoning districts. Finally, we have noted the appellant's point that the proposed mini - storage use is a low traffic generator (they have estimated that their facility would generate only about 60 trips per day) . While the site in question certainly has access problems and people may find it difficult to enter and exit the site, we do not feel that this is a good case for allowing mini - storage in the C1 zone. Industrial uses do tend to involve less traffic than commercial uses. This is why traffic counts on Shingle Cre- -k Parkway north of Freeway Boulevard are much lower than counts south of Freeway Boulevard. Commercial uses generate more traffic. That is why they are located in commercial districts and why commercial streets tend to be congested. Traffic 3 -30 -89 -4- I -- generation may be a reason for limiting development options, for rezoning, and /or for designing ingress, egress and parking so as to avoid traffic congestion in the public streets. We do not believe low traffic generation is an appropriate basis for opening up the C1 zone to industrial uses. And, we do not believe that the land at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard should be zoned industrial, given its residential abutment. We do not find a broad public purpose for allowing this industrial use in a C1 zoning district. There is vacant, undeveloped land in the I -1 and I -2 zones that can appropriately be put to use for such development in a manner consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. This proposal does not demonstrate merit beyond the interests of the owners and those proposing the development. Based on the above considerations, we recommend denial of the appeal and the associated proposed ordinance language for the C1 zoning district. The appellant has submitted site and building plans with the appeal application. A reduction of the site plan is attached and the drawings will be presented to the Commission at Thursday night's meeting. However, we have not performed a detailed analysis of the plans (nor did we request them) because the basic use question identified in the appeal must be answered first. No site and building plan application is before the Commission for review. 3 -30 -89 -5- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4 - 10 - 89 Agenda Rem Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 89002 - City of Brooklyn Center DEPARTMENT ROVAL: .0 Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x Planning Commission Application No. 89002, submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center, is a request to rezone from R5 to C1 the vacant parcel at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard and the R5 zoned single - family homes to the south. This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its January 12, 1989 meeting, tabled and referred to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The neighborhood advisory group met on February 21, 1989 and recommended approval of the rezoning. The application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its March 30, 1989 study meeting. Minutes and information sheets from these meetings are attached. Recommendation The application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission through Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -3 (attached). A resolution is also submitted for the City Council's consideration. adoption: Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution and moved its PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89 -3 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. • 89002 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, Application No. 89002 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center proposes rezoning from R5 (Multiple Family) to C1 (Service /Office) the' lots at 6451 through 6533 Brooklyn Boulevard at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on January 12, 1989 when testimony regarding the request was taken; and WHEREAS, the request was tabled and referred to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment, which met on February 21, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Commission on March 30, 1989 again held a duly called public hearing regarding the matter; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning has been reviewed by the Planning Commission in light of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 89002, submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center, be approved in consideration of the following: 1. The proposed C1 zoning district is consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications (R1 primarily to the south and west and major thoroughfares to the north and east). 2. All permitted uses in the C1 zoning district can be contemplated for development and /or redevelopment of the subject property. 3. The increased traffic on I94 and on Brooklyn Boulevard make residential development inappropriate in this location. 4. The subject property will, if combined to achieve greater lot areas, bear fully the ordinance development restrictions of the C1 district. 5. The proposed C1 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this area of Brooklyn Boulevard (specifically area #33 on the Land Use Revisions Map). 6. In light of the above, it is believed that the proposed rezoning meets the guidelines for rezonings set forth in Section 35 -208 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. I RESOLUTION NO. 89 - March 30, 1989 Date Chairman ATTEST: Secretary �f The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kristen Mann and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Mike Nelson, Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson, Ella Sander and Kristen Mann and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. s , CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing on Application No. 89001. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Nelson asked the Planning Commission for their preference on the application. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt that the Commission should consider an ordinance amendment redefining major thoroughfares. He stated that nonconforming structures will be with the City for a long time and it maybe better to resolve these nonconformities now. He suggested that the Commission perhaps discuss an ordinance amendment at a subsequent meeting. Commissioner Johnson stated that he was also in favor of an ordinance amendment. He recommended that the Commission look at areas with the most nonconformities and eliminate those nonconformities by an ordinance amendment. The Secretary asked Commissioner Johnson whether he meant to amend the ordinance so that Brooklyn Boulevard would also not be a major thoroughfare. Commissioner Johnson responded in the negative and added that 57th west of Logan should continue to be a major thoroughfare. Commissioner Johnson asked where most of the nonconforming structures are located. The Planner answered that most of the nonconformities are along County Road 57, along 69th Avenue North, and along Bass Lake Road. He added that there are few, if any, nonconformities along Xerxes Avenue North or along Humboldt Avenue North between 65th and 69th Avenues North. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the 20' setback as proposed would be okay. The Secretary answered that, if 57th in this area were no longer a major thoroughfare, the normal ordinance setback requirement would be only 15 since it is a lot of - record prior to December 1957. He added that the applicant would probably continue with a 20' setback so that a car could be parked between the sidewalk and the new garage. The Secretary asked Mrs. Anderson if that was the case. Mrs. Anderson responded in the affirmative, stating that she did want to be able to park a car in front of the garage. The Secretary stated that the Commission could table the application and direct staff to bring back language for an ordinance amendment for the next meeting. ACTION RECOMMENDING TABLING APPLICATION NO. 89001 AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to table Application No. 89001 and direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment redefining major thoroughfares in the Zoning Ordinance. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89002 (City of Brooklyn Center) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for rezoning approval of the vacant parcel of land at the southwest corner of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard and the adjacent single- family homes to the south from R5 (Multiple family) to C1 (Service /Office). The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89002 attached). The Secretary added that restrictive covenants are private and are not the responsibility of the City to enforce or necessarily abide by in its zoning of property. The Secretary also added that the Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting would be open and less formal. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the rezoning application had been initiated now because of the renewal of the covenant coming at about this time. The Secretary answered that last summer the City Council considered acquisition of lots along 1 -12 -89 _�_ Brooklyn Boulevard. There was also some inquiry by a real estate agent about the possibility of multiple family development. The City Council had indicated that it did not wish to see multiple family development P y ent in this area of Brooklyn Boulevard P y and asked for the rezoning action to C1 to commence. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the City would not have to observe the private covenant. The Secretary explained that the City was not bound by the private covenants insofaras they would inhibit the City from exercising its legitimate zoning authority. He pointed out that in the past private covenants had been illegally used to bar blacks and other minorities from buying homes in given subdivisions. He stated that such discriminatory covenants are not legal and could not be enforced. He stated that the covenant on the three homes along Brooklyn Boulevard was probably legal, but that the City is not a party to it. He stated that the covenants were used to do zoning in the 1950's to prevent land adjacent to residential subdivisions from being used for a gas station or similar commercial use. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89002) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 89002 and asked whether anyone present wished to speak. Mr. William R. Williams of 4018 65th Avenue North stated that he felt the Cl zoning as proposed was probably appropriate for the property in question. He stated that he felt that the existing multiple family zoning was inappropriate and that C2 zoning would also be inappropriate. He stated that he would like to see buffers created, notably fences, rather than berms, when commercial development is proposed adjacent to the residential neighborhood. He stated again that he agreed with the proposed - C1 zoning of the property. Commissioner Malecki asked which lots were under the private covenant. Mr. Williams and the Secretary stated that it was Lots 2, 3 and 4 of Block 1 of the subdivision (the three lots next to the large vacant parcel). In response to Mr. Williams comments, the Secretary explained that there is no plan for development as yet. He stated that the City is not necessarily going to spearhead a development of the property in the near future. He explained, therefore, that staff did not know what the layout of the proposed development would be and where buffers would be appropriate. Mr. Willard Bartos of 4106 65th Avenue North stated that the last two developments probably did not go forward because of the poor access onto Brooklyn Boulevard. He asked what types of development could be built on the property besides office buildings. The Secretary responded that the Cl zone allows for service /office uses, including real estate offices, medical clinics, accountants offices, etc. He then listed some C2 uses which are not allowed in the Cl zoning district, including retail sales, restaurants, gas stations, etc. In response to a question from Mr. Bartos about the location of a possible access road, the Secretary stated that there are many possibilities, including perhaps locating it across from France Avenue North. He stated that it was too early to speculate on a development layout. Mr. Bartos stated that they did not need any more traffic on 65th and that he would be against any development that would increase traffic in that area. Mr. Hershal Olson of 6532 Brooklyn Boulevard stated that a number of the houses along Brooklyn Boulevard in this area were for sale in the last year and asked why they had not been bought up. Chairman Nelson pointed out that the City had no plan for redevelopment as yet. Mr. Olson asked whether the City owned the large 4.5 acre parcel. The Secretary responded in the negative and added that the City does not own any of the property in consideration. He stated that the City Council decided ti 1 -12 -89 -4- last summer that it did not want to spend public money to acquire the houses, but would rather rezone the property and wait for a developer to acquire land and put together a development package. A P Mr. Lee Evensen of 4112 65th Avenue North briefly discussed access to the R5 zoned vacant lot. He noted that the City took the position with the Church on the Move and the ro osed office P P condominiums that no commercial traffic could come from Indiana. He stated that the homeowners in the area were in favor of prohibiting access from Indiana. In response to another comment from Mr. Evensen, the Secretary clarified that all of the land in question has been zoned R5 since at least 1968. Mr. Evensen noted the difficulties _ ulties of access off Brooklyn Boulevard evard and pointed out that the southbound traffic does not slow down until the light at 65th. The Secretary stated that changes have been considered to the freeway ramp from 4 eastbound 94 to southbound Brooklyn Boulevard including the possibility of making the traffic come to a complete stop rather than allowing a merge lane. He stated that nothing has been done along these lines and that the matter may still be studied further. He added that access to the large vacant parcel does exist, but is very, very difficult. Mr. Evensen stated that access to the vacant parcel would have to be a right turn in and out only because left turns would be too dangerous. The Secretary agreed and noted that a condition of both the church and the office development was the extension of the median within Brooklyn Boulevard to make access to the large parcel a right -in /right -out access only. Mr. Evensen asked whether the City had been approached about buying any of the properties. The Secretary stated that the City has considered buying some of the _ homes, but has declined to do so to this point. He added that the City has recommended that the single- family homes be acquired to improve access to the large vacant parcel. The Secretary explained that the R5 zoning allows three- storey apartments at up to 16 units per acre and that the City could not deny such a development proposal under the current zoning. He explained that, although the Comprehensive Plan does not recommend high- density residential in the area, the Zoning Ordinance prevails over the Comprehensive Plan in establishing development rights for given parcels of land. Mr. Evensen asked whether the property in question could become zoned C2 at some time in the future. Chairman Nelson stated that there would have to be a public hearing and full rezoning process before that could happen and that the neighbors would be notified. The Secretary added that he could not guarantee against the possibility of C2 zoning someday, but that it does not fit with the Comprehensive Plan as of today. Mr. William R. Williams again asked that the City consider ways of protecting the single- family homes for whatever type of development was ultimately built on the property. He again stated that he preferred fences over berms and asked that the neighbors be consulted when development plans are proposed. The Secretary answered that there are requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for buffers. and screening of commercial developments adjacent to single - family zoned property. Mr. Williams stated that he would like to see something like a freeway fence. Mr. Bartos suggested only half seriously that the City buy up the whole area and turn it into an industrial park. Chairman Nelson stated that the public hearing will be reopened after the Neighborhood Advisory Group has submitted its comments. The Secretary stated that staff would try to set up the neighborhood meeting soon, possibly somewhere in the neighborhood. 1 -12 -89 -5- ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 89002 (City of Brooklyn Center) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to table Application No. 89002 and refer the proposed rezoning to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners L ecki, Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The ion passed. OTHER BUSINNESS Neighborhood Advisory Group Liaison Assignment The Secretary briefly reviewed with the Commission the need for liaison assignments to the Neighborhood Advisory Groups. He stated that Commissioner Malecki would represent the West Central Neighborhood, Commissioner Bernards the Southeast Neighborhood, Commissioner Ainas the Northwest Neighborhood, Commissioner Sander the Northeast Neighborhood and that Commissioners Johnson and Mann would have to decide who would represent the Southwest and Central Neighborhoods. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of upcoming business for the January 26 meeting, there was a motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Johnson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:08 p.m. Chairman 1 -12 -89 -6- v Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89002 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: Southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Rezoning The City requests that the vacant parcel of land at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard and the adjacent single - family homes to the south be rezoned from R5 (multiple family) to Cl (service /office). The properties in question are all presently zoned R5 and are bounded by I94 on the north, by Brooklyn Boulevard on the east, by three four - plexes on the south end, and by single - family homes on the south and west (see area map attached). Background In the past five years, there have been two development proposals for the large (4.5 acre) vacant parcel at the southwest quadrant of 194 and Brooklyn Boulevard. In 1983, Larry Cramer proposed an office condominium development of about 20 units, approximately 1,000 sq. ft. each. Although allowed by special use permit in the R5 zone, it was not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this area of Brooklyn Boulevard. The Plan recommended mid - density residential development (townhouses) along the boulevard from approximately 63rd Avenue North up to the freeway. The City responded to the proposal by adopting a Comprehensive Plan amendment to recommend service /office uses interchangeably with mid - density residential uses all along Brooklyn Boulevard. A special use permit was approved in 1983 and extended in 1984. The R5 zoning was left intact for the time being. The office proposal did not go forward, however, because Mr. Cramer was unable to obtain financing for the project. In 1985, Foundation Stone Ministries proposed a church for the large, vacant parcel. Churches were not a permitted or special use in the R5 zone, so they applied for a rezoning to Cl, in which "religious uses" are listed as a permitted use. The rezoning request was recommended by staff and the Planning Commission, but was denied by the City Council. Instead, the City Council acted to allow churches in the R5 zone as a special use. A special use permit for the church was granted; however, for reasons which were never made clear, the church chose to locate elsewhere. It is likely that the soil problems on the site played at least some part in the church's decision to go elsewhere. There are severe soil problems on the site which will require correction for full development of the site. Another factor which may inhibit development of the rezoned district is that the single - family lots to the south along Brooklyn Boulevard are under a restrictive covenant which prohibits commercial use of those lots. Thus, even if the single- familylots are rezoned to Cl, development of the properties for service /office use may be blocked unless all the other property owners in the plat release these lots from the restrictive covenant. The covenant is coming up for renewal in the relatively near future. This may, therefore, be a good time to seek such a release. Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings All rezoning requests are evaluated under a set of guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). The following comments are offered to address the guidelines. a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? 1 -12 -89 -1- Application No. 89002 continued We do not believe that the lots in question are any longer appropriate for residential use. We believe there is a benefit in zoning the property to C1, allowing for a low - intensity commercial use and precluding residential development of the property. b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? The Cl zoning is very compatible with single - family uses and is often used as a buffer zone between single- family homes and more intense zoning districts. We believe a low -rise office development will perform such a buffering function in this case also. N' C) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning ;district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Yes they can. A higher zoning district such as C2 would have some limitations because some uses comprehended in the C2 zoning district cannot abut R1 zoned property. Likewise, some uses allowed in the R5 zone - namely the residential uses -are not really appropriate for these properties. We believe, therefore, that the R5 zoning is no longer really appropriate. The Cl permitted and special uses more closely fit the constraints of developing and redeveloping these lots. d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? No, there have not been significant changes, except for an increase in traffic g g , p ra is along the freeway and along Brooklyn Boulevard. The increased traffic is one key reason why a residential zoning of the property is no longer appropriate. Another change that has occurred over the past ten years is that the Comprehensive Plan has been amended to recommend service /office use as well as mid - density residential in this section of Brooklyn Boulevard. High density residential development as is comprehended by the exiting R5 zoning is not recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. e) In the case of City - initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? The purpose of this rezoning proposal is to insure that development and redevelopment of this property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. At present, the R5 zoning would allow for high - density residential development which would be inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. A low -rise office development will be the most compatible land use in this location, given the surrounding land uses and roads. f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? i Yes, but there will be difficulty in redeveloping the single - family lots for any use. It is hoped that some or all of the single - family lots will be combined with the large, vacant parcel so that an improved access can be arranged for the site. The one acre minimum lot size for Cl lots along major thoroughfares will require that there be some combination of land parcels among the single - family lots before, or in conjunction with, redevelopment. It would probably be easier for the single- family lots to be used for access and parking. However, there are office 1 -12 -89 -2- a Application No. 89002 continued developments on Brooklyn Boulevard with similar lot depths; so it is certainly possible that the single- family lots could be converted to smaller office developments. We do not recommend home conversions in this area as a long run use of the property. The most efficient use of the land would result from clearing the existing houses and building new office buildings on parcels at least one acre in size and with consolidated access. g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? We feel generally that this is not a good location for residential development. The single - family lots in particular have insufficient depth to buffer residences from Brooklyn Boulevard and arrange for parking and driveways on the site. It is possible, but not really desirable. Again, most of the single- family lots are too narrow to meet the minimum R5 width of 100 This lack of width would require consolidation of land parcels for redevelopment. The same would be the case, of course, with office redevelopment. h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? The proposed rezoning is certainly warranted by the City's Comprehensive Plan which recommends service /office development in this area of the boulevard. As to the lack of developable land in the Cl district, there is a lack of vacant land in almost all zoning districts, except perhaps the industrial districts. Finally, we believe the rezoning proposal is in the best interests of the community in that it should provide eventually for an appropriate use that is compatible with both the adjacent roadways and the adjacent single - family homes. i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? This is a City - initiated rezoning. As we have stated above, there is definitely merit to the proposed rezoning beyond the interests of the property owners. The property owners would probably prefer a rezoning to C2 since that would allow for more intense development. Such a rezoning would, however, exceed the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Procedure The standard procedure with rezoning applications is for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and then table the application, referring it to a neighborhood advisory group (in this case the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group). The neighborhood advisory group will meet sometime within the next month or so and then convey its recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Commission will then continue the public hearing and finally make its recommendation to the City Council. The City Council then holds a hearing and ultimately makes the final decision. Based on this procedure, we recommend that the application be tabled and referred to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group. 1 -12 -89 -3- MEMORANDUM TO: West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group Donald Ewert 537 -5361 Walt Orgas 533 -7938 Mary Jo Danielson 533 -4424 Patricia Weitzel 533 - 8364 Molly Malecki 535 -1928 FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection� " DATE: February 16 1989 SUBJECT: Review of Planning Commission Application No. 89002 (Rezoning) The Planning Commission considered the above matter at a public hearing on January 12, 1989 and has referred this rezoning request to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The application has been submitted by the City which requests rezoning from R5 to Cl of the lots addressed 6451 through 6533 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property involved includes Welcome Community Home, five single - family residences and a 4.5 acre vacant parcel at the southwest quadrant of I694 and Brooklyn Boulevard. The land in question is bounded by I694 on the north, by Brooklyn Boulevard on the east, by three four - plexes at the southern end, and by single - family homes on the south and west. The purpose of the rezoning is to eliminate multiple - family housing as a development option for this area (the R5 zone is a multiple - family zoning district allowing apartments up to 3 storeys in height) and to bring the zoning of the property into conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends either service /office uses (C1 zone) or townhouse uses (R3 zone) for the land along Brooklyn Boulevard from 63rd Avenue North to the freeway. There is no formal development proposal associated with this rezoning request. Although no development proposal accompanies the rezoning, representatives of Public Storage (mini- warehouses) have indicated an interest in the large vacant parcel at 694 and Brooklyn Boulevard and will likely attend the meeting. I wish to emphasize that the Public Storage proposal is entirely separate and has no endorsement from the City. In fact, we have indicated to Public Storage, in correspondence which is attached, that mini - warehouses are considered an industrial use and are not comprehended in the C1 zone. They may seek an ordinance amendment which would allow mini-storage in either the C1 or R zon n district. g g et. However, I wish to make clear to the neighborhood group that City staff are opposed to such an ordinance amendment. Therefore, we would urge all interested parties to understand that the proposed rezoning to C1 has no relation to the Public Storage proposal and vice versa. They have simply asked for a chance to meet with neighbors and offer their concepts and we have, accordingly, informed them of this meeting. The following information is enclosed for your review: 1. The Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89002 and the minutes of the January 12, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. 2. Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance which is the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines. Memo Page 2 February 16, 1989 3. A map of the area showing the location of the properties to be rezoned in relation to other lots, the freeway, etc. 4. A copy of Section 35 -314 of the City's Zoning Ordinance regarding uses allowed in the R5 zoning district. 5. A copy of Section 35 -320 of the City's Zoning Ordinance regarding uses allowed in the C1 zoning district. 6. Table 14 and Figure 15 of the City's Comprehensive Plan which list recommended Land Use Revisions. 7. Correspondence to Daniel J. Rooney of Public Storage dated December 20, 1989 outlining where staff feels a mini - warehouse use fits in the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. The West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, February 21, 1989 and will be held in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Commission would appreciate your written comments and /or recommendation within thirty days. If you have any questions or' comments regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your participation. RAW:mll Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89002 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: Southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Rezoning The City requests that the vacant parcel of land at the southwest quadrant of 194 and Brooklyn Boulevard and the adjacent single - family homes to the south be rezoned from R5 (multiple family) to Cl (service /office). The properties in question are all presently zoned R5 and are bounded by I94 on the north, by Brooklyn Boulevard on the east, by three four- plexes on the south end, and by single - family homes on the south and west (see area map attached). Background In the past five years, there have been two development proposals for the large (4.5 acre) vacant parcel at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. In 1983, Larry Cramer proposed an office condominium development of about 20 units, approximately 1,000 sq. ft. each. Although allowed by special use permit in the R5 zone, it was not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this area of Brooklyn Boulevard. The Plan recommended mid - density residential development (townhouses) along the boulevard from approximately 63rd Avenue North up to the freeway. The City responded to the proposal by adopting a Comprehensive Plan amendment to recommend service /office uses interchangeably with mid - density residential uses all along Brooklyn Boulevard. A special use permit was approved in 1983 and extended in 1984. The R5 zoning was left intact for the time being. The office proposal did not go forward, however, because Mr. Cramer was unable to obtain financing for the project. In 1985, Foundation Stone Ministries proposed a church for the large, vacant parcel. Churches were not a permitted or special use in the R5 zone, so they applied for a rezoning to Cl, in which "religious uses" are listed as a permitted use. The rezoning request was recommended by staff and the Planning Commission, but was denied by the City Council. Instead, the City Council acted to allow churches in the R5 zone as a special use. A special use permit for the church was granted; however, for reasons which were never made clear, the church chose to locate elsewhere. It is likely that the soil problems on the site played at least some part in the church's decision to go elsewhere. There are severe soil problems on the site which will require correction for full development of the site. Another factor which may inhibit development of the rezoned district is that the single - family lots to the south along Brooklyn Boulevard are under a restrictive covenant which prohibits commercial use of those lots. Thus, even if the single - family lots are rezoned to Cl, development of the properties for service /office use may be blocked unless all the other property owners in the plat release these lots from the restrictive covenant. The covenant is coming up for renewal in the relatively near future. This may, therefore, be a good time to seek such a release. Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings All rezoning requests are evaluated under a set of guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). The following comments are offered to address the guidelines. a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? 1 -12 -89 -1- Application No. 89002 continued We do not believe that the lots in question are any longer appropriate for residential use. We believe there is a benefit in zoning the property to Cl, allowing for a low- intensity commercial use and precluding residential development of the property. b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? The Cl zoning is very compatible with single - family uses and is often used as a buffer zone between single - family homes and more intense zoning districts. We believe a low -rise office development will perform such a buffering function in this case also. c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning ;district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Yes they can. A higher zoning district such as C2 would have some limitations because some uses comprehended in the C2 zoning district cannot abut R1 zoned property. Likewise, some uses allowed in the R5 zone - namely the residential uses - are not really appropriate for these properties. We believe, therefore, that the R5 zoning is no longer really appropriate. The Cl permitted and special uses more closely fit the constraints of developing and redeveloping these lots. d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? No, there have not been significant changes, except for an increase in traffic along the freeway and along Brooklyn Boulevard. The increased traffic is one key reason why a residential zoning of the property is no longer appropriate. Another change that has occurred over the past ten years is that the Comprehensive Plan has been amended to recommend service /office use as well as mid - density residential in this section of Brooklyn Boulevard. High density residential development as is comprehended by the exiting R5 zoning is not recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? The purpose of this rezoning proposal is to insure that development and redevelopment of this property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. At present, the R5 zoning would allow for high - density residential development which would be inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. A low -rise office development will be the most compatible land use in this location, given the surrounding land uses and roads. f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? Yes, but there will be difficulty in redeveloping the single - family lots for any use. It is hoped that some or all of the single- family lots will be combined with the large, vacant parcel so that an improved access can be arranged for the site. The one acre minimum lot size for Cl lots along major thoroughfares will require that there be some combination of land parcels among the single - family lots before, or in conjunction with, redevelopment. It would probably be easier for the single - family lots to be used for access and parking. However, there are office 1 -12 -89 -2- Application No. 89002 continued developments on Brooklyn Boulevard with similar lot depths; so it is certainly possible that the single- family lots could be converted to smaller office developments. ';de do not recommend home conversions in this area as a long run use of the property. The most efficient use of the land would result from clearing the existing houses and building new office buildings on parcels at least one acre in size and with consolidated access. g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? We feel generally that this is not a good location for residential development. The single- family lots in particular have insufficient depth to buffer residences from Brooklyn Boulevard and arrange for parking and driveways on the site. It is possible, but not really desirable. Again, most of the single- family lots are too narrow to meet the minimum R5 width of 100 This lack of width would require consolidation of land parcels for redevelopment. The same would be the case, of course, with office redevelopment. h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? The proposed rezoning is certainly warranted by the City's Comprehensive Plan which recommends service /office development in this area of the boulevard. As to the lack of developable land in the C1 district, there is a lack of vacant land in almost all zoning districts, except perhaps the industrial districts. Finally, we believe the rezoning proposal is in the best interests of the community in that it should provide eventually for an appropriate use that is compatible with both the adjacent roadways and the adjacent single- family homes. i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? This is a City- initiated rezoning. As we have stated above, there is definitely merit to the proposed rezoning beyond the interests of the property owners. The property owners would probably prefer a rezoning to C2 since that would allow for more intense development. Such a rezoning would, however, exceed the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Procedure The standard procedure with rezoning applications is for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and then table the application, referring it to a neighborhood advisory group (in this case the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group). The neighborhood advisory group will meet sometime within the next month or so and then convey its recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Commission will then continue the public hearing and finally make its recommendation to the City Council. The City Council then holds a hearing and ultimately makes the final decision. Based on this procedure, we recommend that the application be tabled and referred to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group. 1 -12 -39 _�_ CLOSE PUBLIC HE ARING otion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing on Application No. 89001. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Nelson asked the Planning Commission for their preference on the application. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt that the Commission should consider an ordinance amendment redefining major thoroughfares. He stated that nonconforming structures will be with the City for a long time and it maybe better to resolve these nonconformities now. He suggested that the Commission perhaps discuss an ordinance amendment at a subsequent meeting. Commissioner Johnson stated that he was also in favor of an ordinance amendment. He recommended that the Commission look at areas with the most nonconformities and eliminate those nonconformities by an ordinance amendment. The Secretary asked Commissioner Johnson whether he meant to amend the ordinance so that Brooklyn Boulevard would also not be a major thoroughfare. Commissioner Johnson responded in the negative and added that 57th west of Logan should continue to be a major thoroughfare. Commissioner Johnson asked where most of the nonconforming structures are located. The Planner answered that most of the nonconformities are along County Road 57, along 69th Avenue North, and along Bass Lake Road. He added that there are few, if any, nonconformities along Xerxes Avenue North or along Humboldt Avenue North between 65th and 69th Avenues North. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the 20' setback as proposed would be okay. The Secretary answered that, if 57th in this area were no longer a major thoroughfare, the normal ordinance setback requirement would be only 15', since it is a lot of record prior to December 1957. He added that the applicant would probably continue with a 20' setback so that a car could be parked between the sidewalk and the new garage. The Secretary asked Mrs. Anderson if that was the case. Mrs. Anderson responded in the affirmative, stating that she did want to be able to park a car in front of the garage. The Secretary stated that the Commission could table the application and direct staff to bring back language for an ordinance amendment for the next meeting. ACTION RECOMMENDING TABLING APPLICATION NO. 89001 AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — — Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to table Application No. 89001 and direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment redefining major thoroughfares in the Zoning Ordinance. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89002 (City of Brooklyn Center) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for rezoning approval of the vacant parcel of land at the southwest corner of 194 and Brooklyn Boulevard and the adjacent single - family homes to the south from R5 (Multiple family) to C1 (Service /Office). The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89002 attached). The Secretary added that restrictive covenants are private and are not the responsibility of the City to enforce or necessarily abide by in its zoning of property. The Secretary also added that the Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting would be open and less formal. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the rezoning application had been initiated now because of the renewal of the covenant coming at about this time. The Secretary answered that last summer the City Council considered acquisition of lots along 1 -12 -89 _�_ Brooklyn Boulevard. There was also some inquiry by a real estate agent about the possibility of multiple family development. The City Council had indicated that it did not wish to see multiple family development in this area of Brooklyn Boulevard and asked for the rezoning action to C1 to commence. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the City would not have to observe the private covenant. The Secretary explained that the City was not bound by the private covenants insofaras they would r inhibit the City from exercising its legitimate zoning authority. He pointed out that in the past private covenants had been illegally used to bar blacks and other minorities from buying homes in given subdivisions. He stated that such discriminatory covenants are not legal and could not be enforced. He stated that the covenant on the three homes along Brooklyn Boulevard was probably legal, but that the City is not a party to it. He stated - that the covenants were used to do zoning in the 1950's to prevent land adjacent to residential subdivisions from being used for a gas station or similar commercial use. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89002) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 89002 and asked whether anyone present wished to speak. Mr. William R. Williams of 4018 65th Avenue North stated that he felt the Cl zoning as proposed was probably appropriate for the property in question. He stated that he felt that the existing multiple family zoning was inappropriate and that C2 zoning would also be inappropriate. He stated that he would like to see buffers created, notably fences, rather than berms, when commercial development is proposed adjacent to the residential neighborhood. He stated again that he agreed with the proposed C1 zoning of the property. Commissioner Malecki asked which lots were under the private covenant. Mr. Williams and the Secretary stated that it was Lots 2, 3 and 4 of Block 1 of the subdivision (the three lots next to the large vacant parcel). In response to Mr. Williams comments, the Secretary explained that there is no plan for development as yet. He stated that the City is not necessarily going to spearhead a development of the property in the near future. He explained, therefore, that staff did not know what the layout of the proposed development would be and where buffers would be appropriate. Mr. Willard Bartos of 4106 65th Avenue North stated that the last two developments probably did not go forward because of the poor access onto Brooklyn Boulevard. He asked what types of development could be built on the property besides office buildings. The Secretary responded that the C1 zone allows for service /office uses, including real estate offices, medical clinics, accountants offices, etc. He then listed some C2 uses which are not allowed in the Cl zoning district, including retail sales, restaurants, gas stations, etc. In response to a question from Mr. Bartos about the location of a possible access road, the Secretary stated that there are many possibilities, including perhaps locating it across from France Avenue North. He stated that it was too early to speculate on a development layout. Mr. Bartos stated that they did not need any more traffic on 65th and that he would be against any development that would increase traffic in that area. Mr. Hershal Olson of 6532 Brooklyn Boulevard stated that a number of the houses along Brooklyn Boulevard in this area were for sale in the last year and asked why they had not been bought up. Chairman Nelson pointed out that the City had no plan for redevelopment as yet. Mr. Olson asked whether the City owned the large 4.5 acre parcel. The Secretary responded in the negative and added that the City does not own any of the property in consideration. He stated that the City Council decided 1 -12 -89 -4- last summer that it did not want to spend public money to acquire the houses, but would rather rezone the property and wait for a developer to acquire land and put together a development package. Mr. Lee Evensen of 4112 65th Avenue North briefly discussed access to the R5 zoned vacant lot. He noted that the City took the position with the Church on the Move and the proposed office condominiums that no commercial traffic could come from Indiana. He stated that the homeowners in the area were in favor of prohibiting access from Indiana. In response to another comment from Mr. Evensen, the Secretary clarified that all of the land in question has been zoned R5 since at least 1968. Mr. Evensen noted the difficulties of access off Brooklyn Boulevard and pointed out that the southbound traffic does not slow down until the light at 65th. The Secretary stated that changes have been considered to the freeway ramp from eastbound 94 to southbound Brooklyn Boulevard including the possibility of making the traffic come to a complete stop ather than allowing ng a merge lane. He stated that nothing has been done along these lines and that the matter may still be studied further. He added that access to the large vacant parcel does exist, but is very, very difficult. Mr. Evensen stated that access to the vacant parcel would have to be a right turn in and out only because left turns would be too dangerous. The Secretary agreed and noted that a condition of both the church and the office development was the extension of the median within Brooklyn Boulevard to make access to the large parcel a right -in /right -out access only. Mr. Evensen asked whether the City had been approached about buying any of the properties. The Secretary stated that the City has considered buying some of the homes, but has declined to do so to this point. He added that the City has recommended that the single - family homes be acquired to improve access to the large vacant parcel. The Secretary explained that the R5 zoning allows three- storey apartments at up to 16 units per acre and that the City could not deny such a development proposal under the current zoning. He explained that, although the Comprehensive Plan does not recommend high- density residential in the area, the Zoning Ordinance prevails over the Comprehensive Plan in establishing development rights for given parcels of land. Mr. Evensen asked whether the property in question could become zoned C2 at some time in the future. Chairman Nelson stated that there would have to be a public hearing and full rezoning process before that could happen and that the neighbors would be notified. The Secretary added that he could not guarantee against the possibility of C2 zoning someday, but that it does not fit with the Comprehensive Plan as of today. Mr. William R. Williams again asked that the City consider ways of protecting the single- family homes for whatever type of development was ultimately built on the property. He again stated that he preferred fences over berms and asked that the neighbors be consulted when development plans are proposed. The Secretary answered that there are requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for buffers and screening of commercial developments adjacent to single - family zoned property. Mr. Williams stated that he would like to see something like a freeway fence. Mr. Bartos suggested only half seriously that the City buy up the whole area and turn it into an industrial park. Chairman Nelson stated that the public hearing will be reopened after the Neighborhood Advisory Group has submitted its comments. The Secretary stated that staff would try to set up the neighborhood meeting soon, possibly somewhere in the neighborhood. 1 -12 -89 -5- ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 89002 (City of Brooklyn Center) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to table Application No. 89002 and refer the proposed rezoning to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS Neighborhood Advisory Group Liaison Assignment The Secretary briefly reviewed with the Commission the need for liaison assignments to the Neighborhood Advisory Groups. He stated that Commissioner Malecki would represent the West Central Neighborhood, Commissioner Bernards the Southeast Neighborhood, Commissioner Ainas the Northwest Neighborhood, Commissioner Sander the Northeast Neighborhood and that Commissioners Johnson and Mann would have to decide who would represent the Southwest and Central Neighborhoods. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of upcoming business for the January 26 meeting, there was a motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Johnson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:08 p.m. Chairman 1 -12 -89 -6- Section 35 -208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the com- prehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaulation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77 -167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Policy is the policy of the City that: a) zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning," defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and against these guidlines which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. Guidelines (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be comtemplated for development of the subject property? (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? (e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, con- figuration, topography or location? (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? t� A �nNa�■r � p p n N. MOUND CEMETARY an �i C2 ° �ui, WANGSTAD ARK Section 35 -313. R4 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a. Multiple family dwellings of one and one -half or two stories in height. b. R3 uses, provided such uses shall adhere to the district requirements that prevail in the R3 zoning district. C. Parks, playgrounds, athletic fields and other recreational uses of a noncommercial nature. d. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial accessory uses. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Garages for use by occupants of the principal use. 3. Playground equipment and installations, including swimming pools and tennis courts. 4. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 5. A real estate office for the ur ose p p of leasing or selling apartment units in the development in which it is located. 6. Home occupations not to include special home occupations as defined in Section 35 -900. 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35 -410 of these ordinances. 3. Special Uses a. Nursing care homes, (at not more than 50 beds per acre), maternity care homes, boarding care homes and child care homes, provided that these institutions shall, where required by state law, or regulation, or by municipal ordinance, be licensed by the appropriate state or municipal authority. Section 35 -314 R5 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. I � 1. Permitted Uses a. Multiple family dwellings of two and one half or three stories in height. b. R3 uses, provided such uses shall adhere to the district requirements that prevail in the R3 zoning district. 35 -314 C . R4 uses, provided such uses shall adhere to the district requirements that prevail in the R4 zoning district. d. Parks, playgrounds, athletic fields and other recreational uses of a noncommercial nature. e. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial accessory use. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Garages and ramps for use by occupants of the principal use. 3. Playground equipment and installations, including swimming pools and tennis courts. 4. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 5. A real estate office for the purpose of leasing or selling apartment units in the development in which it is located. 6. Home occupations not to include special home occupations as defined in Section 35 -900. 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35 -410 of these ordinances. 3. Special Uses a. Nursing care homes, (at not more than 50 beds per acre), maternity care homes, boarding care homes and child care homes, provided that these institutions shall, where required by state law, or regulation, or by municipal ordinance, be licensed by the appropriate state or municipal authority. b. Certain service- office uses which, in each specific case, are demonstrated to the City Council to be: 1. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the R5 district generally. 2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to those uses permitted in the R5 district generally. 3. Of comparable intensity to permitted R5 district land uses with respect to activity levels. 35 -314 4. Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be within the capacity of available public facilities and will not have an adverse impact upon those facilities, the immediate neighborhood, or the community. and which are described in Section 35 -320, Subsections 1 (b) (c) (d) and (j) through (t). Such service- office uses shall be subject to the C1 district requirements of Sections 35 -400 and 35 -411, and shall otherwise be subject to the ordinance requirements of the use classification which the proposed use represents. C. Chapels, churches, synagogues and temples, provided primary vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street. Section 35 -315. R6 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a. Multiple family dwellings of four or five stories in height. b. Low rise multiple family dwellings of one and one -half through three stories in height, provided such low rise dwellings are part of a planned integral development with (a) above. Further provided such low rise dwellings: 1. Shall contain no more than 65% of the total dwelling units in the planned development. 2. Shall conform to the density requirements of the zoning district which their respective heights prescribe. C. Retail food shops, drycleaning pickup stations, beauty parlors, barber shops, and valet shops within multiple family dwellings containing 30 or more dwelling units. Such shops shall be accessible to the public through a lobby with no advertising or display to be visible from outside the building, and shall be restricted to the ground floor or subfloors. d. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial uses. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: I. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Garages and ramps for use by occupants of the principal use. 3. Swimming pools and tennis courts. 4. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 5. A real estate office for the purpose of leasing or selling apartment units in the development in which it is located. 35 -316 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35 -410 of these ordinances. f Special 35 -320 Cl SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses The following service /office uses are permitted in the C1 district, provided that the height of each establishment or building shall not exceed three stories, or in the event that a basement is proposed, three stories plus basement: a. Nursing care homes, (at not more than 50 beds per acre), maternity care homes, child care homes, boarding care homes, provided, however, that such institutions shall, where required by state law, or regulations of the licensing authority, be licensed by the appropriate state or municipal authority. b. Finance, insurance, real estate and investment office. C. Medical, dental, osteopathic, chiropractic and optometric offices. d. Legal office, engineering and architectural offices, educational and scientific research offices (excluding laboratory facilities) accounting, auditing and bookkeeping offices, urban planning agency offices. e. Religious uses, welfare and charitable uses, libraries and art galleries. f. Beauty and barber services. g. Funeral and crematory services. h. Photographic services. i. Apparel repair, alteration and cleaning pickup stations, shoe repair. j. Advertising offices, provided that the fabrication of signs shall not be a permitted use. k. Consumer and mercantile credit reporting services office, adjustment and collection service offices. 1. Duplicating, mailing and stenographic service offices. M. Employment agency offices. n. Business and management consultant offices. o. Detective and protective agency offices. 35 -320 p. Contractor's offices. Governmental ernmental offices. z r. Business association, professional membership organizations, labor unions, civic, social and fraternal association offices. S. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses when ` located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 3. The compounding, dispensing r sale at retail) g ( ail of drugs, g s , prescription items, patent or proprietary medicines, sick room supplies, prosthetic devices or items relating to any of the foregoing when conducted in the building occupied primarily by medical, dental, osteopathic, chiropractic or optometric offices. 4. Retail food shops, gift shops, book and stationery shops, tobacco shops, accessory eating establishments, sale and service of office supply equipment, newsstands and similar accessory retail shops within multistory office buildings over 40,000 sq. ft. in gross floor area, provided: that there is no associated signery visible from the exterior of the building; there is no carry -out or delivery of food from the lot; and the total floor area of all such shops within a building shall not exceed 10% of the total gross floor area of the building. t. Other uses similar in nature to the aforementioned uses as determined by the City Council. U. Financial institutions including, but not limited to, full - service banks and savings and loan associations. v. Drop -in child care centers licensed by the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare pursuant to a valid license application, provided that a copy of said license and application shall be submitted annually to the City. 2. Special Requirement a. See Section 35 -411 of these ordinances. 35 -320 3. Special Uses a. Accessory off -site parking not located on the same property with the principal use, subject to the provisions of Section 35 -701. b. Group day care facilities provided they are not located on the same property as or adjacent to a use which is not permitted to abut Rl, R2, R3 zoned land and provided that such developments, in each specific case, are demonstrated to be: I. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the Cl district generally. 2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to those uses permitted in the Cl district generally. 3. Of comparable intensity to permitted Cl district land uses with respect to activity levels. 4. Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be within the capacity of available public facilities and will not have an adverse impact upon those facilities, the immediate neighborhood, or the community. 5. Traffic generated by other uses on the site will not pose a danger to children served by the day care use. and further provided that the special requirements set forth in Section 35 -411 are adhered to. C. Instructional uses for art, music, photography, decorating, dancing and the like and studios for like activity. Section 35 -321 CIA SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses (No height limitation) a. All of the permitted uses set forth in Section 35 -320 shall be permitted in a building or establishment in the CIA district. 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35 -411 of these ordinances. 3. Special Uses a. Accessory off -site parking not located on the same property with the principal use, subject to the provisions of Section 35 -701. b. All of the special uses set forth in Section 35 -320 shall be allowed by special use permit in the CIA district. TABLE 14 Land Use Plan Revisions _ Location Number Recommended Land Use la. Mid - Density Residential or Public Land lb. Mid- Density Residential 2. Single - Family Residential 3. Commercial Retail 4 . Commercial Retail 5. Mid- Density Residential 6a. Light Industrial 6b. Light Industrial 6c. Mid- Density Residential 7a• Single - Family Residential 7b• Public Open Space 8. Multiple - Family Residential 9• Commercial /Retail 10. Commercial /Retail 11. Mixed Use Development (Including High - Density, High -Rise Residential, Service /Office and General Commerce) 12. Mid - Density Residential /High Density Residential 1 3. Mid- Density Residential 14 . Single- or Two - Family Residential 1 5. Public Open Space 16. Public Open Space 1 7• Mid- Density Residential 18. Light Industrial 1 9• Commercial 20. Low - Density Residential 21. Service /Office 22• Low- Density Residential �3• Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential 24. Service /Office 2 5• Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential 26. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential 27• Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential 28. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential 2 9• Commercial Retail 30 Mid - Density Residential /Service /Office 31. Service /Office /Mid- Density Residential 32. Mid- Density Residential /Service /Office 33• Mid- Density Residential /Service /Office 34. Mid- Density Residential 35. Commercial Retail 36. Mid - Density Residential /Service /Office 37. Mid - Density Residential 38. Single - Family Residential 39 . Service /Office 40. Commercial Retail 41• Service /Office 42. Mid- Density Residential 98 39 An Fk ,5 • � I 4 ��. I�`Z- r �cr • F ( 6c a :;t�r� 6a ,', • . n • �M� r -_�. o ?. �°e '�`� .� -��:" •: JL 1 1_. ry ,,\• r p ) „ �---- •- -••- -- -. .�` X28 `° � ,; � ; �{ -- ki :r d ✓/C w J � V : t F n LL i/ �L -, /, L " ^ � � 7 f � }-- .•er� �t .? �. � � f ,.'.r — i {�'`lf k t { r� s ,t "`µt: ��,. �'?•�-"k t �I i - ; � L'7 � � : F ! � � � , i ` 21 i z k k� 1 11 p L � TWIN II 1[ i IE LAKE - �_ j ° - t H. . i E •`�• �f A., y _ TWIN •` �I LAKEI {� •' �''j_ 13 REFERENCE NUMBER Land Use •,� ��, ^ -- o'er Plan A� Revisions ICom r luny p ehensive Plan � BMM W��ca Vn.N,y,aw�C R CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 ~ C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 December 20, 1988 Daniel J. Rooney Public Storage, Inc. 1 Appletree Square, Suite 1382 Bloomington, MN 55420 Re: Storage Use at the Southwest corner of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard Dear Mr. Rooney: This letter is to respond in writing to the proposal by Public Storage, Inc. to locate mini - warehouses on the vacant, R5 -zoned parcel of land at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard in Brooklyn Center. Warehousing and storage uses are neither a permitted nor a special use in this R5 zoning district. There is, therefore, noway that your proposed use could occupy the parcel in question under the existing zoning. You should be aware, however, that the City intends to initiate a rezoning of this property to Cl early next year. The Cl zoning district is a service office zoning district which is more in keeping with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan recommends either mid - density residential (R3 /townhouse) or service /office development in the area of Brooklyn Boulevard betwen 63rd Avenue North and the freeway. The City Council believes that the subject property is not really appropriate for multiple residential development and, therefore, the existing R5 zoning and a potential R3 zoning of the property have been rejected. The Cl zoning district, as I have indicated, is a service /office zoning district. It does not comprehend warehousing and storage as either a permitted or a special use (see Section 35 -320 listing Cl uses, attached), nor do I feel it should. What you are proposing for the property, whatever the traffic and aesthetics are, is basically in conflict with the land use recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan. If you wish to pursue the matter, I see two potential avenues for you to follow. One would be to propose an alternative rezoning of the property to I -1 or I -2, zoning districts which comprehend warehousing and storage as either a permitted (I -2) or special (I -1) use. Such a rezoning would require an amendment of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and would impose wide buffer requirements (100') from the adjacent residences (thus severely impacting the development of the site). ti Daniel J. Rooney Page 2 December 20, 1988 1 Another avenue would be to seek a determination from the City Council that warehousing and storage, of the type you propose, is similar in nature to other uses Permitted in the Cl zoning district (assuming for the moment that the rezonin is accomplished). As I indicated to g you in our meeting of December 9th, the City Council has already evaluated the question of warehousing and storage of the type You propose in the C2 zoning district approximately 15 years ago. Their determination was that mini - warehouses belong in the industrial zoning districts. It seems doubtful that the City Council would accept in the Cl zoning district a use that has been barred from the C2 zoning district (a less restrictive district), but it is your right to make such an appeal and we will certainly process your application. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me at this office. Sincerely, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection RAW:mll cc: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager Gary Shallcross, Planner i MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE WEST CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP FEBRUARY 21, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting began at approximately 7:35 p.m. with an explanation from Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren regarding the purpose of the meeting - to consider a City - initiated rezoning of land at the southwest corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard from R5 to Cl. ROLL CALL Walt Orgas, serving as chairman of the neighborhood advisory group, Patricia Weitzel and Mary Jo Danielson. Also present were Molly Malecki, Planning Commission liaison to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. REVIEW OF REZONING PROPOSAL Mr. Warren then reviewed with the people present the rezoning proposal for the area at the southwest corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and I694. He explained that it included the 4.5 acre vacant parcel at the intersection and five nonconforming single- family homes to the south along Brooklyn Boulevard. He explained that the proposal is to rezone the land from R5 to C1. He further explained that the C1 \ zoning district is alimited commerce or service /office zoning district. He stated that the purpose of the rezoning was to eliminate multiple - family housing as an option for this area. He explained that there is no formal development proposal accompanying the rezoning, but that a rezoning to C1 would make the zoning consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan which recommends either mid - density residential or service /office use in this area of Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Warren went on to review briefly two past proposals for the large vacant parcel at the intersection, including an office condominium proposal by Larry Cramer in 1983 and a proposal for a church by Foundation Stone Ministries in 1985. He explained that there was a proposal to rezone the land to C1 with the church proposal, but that the City Council decided to amend the Zoning Ordinance rather than to rezone the property. Mr. Warren went on to explain that there are soil problems on the large vacant parcel and that it has very limited access to Brooklyn Boulevard. He added that the City has opposed, and still is opposed to, allowing access to the large vacant parcel through the residential neighborhood to the west. Mr. Warren explained that the rezoning is to be evaluated in light of the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings from the Zoning Ordinance and referred the neighborhood advisory group to those guidelines. Mr. Warren concluded by explaining that Public Storage has indicated an interest in the property and has a development concept for the large vacant parcel. He emphasized that the City is not in favor of the proposed Public Storage use. He stated that representatives from Public Storage may want the City to amend its ordinance to allow mini-storage in the C1 zoning district, but he added that staff is opposed to such an ordinance amendment. He explained that a mini - warehouse proposal was rejected for the C2 zoning district in 1973• PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Orgas invited owners of the subject property to comment on the proposed rezoning. Mr. Jim Pearson, owner of the large vacant parcel, explained that the 2 -21 -89 -1- t past proposals did not go forward because they could not get financing. He stated that he thought Public Storage has a good proposal for the property. Mr. Orgas then asked whether any one of the owners of the single - family homes was present to speak. Mr. Dave Paulat, of 6521 Brooklyn Boulevard, expressed concern that he would be unable to expand his residence if the property were rezoned to C1. Mr. Warren explained that the homes in this block of Brooklyn Boulevard are presently nonconforming and could not be rebuilt if they were destroyed. He explained, however, that they could be expanded under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance under the R5 zoning, but would not be able to expand under the C1 zoning. Mr. Paulat stated that he leaned toward opposing the rezoning as long as there was no development proposal because of the impact the rezoning would have on his ability to expand the house. Mr. Orgas stated that he foresaw a problem if the houses were not acquired altogether at one time. Mr. Warren stated that the same problem would exist under the R5 zoning as well as the Cl zoning. He stated that the City could conceivably step in and purchase the properties, but that the City Council decided not to last summer. He stated that the City Council decided to trust market forces in redeveloping the property for the time being. He stated that the City Council discussed the inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the preference for C1 zoning in the area. He explained that, under the R5 zoning, the City could grant a special use permit for office development, but also could not deny a multiple- family development if it were proposed, which would be inconsistent with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. He again stated that the rezoning proposal is not to acknowledge the Public Storage proposal. In response to a question from Pat Weitzel regarding the homes on the other side of Brooklyn Boulevard, Mr. Warren explained that they are presently zoned C1 and are nonconforming. He stated that the office building at 65th and Brooklyn Boulevard is the only conforming use in that area. He stated that Brooklyn Boulevard carries a lot of traffic and that this area is not appropriate for single - family use. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan recommends either mid - density residential in this area or service /office. Mary Jo Danielson asked what would happen to the homes if they were zoned Cl? Would they have to sell to someone in particular? Mr. Warren answered in the negative. He explained that the homes would be nonconforming and would be allowed to continue, but not expand. He added that they would be allowed to continue as single - family homes unless discontinued for a period of at least two years. Mr. Orgas stated that he understood the reasons for the rezoning to C1, but was not sure about how the rezoning would enhance development. He cited a need to acquire the single- family homes to the south to improve the access to the large vacant parcel at the intersection at Brooklyn Boulevard and I694. He expressed concern that a couple of the homes might sell, but that others would be left. He stated that the rezoning would not solve that problem. He added that the residents in the area do not want any access to the large vacant parcel off Indiana Avenue. Mr. Warren stated that the City has also been opposed to any such access. Mr. Lee Evensen, of 4112 65th Avenue North, stated that the City opposed access off Indiana Avenue when the two previous development proposals were put forward. Mr. Warren agreed and stated that the City has the same stance right now. Gary Zimmerman, the owner of the house at 6527 Brooklyn Boulevard, noted the problem with access and agreed that the area is not good for single - family. He stated that 2 -21 -$9 -2- he preferred the C1 zoning to the R5 zoning at present. Mr. Paulat, of 6521 Brooklyn Boulevard, agreed that the area is better suited to C1 development than multiple- s family. Planning Commissioner Molly Malecki asked what could happen on the single - family lots if only the large vacant parcel were rezoned to C1. Mr. Warren explained that smaller multiple- family developments could be built on the single - family lots. Mr. Arnie Friedl, of 1 4012 65th Avenue North, stated that he was bordered on two sides by R5 zoned land. He asked what buffer would be provided if the land were rezoned to C1. Mr. Warren explained that a 15' buffer strip is required with a minimum 4' high opaque fence or landscaping, the same as is required in the R5 zone. He stated that such a buffer would be provided when the property was developed. PROPOSAL BY PUBLIC STORAGE Mr. Don Jensen, of Public Storage, then addressed the Neighborhood Advisory Group and those present. He showed the advisory group members a rendering of a development built in Golden Valley. He stated that Public Storage looks for land close to residential zoning districts for convenience. He stated that Public Storage is a low traffic generator, approximately 60 trips per day for a development on the large vacant parcel. He stated that most of the traffic would be on weekends. Mr. Jensen stated that self storage provides a good buffer between the residential neighborhood and the freeway and Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that the hours were daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. M r. Jensen emphasized that hazardous items would be prohibited from being stored in the warehouses. He also stated that music rehearsals would not be allowed. He stated that Public Storage locates in various zoning districts that provide convenience to potential users. He added that Public Storage would have a substantial landscape budget to provide plantings around the perimeter of the site. He sta ted that Public Storage is concerned with aesthetics. He noted that Public Storage buildings used to have flat roofs, but that now hip roof design was prevalent. Mr. Jensen went on to state that there would be a resident manager on the property to make sure the operation functions properly. He noted the use of wrought iron fencing with brick columns at other locations to serve as buffers. He showed the advisory group members a development layout for the large vacant parcel with 15 buffers and landscaping around the perimeter. He stated that Public Storage would want to appeal to the freeway interchange. He stated that - Public Storage would expect to be at this location for 30 -35 years and noted that the development would be financed by pension funds and insurance companies. He showed the advisory group members building elevations of the buildings that would be part of the complex. He emphasized again that such a use would not be noisy, would be a low traffic generator, and would not need good access. Mr. Tim Malloy, also representing Public Storage, stated that they would use wood fencing with brick pillars every 60' as they have in other locations. He again emphasized that it was a low traffic generator with little noise and a resident manager to supervise the project. He stated that Public Storage is not like an industrial use. Mr. Jensen added that Public Storage could tolerate poor soils more easily than an office development or a multiple - family development. He added that there is no other self storage within three to four miles. There followed an extended discussion of the Public Storage proposal. Mr. Jensen explained during the discussion that Public Storage rents for less than apartment space on a per square foot basis and that it, therefore, pays to store unused items in 2-21-89 -3- r MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION MARCH 30, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Mike Nelson at 8 :03 p.m. ROLL CALL _ Chairman Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson, Ella Sander and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 16, 1989 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the March 16, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Johnson and Sander. The motion passed. / - APPLICATION NO. 89002 (City of Brooklyn Center) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request to rezone from R5 to C1 the land at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard and the neighboring lots to the south. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report and the draft resolution recommending approval of the rezoning request (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89002, attached). PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89002) There being no comments or questions from the Commission, Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing on the application and asked whether anyone present wished to speak. No one spoke on the matter. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89 -3 (Application No. 89002) RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 89002 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -3 regarding disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 89002. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89011 (Public Storage) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, an appeal from a determination by staff that mini - storage facilities are not permitted in the C1 3 -30 -89 _1_ 4 f . Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89002 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center • Location: Southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Rezoning Application No. 89002, submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center, proposes to rezone from R5 to C1 the lots located at 6451 to 6533 Brooklyn Boulevard, including a 4.5 acre vacant parcel at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. The property is bounded on the north by 194, on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard, on the south by some four plexes and single-family homes and on the west b single-family g Y � � Y g Y homes. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its January 12, 1989 meeting, at which a public hearing was opened. The application was tabled by the Commission and referred to the West Central Neighborhood Advisor Group for g Y p review and comment. The West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group met on February 21, 1989 at City Hall to consider the matter. (Minutes of that meeting are attached for the Commission's review.) The neighborhood advisory group unanimously recommended the C1 zoning as proposed. One property owner, Mr. Dave Paulat of 6521 Brooklyn Boulevard, was mildly opposed to the rezoning since it would prohibit any further expansion of his home. We feel this area is simply not a good location for single- family homes and any further additions to these properties would be counterproductive. Other property owners generally favored the rezoning. Neighbors were generally concerned regarding access to the large vacant parcel and screening of that parcel from the single - family homes around it. We explained that the City is still opposed to any access from Indiana Avenue North to the west. We also noted the requirements for a 15' buffer and a minimum 4' high fence. The neighbors expressed a desire for higher fences. Representatives of Public Storage also made a presentation at the neighborhood meeting. They desire to build a mini - storage development on the 4.5 acre vacant parcel at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. (see appeal Application No. 89011 in this agenda packet.) As we stated at the neighborhood advisory group meeting, mini - storage is not acknowledged as either a permitted or special use in the C1 zoning district. The purpose of the City - initiated rezoning to C1 is in no way intended to accommodate the mini - storage use. Public Storage wishes the City to amend its Zoning Ordinance to allow mini - storage as a special use in the C1 zone and has set forth its arguments and draft ordinance language under appeal Application No. 89011. Staff are opposed to allowing warehousing and storage in the C1 zone. The neighborhood advisory group did not comment on the question of mini - storage. The public hearing on Application No. 89002 has been continued to this Thursday's meeting. Notices of the hearing, scheduled for 8:00 p.m., have been sent. A resolution recommending approval of the rezoning application has been drafted and is attached for the Commission's review. Adoption of the resolution is recommended. 3 -30 -89 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 89002 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, Application No. 89002, submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center, proposes rezoning from R5 (Multiple Family Residence District) to C1 (Service /Office District) of the 4.5 acre parcel at the southwest quadrant of 194 and Brooklyn Boulevard and the six lots addressed 6451 to 6527 Brooklyn Boulevard to the south; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on January 12, 1989 when testimony regarding the request was taken; and WHEREAS, the request was tabled and referred to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment, which met on February 21, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on March 30, 1989 again held a duly called public hearing regarding the matter; and WHEREAS, the rezoning request was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission by Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -3; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning was considered by the City Council at its April 10, 1989 regular meeting wherein a duly called public hearing was held and testimony regarding the rezoning request was accepted; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council in light of the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Rezoning Evaluation and Review Guidelines of Section 35- 208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 89002 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center be approved in consideration of the following: 1. The proposed C1 zoning district is consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications (Rl primarily to the south and west and major thoroughfares to the north and east). 2. All permitted uses in the C1 zoning district can be contemplated for development and /or redevelopment of the subject property. 3. The increased traffic on I94 and on Brooklyn Boulevard make residential development inappropriate in this location. 4. The subject property will, if combined to achieve greater lot areas, bear f ully the ordinance development restrictions of the C1 district. 5. The proposed C1 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this area of Brooklyn Boulevard (specifically area #33 of the Land Use Revisions Map). RESOLUTION NO. 6. In light of the above, it is believed that the proposed rezoning meets the guidelines for rezonings set forth in Section 35 -208 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member thereof: and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. w CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 4 -10 -89 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 89011 - Public Storage, Inc. DEPARTMEN ROVAL: l I Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X ) Planning Commission Application No. 89011 is an appeal from a determination by staff that mini - storage facilities are not permitted in the C1 zoning district. Public Storage wishes to locate a facility at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. Public Storage wishes to use the appeal as a vehicle for proposing an ordinance amendment to allow mini - storage by special use permit in the C1 zoning district. This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its March 30, 1989 meeting. Minutes are attached. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended denial of the application on the grounds that the use proposed is not similar in nature to other'Cl uses and would undermine the integrity of the C1 zoning district. TO: Ron Warren Director Planning & Inspection FROM: Sy Knapp Director of Public Works DATE: April 3, 1989 RE: P.C. Application 89002 and 89011 Land at Southwest Corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard At the request of Mr. Don Jenson of "Public Storage" (P.C. Application 89011) (Tel. No. 854 - 6579), I am listing the "Engineering Requirements" which should be considered as conditions to any site plan developed for this property: 1. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of permits. Developer must supply drainage calculations which indicate that the proposed storm drainage system: A. will not overload the 15 -inch storm sewer which serves this area from 65th Avenue, B. will not flood adjacent properties during a "100 -year rainfall event," and C. if the total site to be developed is greater than 5.0 acres, the drainage plan must meet the standards and receive the approval of the SCWMC. 2. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 3. Access to the site shall be right -in /right -out only. The median in Brooklyn Boulevard shall be extended in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer and Hennepin County. Access to the site from 66th and Indiana shall be prohibited. 4. A deceleration lane on the outside of the southbound lane of Brooklyn Boulevard shall be installed in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer and Hennepin County, unless both MNDOT and HCDOT advise the City that such deceleration lane is not needed. If a deceleration lane is to be constructed, the developer shall also relocate the public sidewalk through the area of the turn lane, and provide easements as needed to allow public usage of the sidewalk. 5. Vehicular access to the 66th Avenue /Indiana Avenue intersection shall be prohibited now and in the future. Page 2 April 3, 1989 i 6. Developer to dedicate a trailway easement across the northerly portion of the site, between Brooklyn Boulevard and the 66th Avenue /Indiana Avenue intersection. 7. Developer to submit evidence that all survey monuments are in place at time of project completion. 8. An as -built survey of all site utilities shall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to release of the performance guarantee. Sy Knapp J cc: Pre -Plat /Developer File - TH 152/I -94 Development Hennepin County - CSAH 152 File MNDOT - I -694 File I MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION MARCH 30, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Mike Nelson at 8:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson, Ella Sander and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 16, 1989 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the March 16, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Johnson and Sander. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89002 (City of Brooklyn Center) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request to rezone from R5 to C1 the land at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard and the neighboring lots to the south. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report and the draft resolution recommending approval of the rezoning request (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89002, attached). PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89002) There being no comments or questions from the Commission, Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing on the application and asked whether anyone present wished to speak. No one spoke on the matter. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commis 'sioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89 -3 (Application No. 89002) RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 89002 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -3 regarding disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 89002. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89011 (Public Storage) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, an appeal from a determination by staff that mini - storage facilities are not permitted in the C1 3 -30 -89 -1- zoning district. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89011 attached). The Secretary added that the I -1 zoning district which acknowledges warehousing and storage as a special use, is centrally located and is not a high crime area. Regarding control of special use permits, the Secretary stated that, once a special use permit is granted and if the conditions are abided by, a property right has been established and that the City does not have extensive control over the operation of special uses. There being no questions or comments from the Planning Commission, Chairman Nelson asked the appellant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Don Jensen, of Public Storage, approached the Commission. He showed them a rendering of a similar mini - storage facility located in Golden Valley. He stated the mini - storage industry has changed considerably since 1973. Mr. Jensen then read extensively from an APA study done in 1985 on mini - storage. He noted that mini - storage started in the 1960's in the sunbelt and that the use spread to other areas of the country in the 70's and 80 1 s. He stated that offices use self- storage for excess files and that private individuals use self - storage because they cannot afford additional storage space at their apartment or on their property. He stated that one distinction between warehousing and mini - storage is that warehouses have employees which stay and do work during the day and self - storage has customers who come and go. Mr. Jensen stated that many communities throughout the country have begun to allow self- storage in commercial and even residential zoning districts because they recognize its customer orientation. He stated that he and other representatives of Public Storage have met with neighbors in the area and that several people feel this is a good use for the location at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. He again referred the Commission's attention to the rendering of the Golden Valley project which he said is compatible architecturally with a residential neighborhood. Mr. Dan Rooney, also of Public Storage, then addressed the Commission. He discussed the financial strength of Public Storage at some length. He stated that the market has changed and that self - storage is now a long term land use of 20 to 30 years. He stated that Public Storage has institutional investors as well as individuals. He stated that Public Storage was interested in a commercial location because the location is safe, convenient, attractive and secure. He stated that Public Storage generally locates in or adjacent to commercial areas along major thoroughfares. He stated that the general public is 80% of the customers and businesses the remaining 20 %. He stated also that Public Storage seeks to serve people in transition, such as empty nesters. Mr. Tim Malloy, of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, then addressed the Commission at some length. He stated that the mini- storage use has changed in response to market concerns. He pointed out that self - storage is a low traffic generator. He stated that self - storage can develop in commercial areas and can have an attractive facade. He noted the use of landscaping and the presence of a 24 hour on -site manager. Mr. Malloy stated that Public Storage can serve as a buffer between more intense and less intense land uses. Mr. Malloy went on to distinguish Public Storage from a warehouse use. He stated that self- storage does not generate as much truck traffic as a warehouse would. He also stated that warehouses have employees who may cause some disturbance to the neighborhood on their lunch hours and that warehouses store volatile materials. He explained that self- storage has few semi trailers coming to its property. He also 3 -30 -89 -2- stated that forklifts are not necessary. He added that the self- storage use would not permit the storage of volatile materials. Regarding buffer requirements, Mr. Malloy pointed out that the purpose of buffers includes the need to screen one use from another. He pointed out that screening can be accomplished in a narrow buffer area. He explained that wide buffers are used for industrial uses because of noise and vibration from trucks, manufacuturing, etc. He stated that self- storage does not involve these kinds of activities and, therefore, a narrower buffer is sufficient. Regarding ground coverage, Mr. Malloy pointed out that an office development would have a ground coverage of approximately 30 %. He noted that the proposed site plan calls for a 37% ground coverage. He explained that ground coverage controls limit the density and intensity of various land uses. He stated that a low intense use such as public storage can have greater coverage because they have less of an impact per square foot of building. Regarding parking, Mr. Malloy stated that the parking ratio for self - storage is very low. Regarding aesthetics, Mr. Malloy pointed out that the draft ordinance proposed a general guideline for aesthetic controls on self - storage uses. He pointed out that the City has a site plan approval process and that the developers would have to submit site and building plans for review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Don Jensen then addressed the Commission again. He showed the Commission photos of other self - storage developments around the country. He also showed the rendering of the Golden Valley project which is not yet complete. He acknowledged that not all self - storage projects look like the Golden Valley project. He acknowledged that Public Storage has bought some older style mini - warehouses around the country. He stated that Public Storage looks for transition areas between residential neighborhoods and commercial areas. He stated that self- storage has been used as a buffer use between residential and commercial areas and is often in a PUD district. Mr. Jensen briefly reviewed the discussion which took place in 1973 by the City Council. He stated that the limitations placed on the location of self- storage facilities would limit the potential sites to very few parcels in the City, perhaps only the subject parcel. He concluded by stating that the taxes from the parcel in question would increase fivefold with little impact on public facilities if the self- storage use were developed. Chairman Nelson stated that he had come into the meeting disposed to act on the application quickly. He stated that he was concerned that the Commission may be swayed by a classy developer, but that the City has to be concerned with the unclassy developers as well. He asked the Secretary how the City would deal with other self - storage companies. P Mr. Tim Malloy showed the Planning Commission a map of the City with commercial development and commercial zoning outlined. He pointed out that there would be a 2 acre minimum for self- storage uses. He stated that the map shows that there are very few parcels in the City which would be eligible for self - storage. The Secretary interpreted the Chairman's question to be what controls the City would have over this or other developers. He explained that the controls that would be adopted would have to be applied the same to all applicants. The Secretary acknowledged that the City can develop regulations which would, in effect, limit self- storage to a few available parcels. He stated, however, that the basic 3 -30 -89 -3- i question at issue is a use question. He stated that he had no difficulty in classifying the self- storage use as industrial. He pointed out that if self- storage were allowed in the C1 zoning district, it would certainly be allowed in the C2 district as well. The Secretary stated that staff are not opposed to self- storage facilities per se, but added that there is land available in the I -1 and I -2 zoning districts for such a use. He also pointed out that in 1973, the City Council was looking at a similar Proposal on a C2 zoned parcel. He noted that the C2 zoning district is a much more intense zoning district than the C1 district. He noted further, however, that the application for that location was denied. Commissioner Ainas stated that there was nothing wrong with the aesthetics of a Public Storage facility, but that in reading over the permitted and special uses in the C1 zoning district, he concluded that self - storage would be too far a departure from these other uses if it were allowed. He stated that, if self - storage were allowed in the C1 zone, other uses might also be allowed and the C1 zoning district would become meaningless. He stated that he felt the self - storage use could be okay along Freeway Boulevard, but not along Brooklyn Boulevard. Commissioner Johnson noted that one concern regarding the property in question is traffic at that location. He stated that the freeway exit and the congestion of traffic in Brooklyn Boulevard would make a low traffic generator for the parcel a logical choice. Commissioner Bernards stated that people in the neighborhood must have found out what uses were allowed in the C1 zoning district at the previous meeting. He stated that he did not feel it was fair to change the rules regarding the C1 uses while the rezoning application was proposed. He recommended sticking with the C1 zoning district as is and not to change the ordinance. He also pointed out that industrial property is fairly close to residential and commercial property in Brooklyn Center. He stated that he felt the self- storage use belonged in the industrial park. Commissioner Malecki acknowledged that self- storage would be a low traffic generator, but stated that the City has to consider other C1 parcels in the City. She stated that self- storage would be a departure from the general uses allowed in the C1 zone. She also noted that the industrial park in Brooklyn Center is not that far from residential and commercial areas and can be seen from the freeway. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 89011 (Public Storage) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial of Application No. 89011, on the grounds that the use proposed is not similar in nature to other C 1 uses and would undermine the integrity of the C 1 zoning district. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Ainas, Sander and Mann. Voting against: Commissioner Johnson. The motion passed. Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89011 - Applicant: Public Storage Location: Southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Appeal This application is classified as an appeal. However, it is actually a request for an ordinance amendment to allow self- storage as a special use in the C1 zoning district. The appellant wishes to develop the vacant, 4.5 acre parcel at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard with mini - warehouses. Staff have conveyed to the appellant that warehousing and storage are acknowledged uses only in the I -1 and I -2 zoning districts and are not acknowledged in the C1 district. The property in question is included in a City - initiated rezoning proposal for this area to C1 from R5 (see Application No. 89002). The purpose of the rezoning is to eliminate multi- family residential development as an option for the land at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard and to allow service /office development, but it is not to allow for self - storage development which we feel is more appropriately located in the I -1 and I -2 zones as presently provided for. The appellant's representative, Mr. Tim Malloy with Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, has submitted written arguments (attached) which address the guidelines for evaluating rezonings from Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance (also attached). He has also submitted draft ordinance language (attached) for Sections 35 -320, Subsection 3 (special uses in the C1 zone) and Section 35 -411 (special requirements in C1 and C1A districts). The appellant's arguments are summarized below: A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? The appellant argues that mini - storage provides a valuable service to the general public. The facilities are used by a variety of groups. Elderly residents who move to smaller accommodations, renters who have limited storage space in apartment buildings, small businesses and offices seeking temporary storage of surplus stock or old files - all these users have a need for storage space. Mr. Malloy notes that industrial districts tend to be more secluded and less frequently patrolled making safety an issue for elderly and single females who frequently use mini - storage facilities. Allowing mini - storage in the C1 zone by special use permit would make it more accessible to the people who use it. B. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Mr. Malloy notes that C1 zoning has been cited by the City as a buffer use. He states mini - storage could be required to provide generous landscaping making them ideal as a buffer use between major thoroughfares or more intense uses and residential or other sensitive uses." Mr. Malloy points out that mini- storage is compatible with other C1 uses because it is a low traffic generator and, therefore, does not contribute to traffic congestion in a commercial district. Mini - storage also can provide convenient storage to surrounding office uses. 3 - 3 0 - 89 -1- Application No. 89011 continued C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Mr. Malloy notes the specific use proposed and offers an alternative question: "could the development of this use be contemplated on any given vacant parcel within the C1 District? In answer, Mr. Malloy points out that the draft language proposes the use as a special use which would "give the City substantial control of how the facilities are constructed and operated." Secondly, location would be limited to properties in the C1 district which are located with primary vehicular access off a major thoroughfare or arterial street. The sites would thus be limited and there would be no traffic generated on residential streets. D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Not applicable. E. In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Self- storage is not proposed by the City. The rezoning should be based on sound planning principles. The applicant believes that the benefits outlined in item A demonstrate a broad public purpose for allowing mini - storage as a special use in the C1 district. F. Will the subject property ull bear Y Y the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district.? Mr. Malloy states that this question is not directly applicable, but raises important issues that might be better addressed separately as follows: "1) Do the development characteristics of mini - storage facilities generally comply with the development restrictions set forth in the Zoning Code for the C1 District, as well as the general requirements of the Code? Yes. 2) Are the development restrictions outlined in the Code adequate enough to ensure that the development of mini - storage facilities within the C1 District will be compatible with surrounding land uses and that they will meet the health, safety and welfare standards of the City of Brooklyn Center ?" Mr. Malloy answers this last question by making two points: a) classification of mini - storage as a special use will allow the City to address inadequacies in the existing requirements through conditions of approval; and b) the ordinance proposed would place restrictions on lot size, building coverage, security, screening, aesthetics, etc. and thus mini - storage can be adequately controlled. 3 -30 -89 -2- Application No. 89011 continued G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography, or location? "Not Applicable." H. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) comprehensive planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? "The proposed rezoning does not expand the area of a district." I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? "See Item A." We will not review the proposed ordinance language point by point in this report. It is attached for the Commission's consideration. The ordinance language calls for mini - storage to be allowed as a special use in the C1 zone provided the facility is located with the primary vehicular access off a "thoroughfare or minor arterial street." A minimum lot size of 2 acres and a maximum lot coverage of 40% (by buildings) is proposed. Hours of operation would be determined by the City Council. Dead storage only would be permitted; no transfer stations would be allowed. No garage sales would be permitted. Security provisions would include a minimum 6' high barrier around the perimeter of the site, a gate for vehicular access, and a resident manager. Parking requirements would be one space per 35 storage units, equally distributed throughout the site. The draft ordinance proposes driveway and parking stall widths below the City's current standards, but adds that drive widths and turning radii must be adequate for emergency vehicles. Landscape requirements would be applied "to minimize the environmental impacts of self- service storage facilities such as: visual blight, parking or recreational vehicle storage, lighting, noise, and dust, on adjacent properties or public streets." A "view obstructing barrier not less than 6 feet in height and providing a minimum year -round opaqueness of 60 percent" would be required. Further specifications of landscape treatment and screening devices are added. The draft ordinance also calls for fairly vague aesthetic controls. Exterior materials would have to be "attractive" and "durable ", and "harmonious with surrounding developments." Restrictions governing noise, waste handling and storage, vibration and odor, glare and heat would be the same as applied in the I -1 and I -2 districts under Section 35 -413, Subsections 3 through 8. Staff Response Staff are opposed to the draft ordinance language as it applies to the Cl zoning district. We feel that the proposal would simply introduce an industrial use (warehousing and storage) into the service /office zoning district. The building to land ratio, the parking requirement, the use itself, and the restrictions applied to environmental impacts such as noise, odor, and vibration - all are similar to or precisely the same as for industrial uses. Conveniently, the buffer provisions are 3 -30 -89 -3- Application No. 89011 continued not. While the draft ordinance language spends a lot of verbage on landscaping and screening requirements, the bottom line is that they are not much different than for a standard C1 use. A C1 use that abuts R1 zoned land at a property line must provide ,r a 15' buffer and a 4' high fence. An industrial use that abuts R1 zoned land at a property line must provide a 100' buffer and an 8' high fence. We believe that our landscape point system and the requirement for underground irrigation, for the most part, adequately addresses the landscape issue. The appellant will no doubt show the Commission renderings of similar projects around the country with stucco walls and hip roofs. The aesthetic criteria proposed, however, are fairly vague and will not insure quality. We believe the most effective way to insure quality development in the C1 zone is to restrict it to service /office uses which invest far more per square foot of building than any mini - warehouse, however designed and landscaped. As Mr. Orgas stated at the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting, mini - storage is an interim land use until market forces dictate a more intense use of the land. It does not tend to be a permanent use, justifying substantial investment. We do not argue that there is no need for mini - storage facilities, but we simply do not believe they are appropriate for the C1 or even the C2 district. They are an industrial use and belong in the industrial district. Security can be adequately addressed in the I -1 and I -2 zones. A proposal in those zoning districts involving a resident manager would certainly have merit and some of the proposed ordinance provisions could be considered for the industrial districts, including allowing a resident manager. The Commission should be aware that there was a proposal for mini - warehouses in 1973 for the property now occupied by the Osseo - Brooklyn Bus Company Company at 68th and Lee Avenues North. That proposal was considered at some length over a period of approximately one year and was denied by both the Planning Commission and City Council. The resolution of denial adopted by the City Council (attached) , cited three basic reasons for the denial: 11 1 ) The proposed use is neither a recognized permitted or special use in the C2 District per Section 35 -322 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2) The proposed use is not deemed similar in nature to other recognized C2 District uses per Section 35 - 322 (j) of the Zoning Ordinance. 3) The proposed use is deemed similar to and more compatible with recognized uses in the I -1 (Industrial Park) and I -2 (General Industry) Districts." While simply put, these findings state the basic facts of the case in 1973 and, we believe, today as well: namely, that mini - storage is an industrial use and should only be comprehended in the industrial zoning districts. Finally, we have noted the appellant's point that the proposed mini - storage use is a low traffic generator (they have estimated that their facility would generate only about 60 trips per day) . While the site in question certainly has access problems and people may find it difficult to enter and exit the site, we do not feel that this is a good case for allowing mini - storage in the C1 zone. Industrial uses do tend to involve less traffic than commercial uses. This is why traffic counts on Shingle Cre•.k Parkway north of Freeway Boulevard are much lower than counts south of Freeway Boulevard. Commercial uses generate more traffic. That is why they are located in commercial districts and why commercial streets tend to be congested. Traffic it" 3 -30 -89 -4- generation may be a reason for limiting development options, for rezoning, and /or for designing ingress, egress and parking so as to avoid traffic congestion in the public streets. We do not believe low traffic generation is an appropriate basis for opening up the C1 zone to industrial uses. And, we do not believe that the land at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard should be zoned industrial, given its residential abutment. We do not find a broad public purpose for allowing this industrial use in a C1 zoning district. There is vacant, undeveloped land in the I -1 and I -2 zones that can appropriately be put to use for such development in a manner consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. This proposal does not demonstrate merit beyond the interests of the owners and those proposing the development. Based on the above considerations, we recommend denial of the appeal and the associated proposed ordinance language for the C1 zoning district. The appellant has submitted site and building plans with the appeal application. A reduction of the site plan is attached and the drawings will be presented to the Commission at Thursday night's meeting. However, we have not performed a detailed analysis of the plans (nor did we request them) because the basic use question identified in the appeal must be answered first. No site and building plan application is before the Commission for review. 3 -30 -89 _5_ A W7 `s�` r :.V ._ _,�,s.�,e - �a: .. lca.3iu3...+»_:tsY� �irdia`�•ra� �.,t}.c ..J���ii �I�1 S MEMORANDUM DATE: 6 March 1989 TO: Planning Commission Members and City Planning Staff, City of Brooklyn Center FROM: Tim Malloy, Planner RE: Proposed Rezoning to Allow Mini- Storage as a Special Use in a C -1 District We request that the City's Zoning Code be amended to allow mini- storage facilities as a Special Use in the C -1 District. The mini - storage industry has changed significantly since the City last reviewed this use and restricted it to the industrial districts. We believe this use has characteristics that make it an appropriate special use within the service /office commercial district, provided the facilities are located with their primary vehicular access off of a thoroughfare or arterial street. This memo is intended to accompany the draft zoning amendment that was sent to the City earlier. The City has established a set of guidelines by which rezoning requests are evaluated. We offer the following comments to address these guidelines: A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit Mini- storage provides a valuable service to the general public. The facilities are used by a variety of different groups within communities. Elderly residents who have recently moved to smaller accommodations use these facilities to store some of tbe;r b e_lnr.oinrYo fe laror usv j ;t ,heir .hudren. Renters utilize mini- storage due to the lack of adequate storage space within many apartment buildings. In many cases, people who have increased the insulation in their attics where they once stored their belongings, now find themselves in need of additional storage space. Small businesses and offices utilize the facilities for the temporary storage of surplus stock or old files. All of these users have a need for safe and convenient additional storage space. Industrial Districts are generally more secluded and less frequently patrolled areas making safety an issue for elderly and single females who frequently use mini- storage facilities. Allowing mini - storage facilities as a Special Use in the Planning Commission and City Planning Staff Page 2 C -1 District would make them more accessible to the people who use them and would minimize safety concerns. B. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications In the City's application for rezoning of the R -5 property in the southwest quadrant of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard, it states that the C -1 Zoning District is compatible with single - family uses and is often used as buffer between single - family homes and more intense zoning districts. As a Special Use within the C -I District, mini- storage facilities could be required to be generously landscaped making them ideal as a buffer use between major thoroughfares or more intense uses and residential or other more sensitive uses. Mini- storage facilities are not only compatible with office /service uses, but have characteristics that make them functionally complimentary to other C -1 uses. They are low traffic generators, therefore, they do not add substantially to the traffic congestion frequently common in Commercial Districts. This makes them an appropriate use between more intense commercial uses and residential areas. They also provide valuable and convenient storage for surrounding office uses. C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property Since the request here is to include a specific use as a Special Use within an existing district, this question is not applicable. Perhaps a better question would be -- could the development of this use be contemplated on any given vacant parcel within the C -1 District? The following items should be considered in responding to this question: First, the request states that this use be permitted as a Special Use. This give the City substantial control of how the facilities are constructed and operated. Second, the request provides that mini - storage only be permitted as a Special Use on properties within the {''_1 District that are located with their primary vehicular access off of a major thoroughfare or arterial street. This significantly limits the probable sites within the City and ensures that any concern regarding traffic on residential streets as a result of the development of a mini - storage facility would be eliminated. Considering these factors, we believe that this use could be accommodated within the C -1 District. D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject ropertywas zoned Not applicable. E. In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals is there a broad public purpose evident Although this is not a City - initiated proposal, we are aware that sound planning principals dictate that any rezoning should be based on the health, safety, and Planning Commission and City Planning Staff Page 3 welfare of the general public and not on the needs of specific property owner or owners. We believe that our response to Item A of this memo demonstrates a broad public purpose for allowing mini - storage as a Special Use in the C -1 District. F. Will the sub property fully bear the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district This question is not directly applicable, but it does raise important issues that might be better addre`sed separately as follows: 1) Do the development characteristics of mini- storage facilities generally comply with the development restrictions set forth in the Zoning Code for the C -1 District, as well as the general requirements of the Code. Yes 2) Are the development restrictions outlined in the Code adequate enough to ensure that the development of mini- storage facilities within the C -1 District will be compatible with surrounding land uses and that they will meet the health, safety, and welfare standards of the Ci ty Brookly of Brookl Center? s The answer to this question brings up two points. The first is that the establishment of mini- storage as a Special Use in this district allows the City to address any inadequacies in the existing requirements, as well as any site specific concerns, by creating restrictions for each facility through the Special Use Permit approval process. The second is that the amendment we propose outlines additional special requirements for this use which cover such factors as: lot size, building coverage, security. c^reenin -, rind r:esthetic.s:, etc. With coca of these factors in mind, we believe that the development of mini - storage facilities can be adequately controlled to ensure that they are a safe, attractive, and a complementary use in the C -1 District. G. Is the subject properly generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size configuration topography, and location Not Applicable. H. Will the rezoning result in the estpansion of a zoning district warranted by. 11 comprehensive planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district: or 31the best interests of the community The proposed rezoning does not expand the area of a district. I. Does the ro osal demonstrate merit p p beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel See Item A. C -1 SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT AMENDMENT F EB 1989 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER �,v���� „ °1H,y, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA x� ORDINANCE NO. A DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BROOKLYN CENTER ZONING ORDINANCE The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota ordains as follows: Chapter 35 Ordinance No. known and referred to as the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: Section 35- 900 - Definitions. is amended to include the following: Self Service Storage Facility - a building or group of buildings with, usually, but not limited to the following characteristics; controlled access and secured areas which contain varying sizes of individual compartmentalized and controlled access stalls or lockers for the dead storage of customers' goods or possessions Section 35 -320 C -1 Service /Office District, Subdivision 3. Special Uses is amended to include the following: C. Self Service Storage Facilities provided the facility is located with is primary vehicular access off of a thoroughfare or minor arterial street Section 35 -411 Special Requirements in C -1 and C - 1A Districts is amended to include the following special requirements for Self Service Storage Facilities: Subdivision 8 a. Lots for self service storage facilities shall be a minimum of two acres b. Building coverage shall be limited to 40 percent of the total area C. Hours of operation shall be determined by the City Council as a condition of approval of a special use permit d. Permitted Uses 1. Use of the storage facility shall be for dead storage only and shall be indicated as such on the lease agreement 2. The operation of a self service storage facility shall in no way be deemed to include a transfer and storage business where the use of vehicles is part of such business 3. No activities such as miscellaneous or garage sales shall be conducted on the premises e. Security 1. A barrier must be provided around the perimeter of the facility. Such barrier may consist of either the solid facades of the storage structures or a fence. The barrier shall be a minimum of 6 feet in height and may be located in the required yard area 2. Vehicular access to the facility shall be controlled by a gate device 3. A resident manager shall be required on the site and shall be responsible for maintaining the operation of the facility in conformance with ordinance requirements and the conditions of approval f. Off Street Parking 1. The provisions of Sections 35 -700 through 35 -703 concerning parking shall apply to self service storage facilities. 2. One space shall be provided for each 35 storage units, and shall be equally distributed throughout the storage area 3. Two spaces shall be provided for the resident manager's quarters 4. One space for every one hundred (100) storage units shall be located adjacent to the office 5. All one way driveways shall provide for one 10 foot parking lane and one 15 foot driving lane. Traffic direction and parking shall be designated by signing and painting 6. All two way drives shall provide for one 10 foot parking lane and two 10 foot travel lanes 7. Drive widths and turning radii must be adequate for emergency vehicles g. Screening and Landscaping 1. Screening shall be required to minimize the environmental impacts of self service storage facilities such as: visual blight, parking or recreational vehicle storage, lighting, noise, and dust, on adjacent properties or public streets. All self service storage facilities shall provide a view obscuring barrier not less than 6 feet in height and providing a minimum year -round opaqueness of 60 percent. Such barriers may consist of walls, fencing, berms, landscaping, or any combination thereof 2. Ascreening fence or wall shall be constructed of attractive, permanently finished materials, compatible with those used in the construction of the principal structures 3. Planting screens shall consist of a variety of hardy plant materials and shall include: trees; low, medium, and high profile shrubs; together with a suitable ground cover such as: sod, native grasses, decorative rock, or a combination thereof. Planting screens shall be designed to provide a minimum year round opaqueness of 60 percent after five growth seasons 4. Screening devices shall not impair vehicle visibility at street intersections or access drives 5. A landscape plan showing varieties, sizes, and locations of plant materials shall be submitted to the City at the time of application or special use permit s h. Aesthetics 1. The exterior areas of self service storage structures shall be constructed of materials attractive in appearance, durable, with a permanent finish. The color and character of exterior surfaces of structures shall be harmonious with surrounding developments i. Restrictions governing noise, waste handling and storage, vibrating odor, glare and heat shall be those required in the I -1 and I -2 Districts as found in Sections 35- 413(3) through 35- 413(8) j. All other pertinent City ordinance requirements shall apply to these facilities Planning Commission • The City Manager next introduced Planning Commission Application No. 73019 Application No. 73019 submitted by E -Z Mini Storage. (E-Z Mini Storage) He stated that essentially the application consisted of a request that the City Council determine that the proposed storage /warehouse, operation is similar in nature to the land uses specifically permitted in the C -2 zoning: district He reviewed that the Planning Commission had recom�. mended that such proposed use is not similar to permitted C -2 uses and that since iniVal consideration of applt cation No. 73019 on May 4, 1974, City Councilmen Individually took advantage of the opportunity to inspect` P . similar warehousing operations operated by the applicant in other communities. Mayor Cohen recognized Mr. Charles Nolan, representing.- : ,;' E -Z Mini Storage, and a discussion ensued. He com mented that the operation would be a controlled use in terms of the actual activities on the site to make sure: there would be no violations of the zoning ordinance,': He concluded his comments by stating that freeway: exposure was important to his operation and for that reason the site chosen on 68th Avenue North -was very desirable for his operation, The Mayor then recognized Mr. Daytpn Soby, attorney for the property owner who stated that it is his belief; such a storage concept could be acceptable in either the C or I zones. He commented that the concept would not be inconsistent with the zoning ordinance in terms s of other land uses in the area, { r a Mayor Cohen noted that notified property owners were not present to speak either for or against the proposed application. a Motion by Councilman Britts and seconded by' Councilman,•:, ,- Fignar to close the public hearing. Voting in favor were:'` Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar and Jensen. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Mayor commented that the approval of such a pro- posal would, in effect, amend the zoning ordinance to :•';s permit warehousing operations on other C -2 sites within the City. Councilman Kuefler stated that though he• liked the concept, he felt a precedent would be set by s approving E -Z Mini Storage, He commented that the . concept does not fit into the C -2 zone as defined in the zoning ordinance. Councilman Jensen also voiced his opposition to the application, making reference to the incompatibility of the use in the C -2 zone. Councilman Fignar stated that he thought the application had merit and it should'. possibly be allowed in the C -2 zone under a special use. permit. „ The City Manager then read a letter received from 1 , 'r• , Mr. John Urbach, City Public Health Sanitarian. t Mr. Urbach made reference to the need to control such an. operation since it would be possible to store food, animals, chemicals and other similar type products within the storage areas. -3- 5 -20 -74 j .t Councilman Britts voiced . his concern as to the land use since the zoning ordinance is very clear on the matter. Mayor Cohen inquired as to the possibilities of a :t. special use permit to allow such an operation in the •`; C -2 zone. The City Manager commented that there <.. ',. is no provision in the zoning ordinance for this type of operation under a special use permit in the C -2 zone. He stated that warehousing is only addressed K, to in the I -2 zone, A discussion ensued regarding the concept of estab- lishing warehousing as a special use in a C -2 district. Councilman Fignar suggested that such a special use permit vehicle would allow the City to limit warehouse developments on other undeveloped C -2 parcels. Mayor Cohen and Councilman Jensen expressed contrary views to the effect that warehouse proposals for other vacant C -2 properties could not be denied, but could only be controlled. The City Attorney confirmed that the estab- lishment of warehousing as a special use in a C -2 zone would render any C -2 parcel in the City eligible for r such special use permit consideration subject to meeting other ordinance provisions and subject to specific ^' controls warrented by the circumstances of specific sites. Motion by Councilman Kuefler and seconded by Action Directing the Councilman Jensen to direct the City Manager to Staff to Draft a draft a resolution denying Planning Commission Resolution Denying Application No. 73019 submitted by E -Z Mini Storage, Planning Commission incorporating the factors discussed by the City Council Application No. 73019 in its deliberation of the application. Voting in favor (E -Z Mini Storage) were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler and Jensen. Voting against: Councilman Fignar. The motion passe . nt , i X - iqnar Councilman z- rvev 47 c- B rea ve n "C;D No, `n� Vct,nq "n .aver 'Kue'der, Zignar arni Ten_z .3ca- T'. not-1-or. passeci a n. , nc U; S a resclution denving 73 ltv7d c ccG 7 ___3 rr­ e e n ,' _ ca n-, - — . I .' , ­ .- - -1 1, askina na T c a o n c, e vith,-.:c3wn, ­2 r.is -n,-- ccns. smca csl to v ooiilt ccnclusion, o r r TASPOSIT"DIN OF ! 9 S[J TI -- cz of resolution T(�nv and upon f n I _aVOr Tony Kuefler, T-nSen; F-­' thr? fojIoW4nc7 voted a 77 a ^ _ 7 t -,3*,-C, Where'.;ncn said resolution and arlop-ed. Ma­c­! 3fitis .1 tne. following 3 1 OF TH CITY G P C Z 3 F E i -4, 1 Z C T O I T U K i.. C E 7' C - � --_ .E CITY C BROOKLYN CENI _-'ec'.i.--n 19-i.302 cf the City Ordinances az L DLFT:,,- , IONS The following -cc I IieY CCU. in this ordinance - 0 FE",SOP: 1 2; - rsoq ineans any natural person, '.frn a;:. (�C,at ­., - "a'_tnersh,.IP or corporation, and agent ajd� �xcepr duly l Nev and enqacnLd ir. the operation of • f u n VI ICLL; ' the context of C Ct 2- 1 !, !.K vchcln rncanF an,- motor vehicle. "'nion I-F ii f-ensed fc r opereticn within tho ' Ly trio State' r:' Minnesota, or nCIt ;:•/ dn`, k)'JjOr Stitt-, for operation within (;r wh,',cn i not m ooerabL- condition, or - WhIch , i partial/ or which is used for 6-3--74 Member Rob<.rt Jerson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 74 -90 RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF PLANTNING f: OMI'USSION APP NO 730, SUB MT171'ED BY CHARLES N01jkN W'HEREA , Planning Commission Application No. 73019 was submitted by Charles Nolan un April 27, 1973, requesting approval fcu an "E•-Z Mini Storm -s" facility; and WPiEREAS, the proposed site, known as Lot 4, Block 2 Northtown Piaza Second Addition and more commonly described as lying at the southcast quadrant of the intersection of 63th and Lee Avenues North, is zoned C -2 (Commerce); and WHEREAS, the concept was info -Mally reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 1, 1973, and the application was given initial hearing on June 7, 1973 at which time it was tabled until the applicant submitted site and building plans which were in conformance with ordinance requirements; and WHERFkS, the application was reconsidered by the Commission on April 4, 1974 and action was taken recommending dental of the application upon dr-termina- tion rha* the proposed use was not a permitted use in the C -2 District and was not si:; filar in nature to other permitted uses in the C -2 District per S- -tion 15 of the Zoning Ordinance; and WhEREAS, t2he petition was heard by the Clty Council on April 22, 1974 at which time the matter was tabled to permit further review of tr:p proposal in its entirety, and to permit on -site inspacrtion of similar faciUties by individual Council m- :nbers, and WHEREAS, the Application was reviewed on May 20, 1974 to terms of the requirements of Section 35 -322 and the nature of the proposed 115.3; NOW, "I HER£FORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: Planning Commission Application No. 73019 submitted by Charles Dolan for E -Z Mini Storage 13 hereby denied in that: 1) The proposed use is neither a recognized permitted or special use in the C -2 District per Section 35 -322 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2) The p.eposed use is not deemed similar in nature to o'-h•l( recognized C-2 District uses per Section 35 -322 (j) of th-: Zoning Ordinance. 4 i Resolution No. (3) The Proposed use is deemed strallar to and inure compatible with recognized uses in the I. 1 (Industrial park) and 1 (General Industry) Districts_, 3�to� May or _ a� i lark The motion for th adopt ;a of the far_ ping ressolutton area e:luly seconded by rnom. Iner Tony {uefler a nd UPOn VOU being trrkein i:hareon the following voted in favor thoreo €: Phi11P Cohan, ME uric;» l;rltts , Tony Xuefler, Bill ilgnar and Robart Jensen; and the aollo voted against the same: rare, hereupon said resolution was declared duly Passel rand •nd(Vtod, CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY �= OF ROO F BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY -POLICE - FIRE 9„ December 20, 1988 Daniel J. Rooney Public Storage, Inc. 1 Appletree Square, Suite 1382 Bloomington, MN 55420 Re: Storage Use at the Southwest corner of 194 and Brooklyn Boulevard Dear Mr. Rooney: This letter is to respond in writing to the proposal by Public Storage, Inc. to locate mini - warehouses on the vacant, R5 -zoned parcel of land at the southwest quadrant of 194 and Brooklyn Boulevard in Brooklyn Center. Warehousing and storage uses are neither a permitted nor a special use in this R5 zoning district. There is, therefore, no way that your proposed use could occupy the parcel in question under the existing zoning. You should be aware, however, that the City intends to initiate a rezoning of this property to Cl early next year. The Cl zoning district is a service office zoning district which is more in keeping with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan recommends either mid - density residential (R3 /townhouse) or service /office development in the area of Brooklyn Boulevard betwen 63rd Avenue North and the freeway. The City Council believes that the subject property is not really appropriate for multiple residential development and, therefore, the existing R5 zoning and a potential R3 zoning of the property have been rejected. The C1 zoning district, as I have indicated, is a service /office zoning district. It does not comprehend warehousing and storage as either a permitted or a special use (see Section 35 -320 listing Cl uses, attached), nor do I feel it should. What you are proposing for the property, whatever the traffic and aesthetics are, is basically in conflict with the land use recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan. If you wish to pursue the matter, I see two potential avenues for you to follow. One would be to propose an alternative rezoning of the property to I -1 or I -2, zoning districts which comprehend warehousing and storage as either a permitted (I -2) or special (I -1) use. Such a rezoning would require an amendment of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and would impose wide buffer requirements (100') from the adjacent residences (thus severely impacting the development of the site). vu&U Wmuan .•• „ML. Daniel J. Rooney Page 2 December 20, 1988 Another avenue would be to seek a determination from the City Council that warehousing and storage, of the type you propose, is similar in nature to other uses permitted in the Cl zoning district (assuming for the moment that the rezoning is accomplished). As I indicated to you in our meeting of December 9th, the City Council has already evaluated the question of warehousing and storage of the type You propose in the C2 zoning district approximately 15 years ago. Their determination was that mini - warehouses belong in the industrial zoning districts. It seems doubtful that the City Council would accept in the Cl zoning district a use that has been barred from the C2 zoning district (a less restrictive district), but it is your right to make such an appeal and we will certainly process your application. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me at this office. Sincerely, 1 Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection RAW:mll cc: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager Gary Shallcross, Planner " C oos -: 22 S 8 9° 5122 ° E 3y Fi N 6 HIGH FENCE -M7 RIGHT - GF -war ,� X 8612 C &G(TYP.) r \y 6 LIGHT, DOWNCAST 8 � 'D w q TWO WAY SHIELDED, WALL PACK z UNIT,HPS.ITYR) -� ,yq5 j W 3 r Z F 112 INCH I.P� - 25 No 8ii6`GONG p 1� �,�, T TRASH B EkCLOSURE l �. ` A ego` t 1rf 58.00 /02 "E�. \\ \ SIGN I S S. ,.. 1 38 S.F. \ ,�\ \•� 40 BLDG. A 25� 25� 25 3d POLE 'I* y 5580 S. F. ¢ NC h LL y LL I �0. _-IW - " - B LDG. B L F O W e o W O a 375 x65'= 24,375S,F. v r. ❑ o o MANAGERS ,� {P• i M m - 0 1 •� ^r APARTME o h \ 0 R/ PED. RAMP z in ZA \ o o a o X ab)z 'e' � 680 38 35 `6A 63 22' - ..°2 S+cN,P a a i112R. l o 0 - 5 / Z�P 6 N w9 � w z V 9 k l p / W LL R Q Y_ w, O /-� Q O y 1r 9s / AY 25 P' TWO WAY ONE W Ll/ �gGITYPI A. MGH FENCE rya u 6 Ztl — I �, r _ CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/10/89 Agenda Item Number 9Q• REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY REPORT - RE: 69TH AVENUE FROM ZANE AVENUE TO DUPONT AVENUE *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: * * * * * * * * * * * * ** APP -* D ** * ** OR OF PUBLIC I C *W O * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation On April 20, 1987, the City Council approved execution of an agreement with Short - Elliott - Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) to conduct a traffic study and develop a preliminary design of the 69th Avenue corridor between Dupont Avenue and Zane Avenue. A copy of that report is submitted herewith for review and consideration by the City Council. City staff and representatives from SEH will be prepared to present and discuss this action at the City Council meeting on April 10, 1989. After reviewing this report, we believe that the proposed improvements do not meet the "threshold" limits established by the Environmental Quality Board which would mandate the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for this project. However, City staff recommends that the City voluntarily prepare an EAW for this project because this will demonstrate the City's commitment to full consideration of the environmental impacts of this project, and may well serve to avoid serious delays as the project proceeds. City Council Action Required 1. Initial review, discussion and comments regarding the report. 2. Identify a process and schedule for continued discussion and approval of the report, for presentation of this information to the public, for public discussion of the proposed improvements, for approval of a design alternate, and for implementation of the project (i.e. - development of final plans and specifications and construction). 3. Adoption of the attached resolution initiating the preparation of an EAW. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 69TH AVENUE CORRIDOR FROM ZANE AVENUE TO DUPONT AVENUE PREPARED BY: SHORT - ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC. r' Revised: April 4 1989 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM ZANE AVENUE TO DUPONT AVENUE Introduction This report is an overview of the efforts to date by the City staff and Short - Elliott - Hendrickson, Inc., on proposed improvements to 69th Avenue North. Project Location and Description The westerly boundary of the report area is Zane Avenue (approximately 0.2 miles west of the Brooklyn Center /Brooklyn Park border). The easterly boundary is Dupont Avenue; the project is 3.0 miles long. Major intersections along 69th Avenue are Zane Avenue North, Brooklyn Boulevard, Shingle Creek Parkway and Humboldt Avenue North. IP Primarily, Avenue i lane roadway with sixty six y, ve ue s a two e y y 66 () feet of right -of -way. Average daily traffic on 69th Avenue is approximately 9,000 vehicles per day west of Brooklyn Boulevard, 13,000 vehicles per day from Brooklyn Boulevard to Shingle Creek Parkway and 6,500 vehicles per day east of Shingle Creek Parkway. Project Scope Efforts to date have included: A traffic study to make traffic projections, study traffic operations, and assess the impact of a potential interchange at Zane Avenue and I -694. Identification of existing deficiencies along the corridor. Assessment of environmental considerations for improvements to the roadway; including the 6(f) conversion process for park land at Palmer Lake Park. Federal regulations require that property acquired or - 1 - developed for public outdoor recreation purposes shall be for those purposes. Section 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act provides a means for conversion of these park lands for other uses if certain criteria are met. - Recommendation of alternates for improvements to 69th Avenue North. Traffic Study The traffic operations study found that significant operations deficiencies are likely at Zane Avenue, France Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway in the future unless improvements are made to 69th Avenue. The existing operational problems at Brooklyn Boulevard would also deteriorate without improvements. The Traffic Operations Study is attached as Appendix A. IP Existing Deficiencies In addition to the operational deficiencies identified above, the horizontal alignment of 69th Avenue at Palmer Lake Park is not consistent with the alignment in the remainder of the corridor. The curved alignment together with several intersecting streets and the volume of traffic creates an unsafe situation. Environmental Considerations Improvement of the alignment of 69th Avenue at Palmer Lake would move the road slightly into Palmer Lake Park. The section 6 (f) conversion process for park lands has been initiated to insure that the park land can be replaced and that there will be no roadblocks to realigning 69th Avenue if the project moves forward. Realigning 69th Avenue would not impact DNR protected wetlands, but would require the development of new "compensating storage" capacity for any fill material placed within the Palmer Lake flood fringe area. - 2 - Impacts on Adjacent Properties P J P The projected traffic volumes between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway would necessitate a widening of 69th Avenue. Additional right -of -way needed and the required set backs to residential properties would impact many of properties along 69th Avenue. Alternates for Improvements The Traffic Operations Study proposes improvement of individual intersections along 69th Avenue. The segment from Zane Avenue to Brooklyn Boulevard can be served with a three lane section (one lane in each direction and a continuous left turn lane). East of Shingle Creek Parkway a two lane section is proposed. The segment from Brooklyn Boulevard to Shingle Creek Parkway carries a significantly higher volume of traffic and three lane or four lane alternates are being considered. These alternatives would require additional right -of -way. Minor changes in align - ment are being considered and are illustrated in this report. A draft Project Memorandum which is part of the State of Minnesota's Highway Project Development Process is attached as Appendix B. This project memorandum is incomplete since the alternates between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway are still under consideration. Project Path The Section 6 (f ) process should be completed to insure that the parkland needed for realignment of 69th Avenue can be obtained. Approval should be obtained for Intersection Alternate D for the 69th /Shingle Creek intersection. A 3 lane or 4 lane alternate should be selected for the segment of 69th Avenue from Brooklyn Boulevard. When these items are complete, design could begin on the critical elements needing reconstruction on 69th Avenue. 3 - e� SECTION II TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 69TH AVENUE CORRIDOR FROM ZANE AVENUE TO DUPONT AVENUE MARCH 25, 1988 PREPARED BY SHORT— ELLIOTT— HENDRICKSON, INC. 1 1 LIST OF EXHIBITS FIGURE I: 69TH AVENUE CORRIDOR STUDY AREA FIGURE II: EXISTING (1987) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) FIGURE III: EXISTING (1987) P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS FIGURE IV: 1997 FORECASTED ADT FIGURE V: 1997 FORECASTED P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FIGURE VI: 2007 FORECASTED ADT FIGURE VII: 2007 FORECASTED P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FIGURE VIII:1997 FORECASTED P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC WITH PROPOSED ZANE AVENUE I -94 INTERCHANGE FIGURE IX: 2007 FORECASTED P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC WITH PROPOSED ZANE AVENUE I -94 INTERCHANGE INTRODUCTION This study summarizes the traffic operational analysis for the 69th Avenue corridor from Zane Avenue on the west to Dupont Avenue on the east. The study was initiated by the City of Brooklyn Center in order to evaluate a number of operational deficiencies which currently exist in the corridor. Figure I illustrates the 69th Avenue corridor which is a primary carrier of east -west traffic within Brooklyn Center. 69th Avenue is important by virtue of its continuity and its numerous connections with major north -south roadways. The corridor provides access and mobility to many types of developments including residential homes, local commercial establishments and the Shingle Creek Industrial /Business Park. The study area includes a portion of 69th Avenue approximately 2.0 miles in length from Dupont Avenue on the east to Zane Avenue on the west. The corridor skirts the environmentally sensitive Palmer Lake Park area which includes protected wetlands and many park amenities. A number of roadway operational deficiencies exist within the corridor. There are safety concerns related to the curvilinear align- ment near Palmer Lake Park. Operational concerns include inadequate lane provisions at major intersections, possible traffic control needs, and geometric deficiencies. There are also overall concerns regarding the lack of provisions for turning movements to other streets or adjacent developments. 69th Avenue is primarily a two way two lane road which was originally designed to a typical rural county road section. As development has occurred, this section is becoming increasingly inadequate in handling the traffic movements. A significant portion of the roadway is approaching the end of its design life and reconstruction and rehabilitation are being considered. Given the above considerations, the City was interested in a comprehensive study of existing operations and projected future traffic characteristics. The comprehensive study could then help to determine the most efficient roadway section and to identify other improvements which should be implemented concurrent with any overall roadway upgrading. Brooklyn Boulevard is a major north -south roadway which intersects 69th Avenue. It is experiencing considerable congestion during the peak hours. The roadway has a number of capacity limitations due to existing lane arrangements and the close proximity of the signalized intersections near I -94. In order to relieve the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor congestion and improve access to the area, a possible new interchange at Zane Avenue and I -94 was evaluated. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Currently the corridor operates fairly well during the evening peak hours. Some brief congestion occurs at the intersections with Zane Avenue and at Shingle Creek Parkway. The intersection at Brooklyn Boulevard is an exception, where considerable congestion exists primarily due to other.deficiencies related to the operations of Brooklyn Boulevard and the nearby Interstate I -94 interchange. Future 10 and 20 year forecasts show that many operational deficiencies will appear along the 69th Avenue corridor if traffic is allowed to increase in intensity and no improvements are made. Significant decreases in Level of Service would be expected at Zane Avenue, France Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway. Two alternative typical roadway sections are being considered for the corridor improvements: 1) a 2 -lane with a center continuous left turn lane, and 2) a 4-lane with channelized left turn lanes. Regardless of which section is chosen, the following general operational improve- ments were found to be required based on the 20 year design period: ZANE AVENUE & 69TH AVENUE - Modification of approach lane arrangements by converting right only lanes to thru or right turn lanes - Possible signalization in 10+ years ZANE AVENUE & PROPOSED I -94 INTERCHANGE RAMPS Signalization at both ramp intersections ZANE AVENUE & 63RD AVENUE - No modifications required BROOKLYN BLVD. & 69TH AVENUE - Widening of 69th Avenue approaches for addition of separate left, right and thru lanes - Addition of a northbound right turn lane on Brooklyn Boulevard - Detailed study of overall corridor operations including lane arrangements and signal coordination BROOKLYN BLVD & I -94 INTERCHANGE RAMPS Study of overall corridor operations 69TH AVENUE & FRANCE AVENUE - Widening of France Avenue approach lanes - Addition of westbound 69th Avenue right turn lane - Possible signalization in 10+ years 69TH AVENUE & SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY Realignment of intersection to reverse existing "Tee" configuration SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY & XERXES AVENUE Signalization if the optional 69th Avenue redirection is pursued 69TH AVENUE & HUMBOLDT AVENUE - No modifications required 69TH AVENUE & DUPONT AVENUE - No modifications required The details of these improvements and the assumptions related to future traffic volume forecasts are discussed in the following 1 sections. BACKGROUND Past traffic counts and turning movement studies were reviewed for the corridor. Generally, steady growth was seen on Zane Avenue, 69th Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway. Traffic increases on Brooklyn Blvd. were not as pronounced and may reflect the fact that the road is at capacity during the peak hour. Past traffic counts were assembled and adjusted to produce an estimate of the existing (1987) average daily traffic (ADT) and the existing p.m. peak hour volumes. Figures II and III illustrate these volumes for the corridor. Future traffic forecasts were made for 10 year (1997) and 20 year (2007) periods. Traffic growth was estimated as being the total of three components: - Traffic increases due to new developments or redevelopments in the adjacent areas to the corridor. The locations of primary interest included available parcels along Zane Avenue north of the corridor, parcels along Zane Avenue south of I -94 and future developments in the Shingle Creek Business Park. Possible multi - residential redevelopment along 69th Avenue was considered, however, the general over- all growth factor discussed below accounted for this small increase. - Traffic from developments outside the immediate corridor study area. A small increase in thru trips was added to account for this outside growth. An overall background growth factor per year was used to account for current trends of increased auto usage and propensity to travel. A factor of 1% per year was used on 69th Avenue, Zane Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway. No growth was added to Brooklyn Boulevard since the road is at capacity and little peak hour traffic growth is possible. Figures IV and VI illustrate the 1997 and 2007 ADT forecasts while Figures V and VII illustrate the 1997 and 2007 p.m. peak hour forecasts. The following section discusses the results of the opera- tional analysis of each individual intersection for the existing and future traffic conditions. The intersection capacity analysis was performed using the NCAP microcomputer software package by Profes- sional Solutions, Inc. The analysis reports are summarized in this study for the sake of brevity. The individual calculations are avail- able in a printed format, but were not included due to the overall bulk (50+ pages). Figures VIII and IX show the 1997 and year 2007 forecasts if the proposed Zane Avenue interchange was constructed. Some diversion from the existing Brooklyn Boulevard corridor was included as part of the forecast. j a � �= • , �j � � I r� ::= ■ 1 �� � 11111� �� '�`If.�., ''' MW �!a � :371 I►II�j�11 � ,.�'o ��` - ,�aaaaa aZ �,;a ii11� i —. 1 11 ���u1 - . � �• '' iiii� �� / �miia��1:1 �: :� rn I/ 111 l■ 1 M@ / 2 ONE '. • Oii /i 1 I iii == IMI i - _ 11: � •. aay iaaaaias= = rr rr �` � ��ff / ■�./ ■111 I /�► • V,,,.: . m IN �� �� / /��f/ / /111 1 /�, �;I�/172/ •• ••••.•.. , \ - ��' _� - - IY■ J � . _ o1g4 /�1�111 ii.....•.:. :..• . �/ Vii■ _• -- -- ■u �..� �_ m ■ 1`iiil m 1� . EE • ♦ 13 �uu�1u11 mlwu IN •. ■v nm 1 1 1 a . p -_ �� .11111111111 11111111 Q ,� Ill It /Iaaaa ;; ': �, � �Iy� �if�a :� : _: �� �: 1� 11 =VIII ■ i1 1t1�i/aaa 111 111/1 .• �1 � / 1 111111111 11 11111 ._ , . • f; � � ���q�� JiC : � �■ � • `t1111Rf�11111 1111 11 I, a�i1 al/iiiaal�ilaa = =�i ,• � ■ iI /� /, /�;_ �_ �JItI�i1/ Ia11�� ...�f1�■■IUt1€CCA11111EGWIY t•::��, '`� ���� � � � © ■ 111111.11 . r■ '71C �ii r ■ 1 X1..1 11 tl • � dl �� �. �� _ om11 Iu1 F ° 31 9:C ■ PR • IBMllill: _ _•. I �g111Ly 1 � � ! -: ' �s � �' +� _�� � � � �■ � � - � � /�f i= ,'iJ;� �� is ■ ��?li�f � ' t• i �� � •• Pi� fl IIIIA 111 1 � Y 1� .���. a �'�► .� ]_ Im11�2! -� ■■ _ ¢s �i � A�€r.�i7/ �i, �71�i � ■ C © = iii � 111..= � ._ ��� -- . =G :� '=i� ..Yr� I ,, •..,.■. " g= �:.I. 113 11 11 r �--�� ����■■ �r ■■ it 11 .. � _iZ■ .. : =_ /1 t 11/ I■ �� fFi �. i m "MAN Mw mm MOM M Q W ko ry z to ck: CL 0 02 8800 -- 13.300 �1 r..1 �. r1 r 12200 r..1 ��-- 7w0 69TH AVE r- 1 -694 .1 63RD A✓E. FIGURE 1 EXISTING (1987) orte. Na FNCMNENSI�NCNITEC)S •PIMINEPS AVERAGE DALY TRAFFIC (ADT) mmmw mm %MAN mm mm mom m Q k Ld Q ~ ool. < ((w� H Z 0, 180 N o I� 40 s� 2 10 1 L 2p 1 150 I I�95 ° ° 55 0 1 I r. {60 ` —430 Sv`r ii0 f -165 ° ° .. - -455 -• C - I 515 - x o e I 50 N I15 N I N ° 220 tr rlsJ j `� r so , r155 ,,1 y ��.�.:� r ! ! 60 ,,-65 ��" -69TH rso / \ -to 130 I � i 1 115 \ 30 I� �, 1� + 155 -� r40 AVE. 45� 304 r 0 320 210 ° ° — �' \ �'� 550- 410 - +► e I p 30 M 1 IO�) i ° ° N 1a0 O i O IO�I ° 15 460 0 345 d 215 — � 95+ a o° 140-x- _ 14 N ° I� \ I O / °O 165 J O 20 50- j 0 O� a 0 1095 o ` 350 t o 'o of 1 -694 ° ° 10 a J! �`-0 — — 15 25-111. o r 30 _ 330 0 2 �! 10 240" .d 425 63RD NE. 430- o� O 310 - -im AW� .- FIGURE ■ FILE NO EXISTING (1987) oe N0. ENC/NEERS EIwRCroIFCTSEPUMNFRS PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS a a' U o Z � N Q O / N d O CD' O t0 _ O r-14,500 \� O 15,400 �4,90Q1 1 — 696YH 0 10,200 �, -� �.�► �/ r-,� f ��, (r• —"` 'r �/ AVE. -- ---, ej I k r I -694 ` 63RD ONE. Adw Admw ��� FILE N0. FIGURE IV 1997 FORECASTED ADT oRG. NQ ENGNVEERS � EpCNIIECTS / Rl•NNERS +�• �r r a■� r .r r m m m r m w MOM r Q ko a o i k w N �Z z o CL ir U. 250 6� �-- 310 180 o ,' `60 o N 15 a M � -225 'r S �1 r250 li^ m� ti � -580 �-f- "� -265 I N � -125 a o -x---240 .►� �. r'�1 �•� r ° �- r ��r� �. r5 �i r ,70.1 ��" -s9 , ) j �10 60_.Iw I ,� 1 125 ` 195 f ! 4 } r70 -- r -�/ AVE. 60 _4 � � 3 -d f 185----m- n ,t n --� 290 a 540 -i '� p -�- I I 470 J �i� --; 106 -+► o 145 t 0 30� - �I 200 iJ�J 15 �I 115 N ,°�' - 20� '�' ° _ I I 1175 4 � ° 1 370 J I -694 o 1 330- � aa n 240' M ass 63RD AVE. 485 340 —+► AUF FIGURE V flee X10 ��� 1997 FORECASTED DRG N0. ENGINEERS /ARCM /TECfS /RIENNERS PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC a m ��o > �� U ~ N g Z 0 Z o, a o K o M /� r� �) r �► 7,200 /15,900 ���� 1 r1 �, r 17,200 5,500 ��`-69TH 1 , X11 4 1o,soo �.� --,d AVE. ct 1 -694 r. 63RD AVE. �o AS� FIGURE VI FlLE N0. '- 2007 FORECASTED ADT DRG N0. EMLIElEfR51 •RCMIlEf lS • ➢INMNERS a moo a o '� W C ~ 'L Z Z O CL , I U. I I 0 a 280 I� �- 350 180 I� N 0 �65 u� 20 10 ) h x250 I f- 6 , J 0 1- � -290 I'� m � � -f -655 ' 'x--290 I� N - N �- 140 N N � ' �- 265 J t r �� r 165 �i-� �.� r 8° ..1 t 1 "69TH ,� 95 j r 10 'n 0 175- 617 J / J / ` �/ J / �I / AVE. 200 -+ O n I � 1 140 _ u,�t�'� (� f 195 , t �� �85 -+" "� p t 65- , 3535-'d 310 �'� -+ -+/ !2 2,1 525 —r- 120— I Q 35� 40 �I 210 �JJ �I 151 �I , o 135 a a 25-,j 0 d J� '--1 190 �a 1 370 J I -694 0 �- ` 330- Ov' 0 ' 240 m 310 f ` 510 63RD /CIE. 535 - ' o � 370 --ow FIGURE VA ME NO. 2007 FORECASTED ORG NO. ENLNWf/S /ARCNItfC]S PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC r. m o m m m it m m m" m r m m r r mom m t. a 'AO W o a' �- � o z z 4 0 N � 180 J " I o 150 I • e 195 K J +_ t { J J � ' ° ° � -185 (�- 435 I .r -230 N ~ n �6 � .-2 152 °s x 195 ) ` r r 170 j �ir� r5 �� � �I rso� r la 601 ���, r 2 � 2 �a ��� i AVE. o ��� t ('i6o -� -4 30� t I 1 163 5 145 —a �0 °�� 480 _ 1 _ — :I 420-- J 0 95 —a o� 0 145-+ 1151 N 1 20 r n Of � O 315 /J ° 9 370 , < r4 ° 1 ' O `p 0� /n p� J 1 -694 $ *20 m ri G 260 on N 300 - 220- J �, 465 63RD N E. J 56 5 340 -�� FIGURE VII L 1997 FORECASTED PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC DRG N0. fNGMI!lRSIARCNtflCTSIPtANNfHS WITH PROPOSED ZANE AVE INTERCHANGE > �f� Lu 4 O�� 4 W N 2 Z Z 4 0 m I ir n p 195 (� s i o 285 p 200 I� o k l- 15 165 I �F-- 0 Ce +i— 2 05 I s-- h • "t-- 500 -.. -._..- f— 2 35 I� N - N N - — 225 r5 �� r r'° ..1 Vii - 69TH . � , 00 j 10 160 �'� �I� 220 , / ��� �80 -�► AVE. 55-� � 1 30- 165 n g —+- ce tea, —�► 545— !2 12 -.. tr _� N 320 545 I o 46.0-,, u' v 105 - It f o 160 -y- t o 15 �I 125 N M N 20-,� 2 OD 1 38° �JJ �r 3 5 r �J — 0 I -694 0 n 75 2U a - � � 2652 , 2 N 330 �� J 510 A J 63RD AVE. 630 375—► FIGURE ORG NO. 2007 FORECASTED PM PEAK K HOUR TRAFFIC ORG NO. FNGM[[RS �ARCNIIECIS RwNNNfwS WITH PROPOSED ZANE AVE INTERCHANGE DISCUSSION OF INDIVIDUAL INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ZANE AVENUE / 69TH AVENUE ' Zane Avenue and 69th Avenue is currently controlled by 4 -way stop signs. The intersection operates somewhat poorly during the p.m. peak hour at Level of Service (LOS) D -E. The poor operation is a function of the existing lane arrangements and the high propor- tion of turning vehicles in the intersection which degrades the progression of stopping traffic. ' With no improvements the intersection's performance would be expected to decrease in time to LOS E by 1997 and to LOS E -F by 2007. Traffic growth contributions are anticipated from future development along Zane Avenue both north and south of 69th Avenue. Some small amount of traffic diversion is also an- ticipated due to increasing congestion along Brooklyn Boulevard. A significant increase in the intersection's capacity can be achieved by converting the exclusive right turn lanes to accom- modate thru and right traffic. 69th Avenue already provides a widened section on the opposite approaches which would allow the two thru lanes to merge into one. Southbound Zane Avenue would require some widening to provide a similar tapered section. The thru or right lanes would help by accomodating non - turning traffic and would balance the traffic lane utilization. Zane Avenue and 69th Avenue would be one of the most affected intersections if the Zane Avenue / I -94 interchange was built. Even with the improvements mentioned above, the 1997 LOS would be E. Signalization would probably be the best means to improving the intersection operations. ZANE AVENUE / 1-94 INTERCHANGE RAMPS Future operations were evaluated for the intersections of the proposed Zane Avenue interchange intersections. Both intersec- tions would operate at poor levels of service if stop sign control was used. The poor operations are a by- product of difficulties experienced by the ramp traffic in making left turn movements. Signalization would probably be required at these locations. ZANE AVENUE/ 63RD AVENUE The intersection of Zane Avenue and 63rd Avenue is presently signalized with a very minor southern approach leg to service the Crystal airport. Currently the operations are a very satisfac- tory LOS B -C and they are anticipated to stay in the LOS C to LOS C -D range for the foreseeable future. If the Zane Avenue interchange were built, the Level of Service is forecasted to be LOS D for 1997 and 2007 which is acceptable for peak hour operations. LOCATION: ZANE AVENUE 69TH AVENUE CURRENT TRAFFIC CONTROL: 4 -WAY STOP CONTROL W Q I W Z N I 69T H AVE. LEVEL OF SERVICE MITIGATION OPTIONS 1987 D - E MODIFY LANE APPROACH => LOS D 1997 E - ZANE SB RT TO TH + RT - 69TH EB RT TO TH + RT - 69TH WB RT TO TH + RT 2007 D - E WITH ZANE AVENUE INTERCHANGE: 1997 E SIGNALIZE => LOS B 2007 B - C LOCATION: 69TH AVENUE / DUPONT CURRENT TRAFFIC CONTROL: DUPONT AVENUE STOPPED F- W QZ :) O. W T 69TH AVENUE i i i i LEVEL OF SERVICE MITIGATION OPTIONS 1987 A 1997 A 2007 A ' WITH ZANE AVENUE INTERCHANGE: ' 1997 A 2007 A ' LOCATION: ZANE AVENUE f 63RD AVENUE CURRENT TRAFFIC CONTROL: SIGNALIZED W f w 1 i N I ' 63 RD AVE. � LEVEL OF SERVICE MITIGATION OPTIONS 1987 B - C 1997 C 2007 C - D WITH ZANE AVENUE INTERCHANGE: 1997 D MODIFY PHASING => LOS C 2007 D BROOKLYN BLVD / 69TH AVENUE This intersection currently has the poorest Level of Service of all the intersections along the corridor (LOS F). Improvements to 69th Avenue could help somewhat such as by adding separate left, right =and thru lanes, however the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor is so congested that these improvements will not solve all the problems. A critical need exists for a northbound exclusive right turn lane on Brooklyn Blvd. to serve the approximately 270 vehicles which make that movement on the peak hour. ' Little traffic growth is anticipated on Brooklyn Blvd. due the congestion levels. Assuming no major improvements are made, overall vehicle delay is anticipated to slowly increase in future years due to heavier cross street traffic. If the Zane Avenue / interchange were built some relief / g 1 f would be realized for Brooklyn Blvd. The 1997 LOS is estimated ' to be D -E. However, operations would continue to degrade and by the 20 year mark (20-07) the operations would be near LOS E -F or about at today's levels. BROOKLYN BLVD -Z NORTH I -94 RAMPS ' The I -94 interchange ramps function similar to the 69th Avenue intersection during the peak hours. The north ramps and Brooklyn Blvd. are currently at capacity. A possible mitigating measure might be to provide dual right turn lanes off I -94, however only a small improvement would result due to the existing backups and congestion at 69th Avenue. The Zane Avenue interchange would provide some relief, with the future 20 year operations being slightly better than today. BROOKLYN BLVD / SOUTH I -94 RAMPS The southern I -94 ramps operate slightly better than the north ramps today (LOS D). The intersection actually has reserve capacity but it is constrained by the other nearby intersections and the general level of congestion on Brooklyn Blvd. ' The potential construction of the Zane Avenue interchange would alleviate much of the existing congestion and would allow the intersection to operate at a good LOS C by 1997. Some degrada- tion would occur over time bringing the intersection to LOS C -D in year 2007. ' LOCATION: BROOKLYN BLVD / 69TH AVENUE CURRENT TRAFFIC CONTROL: SIGNALIZED ' 69TH AVE. LEVEL OF SERVICE MITIGATION OPTIONS 1987 F SEPARATE LF /TH /RT LANES ' ON 69TH AVE. ADD RT TURN 1997 F NB BROOKLYN => LOS E - F ' 2007 F MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED ON BROOKLYN BLVD ' WITH ZANE AVENUE INTERCHANGE: 1997 D - E 2007 E - F I LOCATION: BROOKLYN BLVD / NORTH I -94 RAMPS CURRENT TRAFFIC CONTROL: SIGNALIZED Ce ti 1-94 LEVEL OF SERVICE MITIGATION OPTIONS 1987 - E F ' 1997 E - F PROVIDE DUAL RT TURN LANES ON I -94 OFF RAMP _> LOS D -E 2007 E WITH ZANE AVENUE INTERCHANGE: 1997 D 2007 D E LOCATION: BROOKLYN BLVD SOUTH I -94 RAMPS CURRENT TRAFFIC CONTROL: SIGNALIZED Q 1 \ \ g a 1 -94 \ OFF RAMP LEVEL OF SERVICE MITIGATION OPTIONS 1987 D 1997 D - E 2007 D - E PROVIDE DUAL LEFTS FOR EB I -94 OFF RAMP => LOS D WITH ZANE AVENUE INTERCHANGE: 1997 2007 ' 69TH AVENUE ( FRANCE AVENUE France Avenue is under stop sign control at 69th Avenue. The intersection currently operates at LOS D primarily due to delays experienced by southbound France Avenue traffic desiring to turn ' left to proceed eastbound on 69th Avenue. As traffic grows on 69th Avenue, the availability of gaps in the traffic for the cross street will diminish and the LOS is expected to drop to E by 1997. At this point only signalization will provide the access needed by the France Avenue traffic. The high volume of southbound left turns would also require the addition of a right turn lane to efficiently move the traffic. Today the southbound approach is wide enough so that frequently a right turning vehicle essentially can get by a waiting left turning vehicle. This intersection is not significantly impacted by the proposed ' Zane Avenue interchange. Some small amount of diversion would be expected from the 69th Avenue corridor back to I -94. 69TH AVENUE / SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY ' Currently this intersection is a "Tee" with 69th Avenue being continuous and Shingle Creek Parkway being the south leg. Three way stop control exists. Heavy traffic movements are from eastbound 69th Avenue to southbound Shingle Creek Parkway and from northbound Shingle Creek to westbound 69th Avenue. The intersection operates at LOS E mainly due to the heavy northbound left turn movement delays. One possible mitigating measure which was considered was the realignment of the intersection "Tee" to make the west leg of 69th Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway continuous and to stop the east 69th Avenue leg. This allows the intersection to operate fairly smoothly in the peak hours except for some delay to the westbound to southbound left turn which is a minor volume. As traffic grows in the future, the delay to the westbound /southbound left will increase. Signalization could be considered to assist this movement, but the volumes are so low that such an improvement is probably not warranted. The most likely occurrence will be that traffic which currently uses this approach will divert to other alternative routes. This intersection is not significantly impacted by the proposed Zane Avenue interchange. Some small amount of diversion would be expected from the 69th Avenue corridor back to I -94. 1 LOCATION: 69TH AVENUE ' FRANCE AVENUE CURRENT TRAFFIC CONTROL: STOPS ON FRANCE AVENUE U � Z t Q T 69TH AVENUE LEVEL OF SERVICE MITIGATION OPTIONS 1987 D 1997 E SIGNALIZE WITH RT TURN LANES ON FRANCE AVENUE _> LOS C -D 2007 D ADD RT TURN LANES ON 69TH AVENUE _> LOS B -C WITH ZANE AVENUE INTERCHANGE: 1997 B - C 2007 C r LOCATION: 69TH AVENUE ' SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY CURRENT TRAFFIC CONTROL: 3 -WAY STOP 69 TH AVENUE low F 10 of \ y LEVEL OF SERVICE MITIGATION OPTIONS 1987 E REALIGN "TEE ", STOP 69TH AVE WB _> LOS D (SB 69TH ONLY) 1997 D - E (SB 69TH LEFT ONLY) 2007 E (SB 69TH LEFT ONLY) WITH ZANE AVENUE INTERCHANGE: 1997 D (SB 69TH LEFT ONLY) 2007 E (SB 69TH LEFT ONLY) r SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY XERX E S AVENUE An alternative method of connecting 69th Avenue westbound to Shingle Creek Parkway was investigated as an option to modifying the existing "Tee" intersection. This alternative would realign the 69th Avenue eastern leg to connect to Xerxes Avenue. The following intersection layout shows the revised 1987, 1997 and 2007 p.m. peak hour turning movements which were estimated for this possible realignment. The intersection would operate fairly well as an unsignalized state with the 69th Avenue and Xerxes Avenue legs under stop sign control. However there is a heavy northbound Xerxes to westbound Shingle Creek Parkway left turn movement which exists. This movement is anticipated to increase as the Shingle Creek Business Park continues to develop. Safety concerns and the turn move- ments would probably require a signal for the intersection. if signalized, the intersection should operate well for the next 20 years (to year 2007). The possible use of Xerxes Avenue to the south for thru traffic was examined. A minimal amount of traffic is anticipated to choose this route since better access exists to and from the south. Humboldt Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway are much more efficient north -south routes than is Xerxes Avenue. Also the presence of stop sign control along Xerxes tends to discourage thru traffic. 69TH AVENUE / HUMBOLDT AVENUE The intersection is currently controlled by a 4 -way stop. The operations are estimated to be in the LOS B -C range today. With a low background growth, the operations are anticipated to be satisfactory well into the future. This intersection is not sig- nificantly impacted by the proposed Zane Avenue interchange. 69TH AVENUE j DUPONT AVENUE This intersection operates quite well as a 2 -way stop. P.M. peak hour turning movements from Dupont Avenue are fairly low and many available gaps exist in the traffic on 69th Avenue. This inter- section is not significantly impacted by the proposed Zane Avenue interchange. LOCATION: 69TH AVENUE REALIGNED XERXES AVENUE CURRENT TRAFFIC CONTROL: INITIALLY ASSUMED AS 2 -WAY XERXES STOP vo 0 AN \ P s LEGEND: XXX /XXX /XXX YEAR 2007 YEAR 1997 1987 (ESTIMATED) LEVEL OF SERVICE MITIGATION OPTIONS 1987 F (NB XERXES SIGNALIZE _> LOS A LEFT TURN) 1997 A - B 2007 B - C WITH ZANE AVENUE INTERCHANGE: 1997 A - B I 2007 B - C LOCATION: 69TH A HUMBOLT AVE CURRENT TRAFFIC CONTROL: 4 -WAY STOP r � I I >> I I T 69TH AVE. 7 4, I f � LEVEL OF SERVICE MITIGATION OPTIONS 1987 - B C 1997 C 2007 C WITH ZANE AVENUE INTERCHANGE: 1997 C 2007 C PROJECT MEMORANDUM =69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM ZANE AVENUE NORTH TO DUPONT AVENUE NORTH CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA INTRODUCTION This Project Memorandum has been prepared by SEH for the City of Brooklyn Center and submitted in accordance with the approved highway project development process. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION This report focuses on 69th Avenue North from Zane Avenue North on the west and Dupont Avenue North on the east; a distance of 3.0 miles. The westerly 0.25 miles of 69th Avenue North lies in the City of Brooklyn Park. From Zane Avenue North to Brooklyn Boulevard (0.9 miles), 69th Avenue North is Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 30. See Figure 1, Project Location Map. 69th Avenue North is a two lane rural section with shoulders for the majority of its length. Widening occurs at the major intersections with Zane Avenue North, Brooklyn Boulevard, Shingle Creek Parkway, Humboldt Avenue North, and Dupont Avenue North. The wa - ri ht -of sixty -six (66) feet wide. right-of-way is primarily Y Pedestrians and bicyclists must use the shoulder from Palmer Lake Park to Dupont Avenue North. A sidewalk is provided on one side of the roadway from Zane Avenue North to Palmer Lake Park. r , Pedestrian trails are provided in Palmer Lake Park. Average daily traffic is approximately 9',000 vehicles per day from Zane Avenue North to Brooklyn Boulevard, 13,000 vehicles per day from Brooklyn Boulevard to Shingle Creek Parkway, and 6,500 vehicles per day from Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue North. 1 The horizontal alignment is generally straight except for curves in the vicinity of Palmer Lake Park which are not consistent with the alignment in the remainder of the corridor. Current adjacent land uses are residential with the exception of commercial areas near Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway, park land on the north side from West Palmer Lake Drive to Oliver Avenue North (Palmer Lake Park), and neighborhood commercial development at Humboldt Avenue. PROPOSED - IMPROVEMENTS The improvements proposed for 69th Avenue North include grading, curb and gutter, bikeway /walkway, and surfacing. Projected traffic volumes can be served with a three lane section (one lane in each direction with a continuous left turn lane) from Zane Avenue North to Brooklyn Boulevard. Lanes will be added at IP Brooklyn Boulevard to increase capacity of the intersection. The 69th Avenue /Shingle Creek Parkway intersection will be realigned to favor the major traffic movements and a (to be determined) section is proposed from Brooklyn Boulevard to Shingle Creek Parkway. A two lane section is proposed from Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue North. All major intersections will have turn lanes. b Existing alignment deficiencies will be e liminated Y flattening curves and moving slightly into Palmer Lake Park. The Section 6(f) conversion process for park lands is discussed in Section 4 of this report. The roadway would be designed to state aid standards. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED - 69TH AVENUE /SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY INTERSECTION Several alternates were considered for the realignment of the 69th Avenue /Shingle Creek Parkway intersection and are presented in Figures 2 -8. The existing alignment of the intersection does - 2 - not favor the major traffic movements - eastbound 69th Avenue to southbound Shingle Creek Parkway and northbound Shingle Creek Parkway to westbound 69th Avenue. Alternate A (Figure 4) would not change the intersection alignment and would require the addition of a traffic signal to adequately handle the anticipated volumes at the intersection. This alternate does not address the alignment deficiency on 69th Avenue and does not reorient the intersection in favor of the major traffic movements. Alternate B (Figure 5) would improve the existing alignment deficiencies on 69th Avenue west of the intersection but would leave the intersection in its present tee - intersection con - figuration. This alternate would require the addition of a traffic signal. Alternate C (Figure 6) would realign the 69th Avenue /Shingle Creek Parkway intersection to favor the major traffic movements. Also the alignment of 69th Avenue west of the intersection would be straightened. An ideal horizontal alignment of 69th Avenue would move the roadway into the DNR protected wetlands of Palmer Lake. The level of service for the intersection is good without a traffic signal. Alternate D (Figure 7) is similar to Alternate C except that the alignment of 69th Avenue is improved but is not moved into the DNR protected wetlands. Alternate E (Figure 8) provides a direct connection from Shingle Creek Parkway to 69th Avenue. East of the Shingle Creek inter- section 69th Avenue would be realigned to intersect with the existing Shingle Creek Parkway /Xerxes Avenue intersection. This alternate eliminates one tee - intersection and isolates the park from through traffic. However, this alternate is very costly and impacts heavily the adjacent properties at Xerxes Avenue. - 3 - Alternate D was selected. Major traffic movements are served by Alternate D without encroaching on wetlands. ALTERNATES CONSIDERED - 69TH AVENUE FROM BROOKLYN BOULEVARD TO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY A three lane alternate and two four lane alternates with a raised median (5 lane) were analyzed for the Brooklyn Boulevard to Shingle Creek Parkway segment. These alternates are illustrated in Figures 9 to 26. Four Lane Alternates The four lane alternates provide for two traveled lanes in each direction and a raised median with protected left turns at inter- sections. Improvements are proposed to the Brooklyn Boulevard/ 69th Avenue intersection which include additional lanes and a raised median on 69th Avenue. The four lane alternates would I P continue the through lanes and median from Brooklyn Boulevard to Shingle Creek Parkway. The four lane alternates include a bikeway /walkway on each side of the road. Additional right -of -way is needed along 69th Avenue from Brooklyn Boulevard to Shingle Creek Parkway. Because of Brooklyn Center's minimum setback regulations, properties along 69th Avenue would not have the required setbacks. To assess the impacts of the wider roadway, two four lane alternates were considered. The first four lane alternate (Alternate A, Figures 12 -16) moves 69th Avenue to the south from just east of Brooklyn Boulevard to just west of Palmer Lake Drive. Additional right - of -way needs for this alternate are shown on Figure 10. Alternate B (Figures 17 -21) moves 69th Avenue to the north and additional right -of -way needs are illustrated on Figure 10. Either alternate requires acquisition of approximately 24 parcels in order to maintain setbacks. - 4 - Figures 27 -32 illustrate the 69th Avenue corridor before and after widening. Moving the roadway to the north eliminates several driveways Ion 69th Avenue. The properties which would remain on the north side of 69th Avenue front on to side streets or streets paralleling 69th Avenue. Moving the roadway to the south introduces additional curves into the alignment. Properties on the north side of 69th Avenue would gain additional front or side yard setbacks. A large parcel would be created south of 69th Avenue from Halifax Avenue to the existing water tower which would be suitable for redevelopment. The four lane alternates enhance capacity and safety by eliminating several driveways on 69th Avenue and by providing left turn lanes at intersections. Access to properties on 69th Avenue would be right in /right out. IP Three Lane Alternate A three lane alternate provides for a continuous. left turn and easy access to all adjacent properties. To provide for an adequate level of service at the Brooklyn Boulevard /69th Avenue intersections, through lanes and turn lanes must be added to 69th Avenue. In addition, a raised median is recommended to limit access to 69th Avenue near the intersection. Transitions would be needed from the proposed intersection improvements to the three lane section (See Figure 19). Additional right turn lanes would be added at the intersection of France Avenue. Transitions are also needed from the three lane section to the four lane section on Shingle Creek Parkway. Ten adjacent properties would be acquired (Figure 11) to provide the necessary right -of -way at Brooklyn Boulevard and France Avenue and to provide for a slight realignment of 69th Avenue at Palmer Lake. A bikeway /walkway is proposed on each side to separate pedestrians and recreational bicyclists from traffic. - 5 - Capacity and safety are enhanced by providing a continuous left turn lanes which allow through traffic to bypass vehicles waiting to make a left turn. Access is not controlled along 60th'Avenue except at the Brooklyn Boulevard intersection. The alternate was selected because (To be completed when an alternate is selected) The option to do nothing was rejected because of the projected levels of service with future traffic volumes and the existing alignment deficiencies. OBJECTIVES OF PROPOSAL EXISTING DEFICIENCIES The horizontal alignment near Palmer Lake Park has compound and reverse curves which are not consistent with the alignment in the remainder of the corridor. IP The current level of service for the intersections at Zane Avenue, Brooklyn Boulevard, and Shingle Creek Parkway are C, E, and D respectively. The current alignment of the 69th Avenue /Shingle Creek Parkway intersection does not favor the major volume movements. The majority of the traffic is forced to make a left or right turn. Pedestrians and bicyclists are not separated from the roadway for approximately 1/3 of the project length. The projected average daily traffic volumes are 11,000 vehicles per day from Zane Avenue to Brooklyn Boulevard, 16,000 vehicles per day from Brooklyn Boulevard to Shingle Creek Parkway and 6,500 vehicles per day from Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue. Traffic volumes are analyzed in the attached Traffic Operations Study. - 6 If either of the four lane alternates is selected, the total cost of the proposed improvements is $7,100,000. A cost breakdown follows: Right Segment of -way Construction Engineering Total Zane Avenue to Brooklyn Blvd $ 0 $1,400,000 $150,000 $1,550,000 Brooklyn Blvd to Shingle Creek Parkway $2,100,000 $1,800,000 $200,000 $4,100,000 Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue $ 0 $1,300,000 $150,000 $1,450,000 $2,100,000 $4,500,000 $500,000 $7,100,000 If the three lane alternate is selected, the total cost of the proposed improvements is $5,595,000. A cost breakdown follows: IP Right Segment of-way Construction Engineering Total Zane Avenue to Brooklyn Blvd. $ 0 $1,400,000 $150,000 $1,550,000 Brooklyn Blvd. to Shingle Creek Parkway $815,000 $1,600,000 $170,000 $2,585,000 Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue $ 0 $1,300,000 $150,000 $1,450,000 $815,000 $4,300,000 $470,000 $5,585,000 The proposed improvements to 69th Avenue North are geared toward improving the LOS for the major intersections, improving traffic safety by providing left turn lanes and limiting access points, and improving pedestrian safety by providing bikeway /walkway away from the roadway. PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 7 i ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY The Section_- 6(f) process for conversion of park lands is documented in Section 4 of this report. A discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet has been initiated by the City. There are no anticipated impacts to Section 4(f) lands as a result of this project. The SHPO has determined no known sites of historic, architectural, cultural, archaeological, or engineering significance within the proposed project area. A copy of the Officer's letter is attached. ENDANGERED SPECIES To be completed. IP RIGHT -OF -WAY The proposed improvements require right -of -way acquisition from Brooklyn Boulevard to Shingle Creek Parkway. The existing right - of -way is 66 feet wide. The proposed right -of -way is (To be completed when an alternate is selected) The properties affected are shown on Figure FARMLAND There is no farmland within the limits of this project. - 8 - AIR QUALITY The air quality impact of the proposed project has been analyzed. The proposed improvement. (To be completed when an alternate is selected) NOISE The noise impact of the proposed project has been analyzed. The proposed improvement (To be completed when an alternate is selected) Construction noise has been considered and (To be completed when an alternate is selected) SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT OF 1977 The Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit does not apply to this project. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11933 - FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT This project will not impact the 100 year floodway. However, some fill materials will be placed in the Palmer Lake flood fringe area. Compensating storage must be provided. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990 - PROTECTION OF WETLANDS This project does not impact wetlands as defined by the DNR. WATER POLLUTION (To be completed when an alternate is selected) MITIGATION OF DAMAGES (To be completed when an alternate is selected) CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES (To be completed when an alternate is selected) AESTHETIC VALUES (To be completed when an alternate is selected) OTHER EFFECTS All alternates considered will provide trails for bicyclists and pedestrians. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet for this project has been initiated by the City. FEDERAL ACTION DETERMINATION STATEMENT PROJECT PATH Project Memorandum June, 1989 Public Hearing July, 1989 Preliminary Plans Sep, Oct, Nov, 1989 Right -of -Way Acquisition Dec, 1989 - Feb, 1990 Final Plans Dec, 1989 - Feb, 1990 Reviews Feb, March, 1990 Advertise for Bids March, 1990 Receive Bids April, 1990 Construction May - October, 1990 PROJECT MANAGER Sy Knapp Public Works Director City of Brooklyn Center - 10 - SECTION 6(f) PARKLAND CONVERSION PROCESS As of March 1, 1989 the conversion request has been submitted to the National Park Service (see step 10 on the following page) IP Summary with T yp i cal Timetable Time Action 1. 2 - 4 weeks Examine alternatives to converting parkland. 2 2 - 4 weeks Identification of replacement land. 3. 1 - 2 creeks State inspection and evaluation of proposed replacement land. 4. 1 - 2 months Conduct appraisals of proposed conversion and replace- ment land. 5. 1 - 2 months Conduct appraisal review. 6. Concurrent Develop appropriate boundary and site plan maps on the with appraisal proposed conversion and replacement land. preparation and review T. Concurrent Draft an Environmental Assessment Statement. with appraisal preparation and review 8. Concurrent Notify the Minnesota Historical Society. with appraisal preparation and review 9. Concurrent Notify the State Planning Agency. with appraisal preparation and review 10. 1 - 3 months Submit conversion request to NPS and /or LCMR for appro- val. 11. 1 - 2 months Prepare formal project amendments to legally authorize conversion. 12. 1 - 2 monthb Conduct conveyance of land to be converted and purchase replacement land. 13. 2 - 4 weeks Document purchase of replacement land 714 - 16 months Total length of conversion process. LAWCON VI /51 -5 I • Parkland Conversion Instructions A - 1. Introduction , This material is designed to assist you, the local park managing authority through a process of properly converting LAWCON and /or LCMR fund assisted parkland to a non - outdoor recreation use. The federsl /state parkland conversion policy can be found in the Use of Facilities subdivision of the General Provisions section of your official LAWCON /LCMR Grant Project Agreement. The Use of Facilities subdivision states: "The local unit shall not at any time convert any property acquired or developed pursuant to this agreement to uses other than public outdoor recreation uses - specified in the project proposal attached, hereto, without the prior written approval of the Director or Regional Director." Essentially, this particular clause is the main "string" attached to the receipt of these grants. Because the LAWCON /LCMR program was created to increase the net quantity of public outdoor recreation open space, LAWCON /LCMR funded property must be protected. It would be counterproductive to spend a lot of time and public money to acquire and develop parkland, only to have that same land converted to non - recreation use a few years hence. . Consequently, all conversions should be avoided until all other alternatives have been thoroughly explored. It's acknowledged that circumstances can exist that require the conversion of parkland to a non - recreation use. As a result, the National Park Service (NPS) has developed guidelines for converting LAWCON fund assisted parkland. The state of Minnesota has adopted the NPS guidelines for processing LCMR fund assisted conversions. Therefore, one set of guidelines is used for processing parkland conversions regardless of whether the park project was assisted with a federal LAWCON grant or a state LCMR grant. it. The Process Correctly converting LAWCON and /or LCMR funds assisted parkland will be a lengthy and costly process. Unless they are directly responsible for creating the necessity to convert parkland, the federal and state governments will not provide any financial assistance to the agency initiating the conversion. This section will be subdivided. Subdivision A will consist of the NPS conversion guidelines as excerpted from the Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant Manual, Chapter 675.9.3, Subdivision B will consist of explanatory material developed by the Parks and Recreation Grants Section to assist you through the process. 1 J�- A. NPS - LAWCON Manual Excerpt Conversion Property acquired or developed with L a WCF assistance shall be retained and used for public outdoor recreation. Any property so acquired or developed shall not be wholly or partly converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses without the approval of . the NPS Regional Director pursuant to Section 6(f)(3) of the L a WCF Act. The Director had authority to disapprove conversion requests and /or to reject proposed property substitutions. A. Conversion applicability - Conversion generally occur in the following four situations: (1) Property interests are conveyed for non - public outdoor recreation uses. (2) Non - outdoor recreation uses (public or private) are made of the project area. or a portion thereof. (3) Non - eligible indoor recreation facilities are developed within the project area. (4) Public outdoor recreation use of property acquired or developed with L a WCF assistance is terminated. (5) Exceptions: (a) Underground utility easements that do not have significant impacts upon the recreational utility of the park will not constitute a conversion. (b) Proposals to construct public facilities where it can be shown that there is a gain or increased benefit to public recreational opportunity will not constitute a conversion. Final review and approval of such cases shall be made on a case by case basis in the NPS Washington office. B. Prerequisites to Considerations of Conversions - The Service will only consider conversion requests if the following prerequisites have been met: (1) All practical alternatives to the conversion have been evaluated and rejected on a sound basis. (2) The fair market value of the property to be converted has been established and the property proposed for substitution is of at least equal fair market value as established by a State approved appraisal. 2 r (a) Generally, this will necessitate a review of appraisals prepared in accord with Chapter 675.2 for both the property proposed to be converted and that recommended for substitution. However, at the discretion of the Regional Director, a State certification that appraisals of both properties are acceptable and reveal that the replacement property is of at least equal fair market value as that of the property to be converted can be accepted. Exercising this authority should be consistent with the State's review responsibilities with respect to donation appraisals. (Set $75.2.5E). (b) Property improvements will be excluded from all fair market value consideration for properties to be substituted. Exceptions are allowable only in those cases where property proposed for substitution contains improvements which directly enhance its outdoor recreation utility. (3) The property proposed for replacement is of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location as that being converted. Dependent upon the situation and at the discretion of the Regional Director, the replacement property need not provide identical recreation experiences or be located at the same site, provided it is in a reasonably equivalent location. It must, however, be administered by the same political jurisdiction as the converted property. (4) The ro ert proposed for substitution meets the eligibility P P Y P Po B Y requirements for L a WCF assisted acquisition, replacement property must constitute or be part of a viable recreation area. (a) Public land may not be used for substitution on acquisition projects unless it meets certain acquisition criteria. However, in the case of development projects for which the State match was not derived from the cost of the purchase or value of a donation of the land to be converted, public land not currently dedicated to recreation/ conservation use may be used as replacement land even if this land is transferred from one public agency to another without cost. t (5) All necessary coordination with other Federal agencies has been satisfactorily accomplished. (6) The guidelines for environmental evaluation have been satisfactorily completed and considered by the Service during its review of the proposed 6(f)(3) action. In cases where the proposed conversion arises from another Federal action, final review of the State's proposal shall not occur until the Region is assured that all environmental review requirements related to that other action have been met. (7) A -95 clearinghouse review procedures have been adhered to if the proposed conversion and substitution constitute significant changes to the original Land and Water Conservation Fund project. 3 (8) The proposed conversion and substitution are in accord with the SCORP. (9) Staff consideration of the above points reveals no reason for dis an the d project files are so documented. sa ro p ro Pp (10) It should also be noted that the acquisition of one parcel of land may be used in satisfaction of several approved conversions. However, previously acquired property cannot be used to satisfy substitution requirements. Amendments for Conversion Conversions require amendments when the property to be substituted is off -site or when replacement of property is deferred. Amendments should be submitted concurrently with conversion requests. Section 6(f)(3) project boundary maps shall also be submitted at this time to identify the changes to the original area caused by the proposed conversion and to establish, as appropriate„ a new "project area" pursuant to the substitution. Once the conversion has been approved, replacement property should be immediately acquired. Exceptions to this rule would occur only when it is not possible for replacement property to be identified prior to the State's request for the conversion. it will, however, be the Service's policy to avoid such situations if at all possible and to agree only if warranted by exceptional circumstances. In such cases, an express commitment to satisfy Section 6(f)(3) substitution requirements within a specified period, normally not to exceed one year following conversion approval, must be received from the State. This will be in the form of an amendment to the project agreement. B. Explanatory Material This subdivision will provide a step -by -step process designed to assure compliance with the NPS guidelines provided in subdivision A. The subdivision will include a narrative, a summary with timetable and attachments. 1. The first step in the conversion process is to explore alternatives to converting parkland to a non - recreational use. Alternative exploration must be presented in a narrative form. If it is apparent that the agency initiating the conversion has made a good -faith effort to examine alternatives and still concludes that a conversion is necessary, the conversion process may continue. Z. The second step toward the mitigation of a conversion is the identification of the replacement land. Essentially, replacement land must: (1) be of equal or greater appraised value and (Z) be of equivalent recreational usefulness. (Normally, this means that the replacement land must be of equal or greater size in acres.) I '' � 4 1— 3. Once tentatively selected, the replacement Iand will be physically inspected by a member of the Parks and Recreation Grants Section to assess its recreational usefulness. This assessment will be based on the site's physical characteristics, location, accessibility and the ability of future facilities to most the priorities of SCORP. If. in the judgement .of the Parks and Recreation Grants Section staff, the replacement land appears to be of equivalent recreational usefulness, the conversion process may proceed. If the proposed replacement. ' land is not equal to the land to be converted, another site must be selected. 4. The next step for the agency initiating the conversion is to secure two appraisals. The first appraisal is for the property to be converted. The second appraisal is for the replacement property. As per the NPS LAWCON manual guidelines, these appraisals must e undergo a rigorous appraisal review. Consequently, the appraisals must be correctly prepared. To assist with this effort we are providing two documents: (1). Basic standards for Real Estate Appraisals. (Attachment A), and (2) A list of appraisers qualified to conduct appraisals for state and federal contracts. (Attachment B) The appraiser you select must be on the qualified appraiser list. Moreover, that appraiser must follow the Basic Standards, so be sure to provide him /her with a copy before the appraisal process begins. 5. When the two appraisals are complete, they must be submitted to the Parks and Recreation Grants Section. The Parks and Recreation Grants Section has contracted with real estate experts in the Land Bureau of the DNR to conduct appraisal reviews. Because the Parks and Recreation Grants Section must pay the DNR for appraisal review services. we may require the agency initiating the conversion to reimburse us. That means the agency will pay for both the real estate appraisals and the appraisal review costs. If, after review, it is determined that the proposed replacement land is of equal or greater appraised value than the proposed conversion, the conversion process may proceed. if the proposed replacement land is not of equal or greater value than the land to be converted, another site must be selected. 6. Once the appraisal process is complete. the agency initiating the conversion must develop and submit Z copies of boundary and site plan maps for both the proposed conversion land and the proposed replacement land. The proposed replacement land site plan map should detail the type and location of future recreation facilities. A timetable should be provided which identifies the anticipated dates of facility construction. T. An environmental assessment statement (B.A.S.) must be developed for the proposed replacement land. Attachment C is a suggested format for the E.A.S. S. The Minnesota Historical Society must be notified of the proposed conversion. They will need a site plan map showing the anticipated future development on the proposed replacement land. it's conceivable that the Historical Society will require an archeological survey of the proposed replacement land prior to facility construction. Attachment D is an example cover letter to the MHS. 9. The State Clearinghouse at the State Planning Agency must also be notified of the proposed conversion. Attachment E is an example letter to the SPA. 10. Once steps one through nine are complete, the proposed conversion can be submitted to the federal NPS and /or State LCMR for approval. Although Park and Recreation Grants staff can recommend approval, we cannot guarantee approval and it's possible your request could be denied. 11. if the conversion proposal is approved by NPS and /or LCMR, Parks and Recreation Grants staff will prepare formal amendments to the original project agreements. These amendments will provide a legal basis for parkland conversion and replacement. 12. When the amendments are fully executed, the agency initiating the conversion is then authorized to convey the land to be converted and purchase the replacement land. 13. Once the agency purchases the replacement land, documentation evidencing purchase must be submitted. This documentation includes copies of: A. Warranty Deed(s) B. Cancelled Checks C. Statement of Just Compensation form D. Written Offer to Purchase E. Statement of Owner form F. Statement of Difference in Value form G. Attorney's Certificate of Title form All forms plus instructions will be provided at the time of amendment execution. 14. When the items listed in 113 are satisfactorily provided, the matter is officially closed. 6 MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOUNOED IN 1849 Fort Snelling History Center, St. Paul, MN 55111 • (612)726 -1 171 January 13, 1989 Mr. Sy Knapp City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Mr. Knapp: Re: Notification of intent to convert portion of 1987 - 08, Palmer Lake Park Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County MHS Referral File Number: 89-0849 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above- referenced project. It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given the State Historic Preservation office by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 according to 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties, the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation governing the Section 106 review process. A prehistoric archaeological site, 21HE75, is located in the general vicinity of this project. The current condition of that site is unknown. Because this IP project involves only a wetland area, we do not believe that this or any unreported archaeological sites will be affected. Therefore this project will not include any properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Because the project affects non - federal public lands, provisions of Minnesota Statutes 138 may apply. By copy of this letter I am notifying the State Archaeologist of our recommendation. If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact Ted Lofstrom at the address and telephone number on the letterhead. Sincerely, V o`er Dennis A. Gimmestad Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DAG:dmb cc: Department of Trade and Econcmic Development, Outdoor Recreation Grants 900 American Center Building, 150 E. Kellog Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55101 Dr. Christy A. H. Caine, State Archaeologist, Research Lab Building University of Minnesota, Duluth, tdN 55812 r �7 CITY 8301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 ROOK LY N TELEPHONE 581.5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE r 911 December 13 1988 r State Historical Preservation Officer Minnesota Historical Society ATT: Ted Lofstrom Fort Snelling St. Paul, MN 55111 RE: Notification of Intent to Convert a Portion of 1987 - 08 Palmer Lake Park City of Brooklyn Center Project # Park Name Local Sponsor Dear Mr. Lofstrom: Pursuant to federal /state LAWCON /LCMR guidelines, any replacement properties for the purpose of mitigating conversions of previously financed LAWCON /LCMR parkland must be reviewed by the SHPO. Enclosed is a summary of the project, including a project map and property descriptions. The proposed replacement would be incorporated in the City's park system. Please notify us and the Parks and Recreation Grants Unit of the Department of Energy and Economic Development as soon as possible as to whether the proposed development would have an effect on any historical resources at the project site. Sincerely, Sy Knap Public Works Director i/cb LAWCON V/54 -1 r �5�138 i CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 :;[BROOKLYN TELEPHONE 561.5440 0 'C -ENTER EMERGENCY POLICE - FIRE December 13, 1988 Mr. Maurice D. Chandler State Clearinghouse Officer Minnesota State Planning Agency 550 Cedar Street, Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55101 RE: Notification of Intent to Convert a Portion of 1987 - 08 Palmer Lake Park City of Brooklyn Center Project # Park Name Local Sponsor Dear Mr. Chandler: Pursuant to federal /state LAWCON/LCMR guidelines, any conversions of previously- financed LAWCON /LCMR parkland must be reviewed by the state clearinghouse. * Attached are descriptions, including maps, of the park property to be converted to a nonrecreation use and the proposed replacement property. If you have any questions on this material, please contact me at (612) 561 - 5440 or Louis Jambois, Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development, at 296 - 1567. Sincerely, Sy Knapp Public Works Director /cb LAWCON VI /53 -1 x I CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 B ROOK LY N TELEPHONE 561.5440 C -ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 December 13, 1988 Marcia Taubr Outdoor Recreation Program Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development Community Development Division 900 American Center Building 150 East Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55101 -1421 RE: Project No. 1987-08, Palmer Lake Park, City of Brooklyn Center Dear Ms. Taubr: Attached is an environmental assessment statement (E.A..S.) for the proposed replacement land for the Palmer Lake Park conversion. This land will become part of the City's park system. A concept plan for park development is currently being prepared. The proposed replacement land will likely be an expansion of the existing arboretum in Kylawn Park. The State Historical Society and State Clearinghouse have been notified of the ro p posed conversion. ' We understand that the necessary steps have been completed, so that you can submit the proposed conversion for approval. If you have any questions on this material please call me at (612) 561 -5440. Sincerely, Sy Knapp Public Works Director /cb 1 Y k1 City of Brooklyn Center Project 1987 -08 Palmer Lake Park Parkland Conversion Environmental Assessment Statement 1. Description of Proposed Action The City of Brooklyn Center will acquire approximately eleven (11) acres adjacent to Kylawn Park. The property will be incorporated into the City park system and is included in a concept plan being prepared for development of the City's parks. A probable use for the site is for i expansion of the existing arboretum in Kylawn Park. 2. Description of Environment A. Present Land Use: The parcel to be acquired is located within the City of Brooklyn Center and is currently zoned for R -3 Multiple Family Residence, Townhouse development. B. Fish and Wildlife: The site is neither on nor adjacent IP to a national, state or local wildlife area. Wildlife on the site consists late of water fowl small mammals and birds. A small amount of wildlife habitat will be lost if the property is used as an arboretum and walking known endangered trails are developed. There are no kn o g species on the site. The dominant vegetation Vegetation: C. on the site consists of various species of trees and grasses. The site is lowland with areas of standing water and swampy conditions. Development of the site would avoid removing trees and turf would be reestablished upon completion of construction. There are no known endangered species on the site. D. Geology and Sites: The soil profile consists primarily of alluvial sand deposits. In the low swamp areas, surficial deposits of soft organic and fine grained soils exist. The water table is shallow (approximately 10 feet below ground surface). E. Mineral resources: There are no known mineral deposits on the site. r CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Page #2 F. Air -and Water Quality: Currently, air quality on the site is good. Minor air pollution would occur during development of walking trails in the park. Water quality would be affected slightly during construction. No roads or parking areas are anticipated on the site. G. Historical Significance: The Minnesota Historical Society has been notified of the proposed replacement and will determine the projects effect on any historical resources. H. Transportation and Access: Pedestrian access is from the existing Kylawn Park parking lot. No direct vehicular access to the site is anticipated. ' I. Energy and Taxes: Some energy will be expended during the development of the park. The property is Tax Exempt as owned by the State of Minnesota as a result of Tax Forfeiture. 3. Impact of the Proposed Action IP Minor short term unavoidable adverse impacts will be removal of ground cover and erosion during construction of trails on the site. Long term unavoidable adverse effects will consist of a minor loss of habitat for small mammals. The design of improvements to the site will attempt to minimize these adverse affects. The City of Brooklyn Center will gain a passive recreation area and will maintain wildlife habitat. The maintenance of these habitats benefits the ecological balance and human environment of the area. �r r r r r MEMORANDUM ARMM 222 EAST Lit TLE CANADA ROAD, ST PAUL, MINNESOM SS117 612 4JU U: /9 TO: FILE 87138 ' BROOKLYN CENTER 69TH AVENUE NORTH 6(F) PROCESS FROM: MARLIN LARSON RE: MEETING 12 -7 -88 A meeting and field trip was held in Brooklyn Center to review the Palmer Lake Park land to be converted and the proposed replacement land. Attendees were: Bo Spurrier - City of Brooklyn Center Marsha Taubr- Mn /Department of Trade and Economic Development Marlin Larson - SEH Discussion: - Appraisals were revised and appear in order. - Construction may be up to two years away. The City wants to be sure that the conversion process can happen before proceeding to the next phase of project development. -SEH will super impose the proposed roadway nd right of wa Y 9 Y on an aerial photo for Marsha Taubr. -SEH will prepare the environmental assessment statement (E.A.S.) and the letters notifying the Historical Society and the State Clearinghouse of the proposed conversion. 1 MDL /cmb cc: Attendees Sy Knapp, City of Brooklyn Center Glen Van Wormer, SEH tiflUR1 EIIIQ11 ,I PAUL, ('HIPPEWAPALL5, HENDRICKSON IN( MINNESOTA WISCONSIN M1CM �AAIdMTfC!!1Ilw11NMNl� 222 EAST LIMLECANAOAROAQ ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 612 484.0272 November 16, 1988 RE: 69TH AVENUE NORTH ' 6 (F) PROCESS SEH FILE NO. 87138 Mr. Bo Spurrier City of Brooklyn Center,/ 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Spurrier: Attached is a description of right of way needed for the realignment of 69th Avenue North in Palmer Lake Park.' The description is for a 100 foot wide strip of land containing 2.16 IP acres, more or less. Since we are in the preliminary stages of design, this right of way may change slightly to accommodate the final alignment. However, the acreage needed will be essentially the same as shown. Please call if you require additional information. Yours Very Truly, ' Marlin Larson MDL /cmb Enclosure cc: Glen Van Wormer SHORT ELLIOTT 5T PA CHIPPEWA FALLS, HENORICKSON I MINNESOTA WISCONSIN o 'II I / rn n �• ■ ■ ■■ •�■ ■i■■ .. as I r_ V • 1 ■ • �,� �• ►� ■ ■■ w ■ 111 Ed . W:: I I,r11 //� 11 /111 /■ ■■ ■l [: ■ 11ItL"'I ■■ "..•" `'� n � . - •-�-R_ ■ 111 " ■ i ii,' :� w ■1111■ glt� f " " �� •'�������� �� loll 1111 �� �nit�7 : C� ; �w • I / ■ ■1 ■ ■/■ 1 / / / / ■ ■■ ■/111 WON r. ��/11 r• I� i� i it■ ■ ■ ■r 1 ^ i��1 % ■ ■3L0 ■fit■ girl. ti : 4 � � � � ■■" ' • off 11/111 � � •. � ISI~m 4 10 • ��U r long x / 1111 :111■• v ���ii " -'" ���iiiii ' `, .r. not :� �;, �A 9) 11@ 31Cf/ :iZ r i� ifiiaf�� 1 =IF '� 'o• more goo now `ft r ■ On i� aaam r 11111111 � � _= . � � :a 1111111 .. aaa a■: 1 /II *•. .. ai11 �: 11I Ion 111011 �,. /I /I���■ Noll" / /i�1 ■1 ■■ • ff� 11 11gs ne ■e . �/I■1■n n1111� I 1r.a11► � .7.1■I■■ In1 :1rm"111 L- 1111111 II / �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIrt c111111■ a 111..1 a , i 1 � l�IN I •1111111 1111111 Ai 1 "11e� � �11111111/1n111 = i/1/a ' NOW , 1• r i/il ■TLI1 ®111// M Ii�a i ■f1 �-�"�' fff �/ ■/ I / / ■I ■1 f� too • .�'.�. 1�� ;�'= a 1 ■ ■ / ■l. 1 f� � '►1t13.7L'TL�11C�► ��� ••� 4w US or Too • ;111/1111:_111 �;i�"�,`t� �:.� 1 i ..n J ,_ ■.:.... H/ N/ WIN CM. ' Q ^+ �► a i�ii� M Maw r wrw • ti ►r ►�►� A ■® ■aff / ■■ ■sff/M 11111.- / ■ ■ ■ ■arrr■ ■ ■ll 5 • ®,. 111111■ ■ / ■ ■m■ a ■1 ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ 11111 ■ move `,•• �� a =1�■■■a■Iftnr. ©■1 ■■■ ■1■ s1■a■n■ ■ I ■1L+13�f■1• ■■■■■■ ■■�■■■■ • M , ■1� ■■I■11r�■■■■ �rrerr■■ .. ■ ■ /E3�ir■i'�■ t= roCf�r ■■ � �• o. �' ■1 ■ ■ ■■ �iS w r ruw 1.. ■Q�• �,j ,, /1111 /� i ■�_ �ii ■� CA �' ��111191r • ... ■ / / ■ ■/■ ■111 ■i c ■ 111 � �f ■/11111/1//1 1 ;11111111) 1 ■■ '� ■IIG111w . /G9�IIt�■■ ' =;■ 111111n,", ; 111 / ■�■n■■ .. �� •. .� If1[ .111�lIN /�i ;�, � •/1 111 ■w 69th AVENUE /SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY CONCERNS ALTERNATE COSTS ' (SHE ATTAC MM IMPACT ON COMPARED TO TRAFFIC HANDLING ADDITIONAL SRETt�ES) SAFETY ENVIRONMENTAL ADJ. PROP. OTHER ALTERNATIVES DURING CONSTIMC?ION REMARKS A More Traffic More traffic No Const. Requires Traffic No Impact Not Acceptable ' No Change volume means means more impact Signal Does not address potential for congestion - - $100,000 alignment. accidents. more pollution. Alignment does not favor major move- ments. LOS ' B - With Signal, E — Without Signal B Requires dual Moves traffic Minimal Requires Signal Minimal Alignment does not Tee Inter lefts 6 dual better than $750,000 j . IP favor ma or -move - section rights to existing. ments. handle the ' volumes. LOS B -With Signal E - Without Signal C Potentially Extensive impact Affects 1 Costly - All new Difficult at Not Acceptable Realign Inter- the safest on park. Re- parcel in construction tie -ins to because of impacts section, Major geometrically.quires work in s. w. quad. $2,000,000 existing. on park & wetlands Straightening wetland. Add'l.taking of 69th Ave. of Townhouses LOS B -Without Signal FILE NO AV 69th AVENUE N. 87 138 BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA IAQ N *� ��P� INTERSECTION ALTERNATES 2 69th AVENUE /SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY CONCERNS (Continued) ALTERNATE COSTS ' (SEE ATTACHED IMPACT ON COMPARED TO TRAFFIC HANDLING ADDITIONAL SRBWHES) SAFETY ENVIRONMENTAL ADJ. PROP. OTHER ALTERNATIVES DURING CONSTRUCTION REMARKS D Meets MSA Some park Minimal Moderate Difficult at Slight compromise Realign Inter- Standards impact. No $1,000,000 tie -ins to on alignment to section. w/o super wetland impact. existing. respect the right Flatten curves elevation. of way already ob- on 69th Ave. tained, park and wetlands. LOS B - Without Signal E Eliminates Isolates park. Affects 2 Most costly Difficult at Completes Street Move 69th Ave one "T" inter- parcels at Could be staged tie -ins to existing. network. Could add to Intersect section. Xerxes. May with Alt. "D" traffic to Xerxes at Xerxes require add•l $2,000,000 acquisition. LOS ' A -B - with Signal *Palmer Lake Road East Does not include costs west of Palmer Lake Road nLE NO. 69th AVENUE N. 87 138 BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA oR� "a INTERSECTION ALTERNATES 3 1 1 _. \ % A AYE cr ca ca 1 m Q w 1 6 Q ZZ cc M LL 1 / 69th AVENUE N. FILE No. 87138 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA DRG. No. 1 ENGINEERS. ARCHMEVSR PLANNERS INTERSECTION ALTERNATE "A" 4 t .. s -- -..,._ Ste` • -•.... y,, `f . .�, t ..... ..... .i { 1 - - - ` Acid ul 1 t ca u p C13 col TY ct 6 3rgr ZJ ''- u- 1 � 69th AVENUE N. FILE No. 87138 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA ERG. No. 1 ENGINEERS .ARCHIM 2PLANNERS INTERSECTION ALTERNATE "B" 5 = mom=== r• r• is �,✓ . . { .... ... .. ..... .aw ...........:......... P S F N �a AVE_.,,....,`` # m / (( ..... XS/ y 1 $ Y ,{ ZENITH AV _N. t WN m 2 c1 �f• n FREEWAY BLVD. 2 } T ,. �• f' �, s J ' f m Z O Z � . � ` ,/ i Z c M M m az rn D f V r �'. CO 0 t 69 y AVFiVV \ ) E N. ti F z 4 l ' > Z S Set -.. _.> .�•, ,`�� °s�, -F � s ' i � � { w I cr- ! T ...... ......... 1 Z S { m uj 6q Y i /V /y� 4 1 W - { 4 •� . , • � 3 1 111 j - ~4•'.'.`^ n. .y,..v„•<." "TM.»....e.r....w.,.. ,..- +• +'^°._ t 5 i �- � VA AdW 69th AVENUE N. Fi�E 871.38 8 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA DRG. N ' ENGIIVEERS.ARCNITECTS /PLANNERS INTERSECTION ALTERNATE "D" 7 Gj 4 � .......... .. ....... ,r t, w �,w✓ �,�' � ±t l r ...� yr. \ \ � .r!"•�„ jjj , -... E NUE u j UJ W ; � \ '�• •O E.� e S r ' z , m Eu w! _ Q a Zs 4i rr i' 3 uji L Tu , .......... �; � -� � �� � `¢� -�:, -- .._..� """�. 6 3rd � k �.,. � 0 t �}� •s 3 q V 69th AVENUE N. FILE N0. 87138 ,,,i& BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA DRG. N0. ' ENGINEERS 0 ARCH17WM 8PLANNERS INTERSECTION ALTERNATE "Ell 8 33' _ 1 33' I • 11' TYR L 14 ' 14' 1 11' TYP 6' I BIKEWAY i BIKEWAY I 2� 4 � TYPICAL SECTION DMW TO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY ' - S0 I 50' RJW ¢ WE. R/VV E8. / W 8 4' 14' e' B 14 14 6' 8 I BKEWAY BIKEWAY 1.5% I x I I I I ' TYPICAL SECTION SHIMME CREEK TO BROOKLYN BLVD. ALTERNATES "A" i "B" 3 3 ' • 33' R/W R/W B' 4' 14' 14' 4' 6• BKEWAY CONTIEFT,TURN LANE BIKEWAY —2% 2% TYPICAL SECTION SHINGLE CREEK PRWY TO BROOKLYN BLVD. ALTERNATE "C" AND BROOKLYN BLVD. TO ZANE AVE. I .w..r cwwy MN tm ciw� w.. sw w" by a , ,.b.. �..� „,., I .... aw .� 69th AVE. N. 87138 ""' a " ~a'.�.. E ,�...... d ~ 5EM TYPICAL SECTIONS �� 9 ►a. er DATE REVelons 1reM oESKw CHECKED Deft ap Na ,. OPIAI MRS BROOKLYN CENTER try r 1 ©1"'I - NooLl_gYE cS' I o I w : . CRO�A LA __.1 AVG C AO�/io IL — MAJOR AVE. t ,O ti MAJOR LEE ! AVE LEE I AVE. ly S r > D Q Z Z Z ' • OO .a ' . 4 'ON JUNE AVE` D7 ON JUNE AVE. co r— r ---- -- INDIANA AVE. INDIANA AV VEI[D ORIER'S BOBE RIER'S I ~ D ADD. 'r v TDI ADD. Q4 ; HALIFAX AVE HALIFAX AVE. I N _ BOBENDRIER'S CO x ,x r BOBENDRIER'S o D 4TH. ADD. - p GRIMES AVE. Z •N 4TH. ADD. 1 C GRIMES AVE. q s LMER LAKE Z 11 LMER LAKE D • tERR. 4TH. ADD. ° ERR. 4TH. ADD. Q. r Z I m r� h D m ELSEN'S w D ELSE 'S m BEARD AVE CITY VIEW r � D _ __ / Oo W v O -1 N I < I — < EWWG AVE. � EWING AVE. I •y i s :m f � A �� °' ° II j�•' kp i � OREW AVE. AVE. I - - -- 1 N J r o N v I o LAKE AK + PALMER L E t - -PALMER ERR 3RD ADD. I ERR 3RQ ADD n a m __4 a __4 p m 3 � �. m- a� 0 .. J ELSEN'S w ELSE 'S SEAR[) OwE ! BEARD AVE CITY VIEW r CITY VIEW; f � 7 _ __ / 0 .. J m mom mm 'Hi11' L �3 • • u u D m m s 30 Z m n a a m r ME I d NOBLE AV O ° w �. q q�GAyFq i MAJOR AVE. ti ?ti0 C T LEE AVE. .0 1 >> ° Or ^0 Z . 0 . 1 JUNE AVE. � n r INDIANA AVE. O E RIER'S 3 RD ADD. HALIFAX AVE. I � a N = p BOBENDR{ER'S - - - -- -+ D W z 4TH. ADD. I . i GRIMES AVE. LMER LAKE - I ERR. 4TH. ADD. I - AVt. - - -- — .£WING A VE. CIT 1 :R LAKE IRO- ADD. a LEE AVE. a I U Q I ' 0 . CONC. OR V I HOUSE cl I ; O JUNE AVE. N. I t • I i 0 C. _ I� m so' a INDIANA AVE. N. In I s a '• - a > I 20' BIT, C) � t8' C. - - - -- p HALIFAX AVE. N. y v 70 - - -- -.. 0 r ) s N ' HOUSEi C IT C C m mom m m m m m m* M M m m m m .m nm nm 1111 s 1 j • < �Z r r q w � s' 10' en. 1 4' O UR i Q � i HAUrAX AVE. N I I lJ HOUSE N q� Ir i F.. - __._. i ~OUSE HOU IV 1 ' i, .RMES AVE. N. I I i 2" BIT I i HOUSE 1 I t U I I i I I I jl ' 1;'817 I = FRANCE AVE. N. I = 7 c CONC N M I 81 T. Ty I g.. -_ � sa BIT. FWNG F. N. = i 'I HOUSF - C •- 1 c 0 a 0 ■ e •.ter 1��11 In k Di ts� B� i z . n m rri �o m O a a a 4 . I , b e y a 'le � f I X111 nil �11 I I It s � �r a iy 1 I 1 BEARD AVE. N. j CAR. 26'9IT. CAR 40'CONC. I / ABBOTT AVE. N. / 24 / I J o j j t � J6*MT. I � i ZENITH AVE. NP O 91 .. O O I �� I �W I O I I K � I O 0 J � O H • I � O W J W J D U • W 1 Q m ' V) / M I � b O O � M ►„ o0 O � � I I ► � rPo � � �r r r� r � r �■ � �■■ r r �r r �r r� I.EE AVF. 0 1 _ C� 1 ' CONC. DR "OUSE _ IL OI � r I Q _ l' % I t •�� i ( o � I a -r n r 1 i o ■ ' '' �I JUNE AVE. N. cl o T � , - � 4 N Z .SQ BIT. — INDIANA AVE. N. 14 is a 1 �1 CD $ { i NAUE AX AVE. N. v 70' l HOUSE C C I W rJ _i11v :,Nlv, i 4 o 1 I \ i vi II I Z 217 ,tll t. MII I' • '= G W :I ;I -I I x no,( LL s� — fi �3S,1Jrr � fi I - I I I {•�' U I I I 7:11Gn • I - - - ifi .61 l i I It l it I • I� t t P 2 f -0 i ul 0 O m O t� � ( s ays � I � .3AV M�HQ I • 3S(X)H 1 I I O - ' .'Z � II 600rr 11 I n 3srYm I lit] M :p I . O • 0 R E A Rt A'. t J. j tl 9 2 cl) .0 m m X O 0 A V 1 4 1, GAR. I 2F-FM• , GAR 40UNC ABBOTT AVE. N. I -4 r / / 24'81T A WS T. ZENITH AVE. NP . 9f ; l u \ \ e * I C. 0 � � C, b ..W- � r OVA" C, b ..W- � r • W � J b Z W a • H i r r I L o o 1 a mows r � i � r � � � r � � � � m LFF AVF. p � a l ' o ' o ') o � ' • ' CONC. OR. HOUSE tm F3 o I _ t p I 1j; / o , JUNE AVE. N. • I , 8 iI 5 ; s • -- __— I - 1 ONC.� " m 30' BIT. :Nlli. AVE. N. to - -- a' 817. 1' . z 0' Po o HALIFAX AVE. N. 20• HOUSE J V r� � err r■� � �r �r � r r� r� ■r r� +r � m ow-r M mm mom m m m .m M � lot r a O BEARD AVE. N. GAR. � o 7 � r� O ABBOTT AVE. N 2410T. 1 1 ti ° !!'lIT. i \ • ZENITH AVE. NP 1 ! 1 I l o 6.. r x . . ■ V A d y 33 60 ( 1 1 y N m s Z z W Q w oc � v ' Its \ � yy •04 '\ f i l l ` I \ rr rr rr rr rr rir rr � rr rr rr r� �■r r �r� rr 1 . i 8 8 ® 0 8 ® -� 1 ' )lo wo " 220 zp "o e). "o ar aw all a* UO Ib no It* 158 No 115110 We uo t00 }> 60 ' 10 60 '}� 40 )o as t/�f11Yr � call. �o►r. erfra�uc �1 rs Rpw• ViOnr , 69ft Lva. Raw. EXISTING GROSS SECTION � .h, a�r.a+ 1 : e are r�i e d ey or / ."° ' r#r.,r,,..,....a.. ��� 69th. AVE. N. GRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF arcs 27 �� o�ttf �, „E„ � � „�,,,.�= BROOKLYN CENTER PROPOSED ALIGNMENT ,, as • r a fn 7 AW Mm Apdl V se % ao we �m 7 as r!o iw ne 1eo Ito zoo ao sro 230 ajo tso do 2zo t7o 300 ;ro tvXsw vrseiart tooyrsw H° eve.. xaw. EXISTING CROSS SECTION "mw fawy "'" "°"""°"'"° ""' an a `" 69th. AVE. N. GRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF s s 28 wo W [AW s> veai+s "M o mm CIEMIM ow qp rq a+aus�ssssunsersorafs BROOKLYN CENTER PROPOSED ALIGNMENT ,� W `?? -- 8 8 �! D � � • � 1 t—� 510 w afa am 270 uo ale ar aso a►o wo No Iio ►7o uo rr m 1r lao Ito in 1% &0 50 40 'o ze eauln10 ► 1 or o caasr►nn 6r► Av �.ow. 5o Pt. Ser►c ., Ne R xaw. FUTURE CROSS SECTION 5 LANE ALTERNATE W 1 9 oby e«+w that mft or• was orw.r.a M of FM NO. "" °""'"°"""im ""° that -0 a tl. °" Mr r o W" 69th. AVE. N. GRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF 87138 29 R.p.nrw ProMSS1o,W Enprw v,Ow Htb d MYrNwt� wo. er � �a o� aevlsar►s ►rEw pEBq� pcEO pn n.o ►►w BROOKLYN CENTER PROPOSED ALIGNMENT APRIL 88 °° m ° ,mot xt e t 0 to 10 Y M M 40 N so % wo so Sio 1!e ao tls Iss 170 Zeo No no zp iLp a" tw tlo zeo zoo 300 3io GpynM�. s1+Ir�sAt �nynn� Hti �vt. thaw. f1Coft%V loon. raw. fort low FUTURE CROSS SECTION 5 LANE ALTERNATE •A. u aw dbec i�o �iY� i e e not t I stein i bm of 69th GRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF Ay « d..r..,.d..» A � . AVE. . N. : Piz a s0 ® -M PROPOSED ALIGNMENT �`� .,, ,E s ffEm � Nm s1M6�I�.MWt�Cttf/1MNMf BROOKLYN CENTER APRL 88 '• ' "� ata apaT I • p ;o 10 ♦w A Go 1w M !w ae wo %6 tp Nb qo Iro � Np 190 Tao m TTO 2 3 0 w4o 76o tlo 2BO z7o 'Joe 310 MW,M& VAOMMW ExWI"& y° sm. > ow. MR. Bu rr. 5oxv^c4 ""n k^v4. fkorosEO �oosT. mow. FUTURE CROSS SECTION 5 LANE ALTERNXM W RwwMtwrwO v.m wsoft Ento unev w» rww w ww d a 69th. AVE. N. GRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF s 3 31 wait d Mrrwoa .ur ,w..ao„,wc,w..,.mwwas BROOKLYN CENTER PROPOSED ALIGNMENT M $R M N0. BY DATE Mvolow REM DESM CHECKED Daft Rwp No . - ww I � l � 1 1 M a l, No Tao z7a seo zTa zf0 she sw zra zao z10 200 190 loo 1T0 140 13e Ha !')s l b Ito wo Eo 70 (.o Sa 40 70 20 10 o U19fl"ll, "Wznenr M*4. prr• !STOW. ortR(aJ. tiO3TIMb 69e AVG. R,nw. 91�oroyCa Ioo rr. R•ay. FUTURE CROSS SECTION 5 LANE ALTERNATE'S" i • ""°" "" """°" ''�"'" by me 69th. AVE. N. GRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF a s 32 1 � ,,,..,, �„� �, DEMM �, .,��,.... �..., BROOKLYN CENTER PROPOSED ALIGNMENT APRIL W f Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION INITIATING THE PREPARATION OF A DISCRETIONARY ENVIRONMENTAL WORKSHEET (EAW) FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE 69TH AVENUE CORRIDOR FROM THE WEST CITY LIMITS TO DUPONT AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, the Minnesota Code of Agency Rules has been established for the Environmental Quality Board which administers the Environmental Review Program (Rules 6 MCAR SS 3.021- 3.056); and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Minnesota Environmental Review Program is to provide information to decision makers which allows them to incorporate environmental protection into the planning and design of projects that may have significant impacts on environmental resources; and WHEREAS, the Rules permit the preparation of a discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet when a project does not fall under the mandatory EAW requirements, yet the project is not exempt under 6 MCAR S 3.041 and when a governmental unit with approval authority over the proposed project determines that, because of the nature or location of a proposed project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center, who is the governmental unit with approval authority over the following described project, believes that the potential environmental effects should be reviewed: Improvement Project No. 1987 -08 Improvement of the 69th Avenue North Corridor Between the West City Limits and Dupont Avenue North NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Brooklyn Center initiates the preparation of a discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet and is designated the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for this process. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 4 -10-89 Agenda Item Number 9, REQUEST FOR .COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: OUTDOOR LIQUOR AND FOOD SERVICE UNDER OUR LIQUOR LICENSING ORDINANCE DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title ************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Attached please find a copy of a memorandum from Chief Lindsay and Ron Warren, Director of Planning and Inspections, to myself relating to outdoor liquor and food service. Lindsay and Warren have discussed the various regulations relating to the service of liquor and food in the outdoors, and find that portions of our ordinance may be inadequate or simply do not address the subject. With the redevelopment of the Earle Brown Farm, there has been considerable discussion of the use of the mall at the Farm adjacent to the banquet facility for outdoor wedding receptions and similar activities. We have also received inquiries from restaurants examining the feasibility of regular outdoor service of food and liquor. RECOMMENDATION: The city staff would like to discuss with the city council the general subject of outdoor food and liquor service, and get direction from the city council which it could use to develop recommendations for possible changes in our ordinances relating to the outdoor service of food and liquor. MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police Ron Warren, Director of Planning DATE: February 27, 1989 SUBJECT: Consideration of Outdoor Eating Area The Police Department and Planning and Inspections are receiving more requests each year to extend eating area at restaurants to the outdoors. This includes elevated decks, patios, tent areas, et cetera. Some requests are for period of ninety (90) to one hundred twenty (120) days. Others would have special events every Thursday night. All would serve food and liquor. Applebee's is the only restaurant at this time that has an outdoor eating area. This was approved at the time of the original construction. As stated above, the requests have been for daily food and beverage operation as well as special events like a weekly dance every Thursday night. Holiday Inn would like to cater wedding receptions outdoors on their green strip next to the trail system and Shingle Creek. It is possible the new convention center would use outdoor receptions. The problem for both the police and planning departments is this activity was not considered when the various ordinances were enacted. Generally, the ordinance, because of the way they are constructed does not provide for outdoor eating areas. It is believed by both Lindsay and Warren the whole concept of outdoor eating areas should be reviewed. More are appearing around the metro area. Both believe the first consideration should be does the city want outdoor eating. If so, ordinances should be updated to address specific concerns. Some of these are: relationship to residential areas, noise level, quick order food or full dinner menus, type of barrier from outside to control sale of liquor, et cetera. After reviewing this, the two of us would like to meet with you to discuss this matter. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 4 -10-89 Agenda Item Number / C REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: DELIVERY AND TAKEOUT FOOD AS A FACTOR IN FOOD TO LIQUOR ORDINANCE PERCENTAGE DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title ************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Within your liquor control ordinance you have various provisions controlling and regulating the type of facility eligible for a liquor license. There are provisions relating to a minimum number of dining seats (150). There is also a provision regulating the minimum percentage of food revenue to the total income from food and liquor in an on -sale liquor license establishment. The ordinance requires a minimum of 40% food revenue. Our license fees decrease as the food percentage rises. If an establishment has between 40% and 50% food revenue, then the license fee is $14,000. This dollar amount decreases to $8,000 for a liquor license establishment with food revenues exceeding 80% of the total liquor and food revenue. It came to our attention recently that one of our license establishments (Lynbrook Bowl) achieved the minimum 40% food percentage with significant food revenue from their food delivery business based at Lynbrook Bowl. As requested by the council, we reviewed the food /liquor percentage figures of the Lynbrook Bowl and the relationship of the food delivery service revenues for this establishment. We conducted a similar analysis of the Green Mill restaurant for comparison purposes. This analysis was conducted by a CPA and attach are a the reports on both of these liquor quor license facilities. Also attached are copies of p a memorandum from Chief Lindsay summarizing the CPA reports n Y 9 p s o this issue. RECOMMENDATION: The staff would like to have the opportunity to discuss with the city council the attached information. We would also, after the discussion, like direction from the council as to what alternative actions you would like the staff to consider further. From the staff point of view, we believe that the spirit of the ordinance is violated by the use of revenues from catered or delivery food services to meet the minimum licensing requirements of the ordinance. However, we believe to enforce this belief may require ordinance modification. In the past when considering liquor licensing ordinance regulations, we have worked with the liquor license holders through the Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce. MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: February 16, 1989 SUBJECT: Lynbrook Bowl Food /Liquor Split The department hired Gerald R. Wobschall, C.P.A. to conduct the food /liquor split audit at the Lynbrook Bowl. This is the same C.P.A. we have used in the past. He has completed the audit and his report is attached. The results for the eleven (11) month reporting period places food at forty -eight percent (480) and liquor at fifty -two percent (52 %) as illustrated in graph #1. These figures are two percent (2 %) higher than those reported by the Lynbrook at license renewal time. This difference is due to the fact that the figures presented at renewal time were for the period October 1, 1987 through September 30, 1988 and the audit covered the period of January 1, 1988 through December 31, 1988. Wobschall has noted that a large portion of the food sales listed come from the sale of food for consumption off - premises. During one month, ninety percent (90 %) of the food sold was consumed off the premises. Wobschall did project the food /liquor split using only food consumed on- premises. This split resulted in twenty - seven percent (27 %) food and seventy -three percent (73 %) liquor for the eleven (11) month reporting period as illustrated in graph #2. Wobschall makes note of the intent of the ordinance when it was written. When the ordinance was written regarding liquor establishments, no potential license holder delivered food. It was believed the requirement of one hundred fifty (150) seat restaurant separate from the lounge seating would insure a proper food /liquor split. The cost of constructing a one hundred fifty (150) seat eating area would insure a fully- staffed eating facility. The department has asked Wobschall to audit the Green Mill in the same manner as the Lynbrook. We expect that report by the middle of March. The Green Mill is the only other liquor license holder that has a substantial food delivery service. Several license holders cater food for events. Both the Holiday Inn and Days Inn hotels deliver food. It generally is not available for consumption by individual families. GERALD R. WOBSCHALL CPA 1503 WELCOME AVENUE NORTH GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55422 JANUARY 31, 1989 JAMES LINDSAY CHIEF OF POLICE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 DEAR SIR: PER YOUR LETTER REQUEST OF DECEMBER 13, 1988, I SCHEDULED AND CONCLUDED THE AUDIT OF THE FOOD/LIQUOR SALES RATIOS OF THE LYNBROOK BOWL. BASED ON THE TRANSACTIONS TESTED AND MY COMPUTATIONS I DEVELOPED RATIOS OF FOOD SALES TO COMBINED FOOD AND LIQUOR SALES OF 63% AS A HIGH 22% AS A LOW AND 48% FOR THE 11 MONTH PERIOD THAT I EXAMINED. THE ABOVE RATIOS WERE COMPUTED WITHOUT REGARD TO WHERE THE FOOD WAS CONSUMED. SEE GRAPH 1. AS PART OF MY EXAMMINATION I NOTED THAT DURING ONE MONTH OF OPERATION 90% OF THE FOOD WAS DELIVERED FOR CONSUMPTION OFF PREMISES. I POINT THIS OUT BECAUSE I AM UNSURE FROM A READING OF YOUR CODE THAT THIS METHOD OF OPERATION WAS CONTEMPLATED WHEN YOUR CODE WAS WRITTEN. IF THE FOOD SALES ARE REDUCED BY 90% IE DELIVERED FOOD SALES, THE RATIO OF FOOD SALES TO THE COMBINED FOOD AND LIQUOR SALES ARE LESS THAN 25%. SEE GRAPH 2. I TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO PERFORM THIS SERVICE FOR THE CITY. IF YOU NEED ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION AND IF I MAY BE OF FURTHER SERVICE TO THE CITY PLEASE CONTACT ME. SINCERELY GERALD R WOBSCHALL CPA ENC LYN BROOK BOWL 1358 FOOD /UQUOR SPLIT E70 50 40 a 30 20 10 0 JAN F S MAR AM MAY JUN JUL AM SEP OCT NOV CEC AVG LYN BR00K BOWL 1338 FOOD /UQUOR WTn} cuT CW,,ERY w :r 24 >- 2 cc w a , $ 5 is 0 H 14 t l 12 0 P. 10 >° e s 4 a A4�G JAN FES MAR I�PR MAY JUN JUL AM SEP OCT NOV CEC MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Polic l° DATE: March 14, 1989 SUBJECT: Food /Liquor Audit for Green Mill Gerald Wobschall, C.P.A. has completed the food /liquor ratios for the Green Mill Restaurant for the year 1988. The average food sales are 73% compared to 27% liquor. When we remove the delivered and carry -out food the ratio is 67% food and 33% liquor. The average food sales are a few points lower than reported at the time Green Mill's license was renewed this past December. The City used the current past twelve months, which is usually October through September. The license renewal is due November 1 each year. I have attached a copy of the Lynbrook's audit for comparison. If you have any questions, please call. s GERALD R. WOBSCHALL CF'(.'? 150: WELCOME AVENUE NORTH GOLDEN VALLEY t'lN 55422 MARCH 1. 1989 JAMES LINDSAY CHIEF OF POLICE CITY OF BROOKLYN C ENTER BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA 5543 0 DEAR SIR. PER YOUR LETTER REQUEST OF JANUARY 31, 19S` , 1 SCHEDULED AND CONCLUDED THE AUDIT OF THE FOOD/LIQUOR SALES RATIOS OF THE GREEN MILL RESTAURANT. BASED ON THE TRANSACTIONS TESTED AND MY COMPUTATIONS I DEVELOPED RATIOS OF FOOD SALES TO COMBINED FOOD AND LIQUOR SALES OF 75.8% AS A H I G H , 71.2% AS A LOW AND 7!% AS THE AVERAGE FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1 988. THE ABOVE RATIOS WERE COMPUTED WITHOUT REGARD TO WHERE THE FOOD WAS CONSUMED. SEE GRAPH 1. BASED UPON YOUR ADDITIONAL REQUEST I HAVE EXCLUDED FROM THE FOOD SALES THE FOOD THAT WAS CONSUME OFF PREMISE. I EXCLUDED THE AMOUNTS FOR BOTH THE DELIVERED FOOD AND THE TAKEOUT FOOD. TAKEOUT OCCURS WHEN THE CONSUMER COMES TO THE STORE TO PICK UP THEIR ORDER. USING THE ABOVE DEF ITAITIONS THE SALES RATIOS RANGE FROM A HIGH OF 69.1% TO A LOW OF 62.8%. SEE GRAPH C. I TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO PERFORM THIS SERVICE FOR THE CITY. IF YOU NEED ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION AND IF I MAY BE OF FURTHER SERVICE TO THE CITY PLEASE CONTACT ME. SINCERELY GERALD R WOBSCHALL CPA ENC GREEN MILL 1988 FQOO /UAUDR sPUT so 7O so n 0 AO 3 10 O JAN F® MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DM AVG GREEN MILL 70 19M FOOD /LIQUOR ON PREMISES ONLY 00 J 50 0 N W N 4-0 W C CL z 30 0 a 0 20 10 0 m F11A A F// JAN FAH MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AM SEP OCT NOV CEC AVG /D Licenses to be approved by the City Council on April 10, 1989: BULK VENDOR Brooklyn Center Lions P. 0. Box 29092 Sanitarian FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. Brookdale Covenant Church 5139 Brooklyn Blvd. Brookdale Unocal 5710 Xerxes Ave. N. Brooklyn Center American Little League 2701 64th Ave. N. Iten Field Brooklyn Center Mobil 6849 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center National Little League 5312 North Lilac Drive Lions Park T.H. 100 & N. Lilac Brooks Superette 6804 Humboldt Ave. N. Carmel Corn 1333 Brookdale Center Children's World Learning Center 6020 Earle Brown Drive Chuck Wagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave. N. T. J. Cinnamons Bakery 1345 Brookdale Center Dayton's 1100 Brookdale Center Fanny Farmer Candy Shops 1236 Brookdale Center Food Express 1131 Brookdale Center Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Boulevard House of Hui's Restaurant 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. Jerry's New Market 5801 Xerxes .Ave. N. K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr. Kids' Time Out 5611 Xerxes .Ave. N. Leeann Chin, Inc. 6050 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Little Brooklyn 6219 Brooklyn Blvd. Lutheran Church of the Master 1200 69th Ave. N. Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 North Lilac Dr. Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home 5401 69th Ave. N. McDonald's 5525 Xerxes ,Ave. N. Metz Baking Company -- Taystee Bread 4215 69th Ave. N. Minnesota Vikings Food Service, Inc. 5200 West 74th Street U.S. West 5910 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Nature Food Centre 6068 Shingle Creek Pkwy. New Horizon Day Care Center 6625 Humboldt Ave. N. Northwest Residence 4408 69th Ave. N. 1 Potato 2 1319 Brookdale Center Perkins Family Restaurants 5915 John Martin Drive Subs Etc. 6048 Shingle Creek Pkwy. T. Wright's 5800 Shingle Creek Pkwy. U. A. Communications 5800 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Village House, Inc. Que Viet 6100 Brooklyn Blvd. Wes' Amoco 6044 Brooklyn Blvd. Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Aer, Inc. Box 1146 Air Corp, Inc. 13005 16th Ave. N. Airco Heating & A/C Co. 4014 Central Ave. NE Arrow Heating and Cooling, Inc. 8455 Center Drive NE Egan & Sons Co. 7100 Medicine Lake Road Furnace Care, Inc. 8733 Humboldt Ave. N. Gas Supply, Inc. 2238 Edgewood Ave. S. General Sheet Metal Corp. 2330 Louisiana Ave. N. Kleve, Inc. 13075 Pioneer Trail Master Mechanical, Inc. 9864 James Circle Northwest Heating & A/C 9964 Hemlock Way Pete's Repair, Inc. 8835 Xylon Ave. N. Precise Heating, A/C & Electric, Inc. 2729 Ensign Ave. N. ) R & S Heating and A/C 21357 Hemlock Ave. Building Official iav MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd. North Star Dodge Center, Inca 6800 Brooklyn Blvd. City Clerk 4;C SIGN HANGER o � t Toplin e Outdoor Advertising, Inc 1493 94th Lane NE 1 Building Official liZ SWIMMING POOL Real Estate Equities 325 Cedar Street Brookside Manor Apartments 1121 -1307 67th Ave. N. Bill Bjerke c/o Fun Services 3701 50th Ave. N. Hiway 100 North France Health Club 4001 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Riverwood Townhomes Association 6626 Camden Drive N. Twin Lake North Apartments 4536 58th Ave. N. Sanitarian r TAXICAB Suburban Taxi Corporation 9614 Humboldt Ave. S. Town Taxi 2812 University Ave. SE Yellow Taxi Service Corporation 3555 5th Avenue S._ 'J4 G i of Police ! d� GENERAL APPROVAL: 'l - D. K. Weeks, City Clerk L_