Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 06-26 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JUNE 26, 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. Presentations: a. Fred Peterson, Peacemaker Center b. Annual Audited Financial Report - Representatives of the City's Independent Audit Firm Deloitte Haskins & Sells Will be Present 7. Mayoral Appointment. a. Chairperson, Planning Commission 8. Approval of Minutes: a. June 1, 1989 - Strategic Planning Session b. June 12, 1989 - Regular Session 9. Bond Release: *a. Holiday Inn, 2200 Freeway Boulevard 10. Resolutions: *a. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for 1989 Sealcoating Program Project No. 1989 -09, Contract 1989 - C -It is recommended that this contract be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This is a 1989 budget item. *b. Amending the 1989 General Fund Budget and Authorizing Purchase of a LaserJet Printer for Engineering Division c. Approving Proposed Cost Distribution for Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Outlet Modifications *d. Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Shade Trees (Order No. DST 6/26/89) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- June 26, 1989 *e. Making Negative Declaration on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for West River Road between Interstate Highway 694 and 73rd Avenue North (Brooklyn Center Improvement Project No. 1988 -18) *f. Approving Rates for Recycling Services in the City of Brooklyn Center *g. Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the Domestic Assault Intervention Project h. Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Execute a Joint Powers Agreement with the North Metro Mayors Association (NMMA) - Formerly Northern Mayors Association i. Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Execute a Joint Powers Agreement with the North Metro Development Association (NMDA) 11. Ordinance: a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City g A y Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land Considered under Planning Commission Application No. 89009 -This item was first read on May 22, 1989, published in the City's official newspaper on May 31, 1989, and a public hearing aring was held on June 12, 1989. Further action regarding this ordinance was tabled at the June 12, 1989, meeting due to the lack of required number of Councilmembers voting. This item requires a 4/5 vote of the Council. 12. Planning Commission Item: (7:30 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 89016 submitted by Sherman Boosalis Interests, Inc. requesting site and building plan approval to construct a 4,760 sq. ft. addition to the commercial building at 5939 John Martin Drive for the purpose of establishing an Ethan Allen furniture store in the building. -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its June 15, 1989, meeting. 13. Public Hearings - (8 p.m.) a. Hearing on Proposed Alley Improvement Project No. 1989- 08 (Paving Alley between Fremont Avenue and Girard Avenue from 55th Avenue to 57th Avenue) 1. Resolution Ordering Improvement, Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project No. 1989 -08 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- June 26, 1989 b. Hearing on Proposed Alley Improvement Project No. 1989- 15 (Paving Alley between Girard Avenue and Humboldt Avenue from 54th Avenue to 55th Avenue 1. Resolution Ordering Improvement, Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project No. 1989 -15 C. Hearing on Proposed Alley Improvement Project No. 1989- 16 (Paving Alley between Emerson Avenue and Fremont Avenue from 53rd Avenue to 54th Avenue 1. Resolution Ordering Improvement, Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project No. 1989 -16 d. Hearing on Proposed Alley Improvement Project No. 1989- 17 (Paving Alley between Lakeview Avenue and Twin Lake Avenue from Lakebreeze Avenue to Lakeside Avenue) 1. Resolution Ordering Improvement, Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project No. 1989 -17 14. Discussion Item: a. Brooklyn Center Transportation - Request for direction from the City Council to the Human Rights and Resources Commission b. Discussion of Appointments to Openings on the Tourism Bureau Board and Cable TV Board C. Discussion of Feasibility of City Council "Worksession" to cover such items as: review of civic center space needs; 1989 Planning Session Priorities; and labor relations executive session - 1990 bargaining d. Discussion of Draft of Special Use Permit for Storing Commercial Vehicles in Residential Areas *15. Licenses 16. Adjournment i if.1 jo 0 0 v � �� , . 4 _� 4 I � I I_ n/ V N t R, fr, i C ` "o * 3 "� z 2u A I I I Y HIM fa - )us e. -- ------ U S E! It V C C�U- +Ile-- CA 11 c U r t C, --- - ------ -- ----- - ----- "Ile cz� A-� & --'\ t. ��....�•"' i�"�^' "' � V � � «I 4.`�B �� �"'�.� er� ���� �.� �..- O' � { �„r' p" ic. _: d �....f _ -- — — _ � � • _ _ � ��.�1,- .�,_ -.� — ���� -- Grp--- ..:... Cr,.�` '�%'� �'' �;`°�'>� 7-5 _ — G•�s.��.��__ .- �_�%� lit - -- --------- ---------- ea Zo ex 40 -- -- --- ---- N,\-4 4Z4 • r . ma c �c Ql/ -Ac ---------- L 4- 7 f '7 - 11 - - -- ---- - -- - - - f-J 7' ------------ 97 5 --------- -- JCA jo ✓�� I ' IC I loq V'A vs� -41 l7r A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACEMAKING n ker Center Inc. Brooklyn Peacemaker y June 1989 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. THE PEACEMAKER CENTER ORGANIZATION 2 III. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 4 A. The Need B. The Opportunity IV. METHODOLOGY OF SERVICE DELIVERY 6 A. Conflict Resolution Continuum B. Networking and Referral V.SERVICE AREA 8 VI. PEACEMAKING - OPPORTUNITIES AND OBLIGATIONS 9 • A. Juvenile Diversion B. Mediation C. Child Abuse D. Domestic Abuse E. Peer Groups F. Counseling VII. SPACE PROJECTIONS (NEEDS) 12 A. Phase I B. Phase II C. Size of Facility VIII. FINANCING 14 A. Operational B. Facility IX. Time Line 15 • I. INTRODUCITON: As society changes, problems change, organizations must also change in order to meet the problems and challenges which they are designed to address. The following discussion is a summary result of some brainstorming and planning on the part of the Board of Directors of the Peacemaker Center. As a result, there has been some restructuring to better address and meet the needs of the community. The Peacemaker Center is designed to facilitate the coordination of resources to structure programs that are designed to solve problems and heal relationships. While there are numerous organizations that address certain specific problems, there is no organization on the local level that attempts to provide a continuum of service to address the total and . profound problems. The following discussion is a start in developing responsive programs. These have been adopted by the full Peacemaker Board. • 1 U. THE PEACEMAKER CENTER ORGANIZATION The Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. is a non - profit organization which is also tax exempt by the internal revenue. The organization is managed by a Board of Directors representing a cross section of the community and a cross section of vocational disciplines. History The Brooklyn Peacemaker Center was organized five years ago. In May of 1984, several individuals convened in a brainstorming session to evaluate avenues to address problems in a cooperative manner to provide a continuum of services. The two primary members of the Peacemaker Center at that time were the Brooklyn Center Mediation Project and the Brookdale Covenant Church, which provided a counseling service. The administration, including the delivery of counseling services and delivery of mediation services, was centered in the former parsonage at Brookdale Covenant Church. They have since found it necessary to utilize the facilities for one of their staff persons and therefore concurrently with that decision the church withdrew as a member of the Peacemaker Center. Family Hope Services then became a member of the organization to replace Brookdale Covenant Church. Family Hope Services is an organization which includes not only counseling but also youth and family programs which are consistent with some of the objectives of the Peacemaker Center. Present: As a result of the brainstorming session recently held by the Board of Directors, it was determined that the Peacemaker Center could be more flexible and should have the freedom to take a broader approach to problem solving. Consequently the Peacemaker • 2 Center has been reorganized so that there are no individual voting members nor voting corporate members. It does still provide, however, for associate members and therefore centers the responsibility and authority to a greater degree on the Board of Directors. (See Exhibit A for a list of the Board of Directors) Future: The Board of Directors is enthusiastic and excited about the prospects of addressing problems in the community of Brooklyn Center in a way which will provide structure but will also provide adequate flexibility to respond to the needs of individuals. The climate is one conducive for creativity in searching for those constructive approaches. • 3 I III. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The objectives as stated in the Bylaws and Articles of Brooklyn Peacemaker Center are to provide and coordinate programs to address conflict whether that conflict be between persons or conflict within oneself. (See Exhibit B for a copy of the purpose as set out in the Bylaws) A. The Need: In our complex society, we often encounter problems in relationships, families, business, schools, etc. which are deep and profound and which require various disciplines and extensive treatment and attention. The problems may be intra - personal or inter- personal, and involves the emotion, the mental, and the spiritual. One of the crucial elements in the process is an initial diagnosis. That is the primary need that Peacemaker Center is designed to fulfill. And, of course, the necessary follow -up and monitoring of the agreed -upon designated process is also provided. B. The Opportunity: There are, in perhaps the majority of cases involving disputes among parties, surface problems (symptom) and deeper, more profound problems. The opportunity arises to address these problems when the crisis occurs or an individual or family are confronted with a severe relationship problem. It may take the form of such things as a juvenile encountering problems with the police as a result of their behavioral problems or peer pressure, school problems, severe child /parent relationship problems, etc. The Peacemaker Center is a safe place to initially confront those problems and design a program. Obviously it is unrealistic to suggest that a problem which has developed over a period of time is going to be solved in one confrontational session, but it is a start and that is the 4 • opportunity. It's the opportunity to assist the individual in addressing the deeper problems which are often evident. The question then is how best to take advantage of that opportunity. i 5 • IV. METHODOLOGY OF SERVICE DELIVERY The Brooklyn Peacemaker Center was not designed or intended to be an organization which ultimately delivers the service. The Peacemaker Center was developed to fill a need to coordinate various services available. to bring them to bear upon an individual situation. The Center will assist in analyzing the problem and coordinate organizations or functions which are appropriate for the individual situation. A. Conflict Resolution Continuum: As has been very evident in the mediation process as it has developed, numerous people, both adults and juveniles, appear in a mediation session at which time the symptoms are discussed and usually a resolution is reached to address the symptoms. Unfortunately, however, the next steps beyond mediation are not taken to address the real problem and needs. Often those needs are fairly evident. The Peacemaker Center then presents a continuum of services to address the total problem. As an example, that continuum could take the form of a mediation session followed by counseling as appropriate. Or in the case of juveniles, it may appear that a youth group, peer group, etc. is appropriate. The continuum of services may involve such things as addressing chemical dependency problems. The concept, in summary, is that an individual or individuals or families would meet with representatives of the Peacemaker Center. Those representatives could include: a) School Social Worker or their representative; b) Psychologist or credentialed person; c) Police or representative; d) Community at large (this would include several people 6 • providing a variety of options as appropriate for each situation). B. Networking and Referral: As indicated above, the Brooklyn Peacemaker Center is not organized or intended to act as the ultimate deliverer of services. The Peacemaker Center merely attempts to coordinate and provide a vehicle to direct and refer people and problems to appropriate resources to properly address the problem. School counselors may refer children with problems beyond their scope and time allotments. Police departments may refer juveniles encountering problems which in many cases are symptoms of other conflicts. Or, often times young people and families in our churches seek help outside of their own church. • • V. SERVICE AREA The primary service area to which the services of Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. are extended is, of course, that of Brooklyn Center. While the emphasis is on Brooklyn Center, the services would obviously not be limited to people residing within the Brooklyn Center city limits. The reality is that because of the nature of the Brooklyn Center community, and the mobility of our society, those living outside the city of Brooklyn Center have contact in some way by way of employment, shopping, etc. Brooklyn Center is a major retail center and business area. With that activity and the convenience and advantage that goes with the business community, there are also significantly more problem areas. The regional shopping center (Brookdale) in essence increases the 30,000 Brooklyn Center population to a service area of a quarter of a million people. Nearly one -half of the police activity is directly related to the business community. i That takes the form of such things as shoplifting, property damage, and certain other types of criminal activity. It is the goal of the Peacemaker Center, to work closely with the Brooklyn Center Police Department, schools, churches, medical and legal profession, and the business community to look upon the problems as opportunities to help individuals and families who are experiencing turmoil and conflict. To the extent that Peacemaker Center can be a facilitator to focus efforts on the underlying problems, the Center is doing a great service, not only to the individuals and families but to the community and to the Police Department, schools, and churches. 8 VI. OPPORTUNITIES FOR AND OBLIGATIONS OF PEACEMAKING There are a number of areas that are obvious possibilities to be of assistance. Some of those are the following: A. JUVENILE DIVERSION: Particularly in a community such as Brooklyn Center there is an abundance of police department. There is simply juvenile offenders who have unplanned contact with the o ce e a P J P P P not a good solution for handling the juvenile offender. Juvenile court can provide the ultimate threat and incentive for an offender to participate in a diversion program. Secondly, the large case load of the juvenile court and its limited resources simply does not permit the juvenile court to handle the juvenile with adequate individual concern about the particular problem confronting the juvenile offender. It is apparent that first of all there needs to be an alternative to or extension of juvenile court, and secondly, there needs to be a means to address the basic problem which has brought the juvenile in contact with the police department (or school authorities). The problems which confront the juveniles are complicated and serious and need individual attention and a greater amount of flexibility in the prescription than is presently available. It is therefore recommended that the first time juvenile offenders be diverted to the Peacemaker Center. The Peacemaker representatives (See IV -A) will assist in a diagnosis and prescribe a program in conjunction with the juvenile, his parents, and the victim if the victim chooses to be part of the process. The Peacemaker representatives will consist of a panel as outlined and proposed in IV -A. At the first meeting with the juvenile, a correction program 9 will be prescribed and agreed upon. g That program ra m can • P g take a number of possibilities either singly g y or in combination. Some of those alternatives are the following: 1. Counseling The counseling may be on an individual basis or for the entire family depending upon the circumstances. There are a number of sources of counseling, some of which handle the counseling on the ability to pay basis. (For instance, it is hoped that a counseling fund can be established whereby those who cannot afford the necessary counseling would i have a fund to draw upon.) 2• Community Service Another avenue may be community service which may be appropriate, particularly in the case of property damage or shoplifting. 3. Peer Gro ups. One of the avenues which may be appropriate for certain youths is participation in the peer group program. 4• Specific Projects Depending upon the situation, the representatives may designate certain projects which are compatible and responsive to the offense and those kinds of projects are only limited by one's imagination and creativity. B. MEDIATION: In such case that the intake and diagnosis by Peacemaker representatives indicate that the case is one in which a dispute exists and is appropriate for mediation, that case would be referred a local Mediation Service for resolution. Mediation may also be used in conjunction with the options in VI -A above. B. CHII D ABUSE: A very prevalent area of conflict is between parent and child often resulting in actual or alleged child abuse. (There can also be parent abuse!) • 10 While the specific program is not designed or operational, one of the goals of the Peacemaker Center is to work in conjunction with the police department to help develop a meaningful positive program in response to the child abuse problem. It is anticipated that the Peacemaker Center would serve as the facilitator to bring together the people and groups who are struggling with the problem with the resources to address the problem. One of the possibilities, although not a recommendation at this time, is the utilization of a program involving support groups. It does appear that the child abuse area is one in which support groups both for parents and children would be most appropriate. D. DOMESTIC .ABUSE: Brooklyn Center has one of the better programs and approaches to address the problem of domestic abuse. It is anticipated that the Peacemaker Center can assist by providing volunteers and assist in coordinating support groups. E. PEER GROUPS: It appears initially that there are a number of areas that would be appropriate to the establishment of peer groups where their availability does not exist. One of the things that the Peacemaker Center would endeavor to do is determine the need and the type of peer group. One of the most obvious, of course, is that of the troubled youth. F. COUNSELING. Finally, there is often a significant need for professional counseling. The Peacemaker Center would attempt to refer to the appropriate professional. As indicated above, one of the future objectives would be the establishment of a fund to truly implement and make available quality, professional counseling in accord with ability to pay. 11 VII. SPACE NEEDS The Board of Directors has endeavored to project the needs of Peacemaker Center in terms of space to carry out the objectives and programs. We are presently looking at that aspects in two general phases: A. Phase I: Since moving out of the house owned by the Brookdale Covenant Church, the office has temporarily utilized offices in the Brooklyn Law Center at 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard. Since the separation of Peacemaker Center from the mediation operational arm, we are looking at the possibility of a temporary office and meeting room. Initial indications are that the Peacemaker Center could function with that kind of facility although it may occasionally need to utilize other facilities on an as- needed basis. B. Phase H: Phase II envisions a separate facility which would obviously have to be commercial in nature from the standpoint of land use but which would have the physical appearance of a home type setting. It has become generally accepted that such a facility provides the warmth and attractiveness not available in an office complex or in the City Hall complex or in the City Hall complex. We would envision the providing of space for implementation of the suggested programs including counseling, peer group meetings, domestic abuse, child abuse, etc. The funding and the manner in which the facility may be put together could perhaps be one of three possibilities: 1) A separate private facility: one of the possibilities is a facility entirely funded by private sources. While the Brooklyn Charitable Foundation has designated 12 the Peacemaker Center as one of its projects, the magnitude of the project is somewhat extensive. And with the upheaval in corporate takeovers, there I ' is a serious question as to the continued generosity of foundations, and corporations in the metropolitan area. 2) Partnership with the City of Brooklyn Center Since the Peacemaker Center is endeavoring to make the community a better place in which to live in attempting on a cooperative basis to provide resources and volunteers to address problems which would be difficult or impossible for the City to accomplish, there is rationale for a partnership between the private sector and the City to develop such a facility. 3) Incorporate with proposed community center expansion There a proposal to expand the Brooklyn Center community center. One of the possibilities is to • segregate a portion of that and construct a separate facility at a location away from City Hall. There is considerable merit in separating the facilities because of the need for confidentiality and protection from embarrassment in a non - threatening setting. It would be difficult to achieve the objectives if we were to incorporate a facility for domestic abuse, child abuse, etc. as part of the community center complex. Therefore a separate facility away from the community center would better serve that purpose. The center would be as discussed above in subparagraph a). C. Size. The size of the facility, of course, would be determined by the extent of involvement of various programs. We would envision programs such as domestic abuse, counseling, youth center, meeting rooms for peer groups, child abuse, etc. 13 VIII. FINANCING The obvious question is how will the Peacemaker Center be financed. Previously the operational financing was done by mere assessment of the members of Peacemaker Center. Since Peacemaker Center does not have members as such, they will obviously have to look elsewhere for funding. Under the previous organization, the Peacemaker Center was severely limited in its funding options since there was a significant caution so as not to be seeking funding from the same sources as the individual members. The funding is in two categories - Operational and Facility. With respect to the Operational Funding, it would appear that the logical sources would be such things as individual gifts, gifts from businesses, financial support from churches, from service organizations such as Lions, Rotary, Kiwanis, from various fund raising projects and from purchase of service from the City of Brooklyn Center. With respect to funding the facility, sources would be such things as the Brooklyn Center Charitable Foundation, Grants, Service Organizations, Corporations, Churches, and the City of Brooklyn Center. • 14 DC TIME LINE r programs. Board i he process f developing with scme specificity the future The oa d s m t p oce s o p g p ty p g We obviously want to do a quality program and therefore it will obviously be necessary to set some priorities. It would appear that one of the logical areas would be that of the juvenile diversion program. We are therefore suggesting that commencing July 1 some of the juveniles would be referred to the Peacemaker Center as a diversion program as described above. We would jointly be reviewing the success of the program and hopefully b S 1 all of J Y g P g P Y Y P j the first time juvenile offenders would be diverted to the Peacemaker Center. It would also be our plan to begin immediately to be supportive and to work with I � the police department in whatever way we can to develop and implement an approach to the P roblem of child abuse. Likewise, in conjunction with the police and /or domestic abuse coordinator, to be supportive and expand and enhance the program to combat domestic abuse whether that be supplying volunteers, supplying facilities, supplying counseling, etc. Within the next few weeks a total program of work will be established. I 15 MINUTES OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION JUNE 1, 1989 Present: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Paulson, Pedlar, and Cohen. Others present: City Manager Splinter, various city staff members, and representatives from all city commissions and committees. The purpose of this meeting was a work session at which no action of an official nature was to be taken. Also present were representatives of Option Technologies, Inc., Ms. Leet and Mr. Brimeyer. They assisted City Manager Splinter in facilitating the 1989 strategic planning session for the City of Brooklyn Center. There was a review of the status of the current priorities list and with the use of a computer, a prioritizing process of current and new priority issues, projects, and goals was created. The session started at approximately 6 p.m. and ended at 9:30 p.m. a eral City Manager 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 JUNE 12, 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 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, and Councilmembers Todd Paulson and Philip Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, EDA Coordinator Brad Hoffman, City Clerk Darlene Weeks, and Administrative Aide Patti Page. Mayor Nyquist noted Councilmembers Scott and Pedlar would be absent from this evening's meeting. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Mr. Bob Quenroe. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had received a request from Gene Kasmar, 5559 Lyndale Avenue North. He noted Mr. Kasmar would like to speak this evening regarding the invocation during Council meetings. He stated he would like to remind the Council and those present at the meeting that open forum is a privilege and not a right. He stated if the Council agreed, he would allow Mr. Kasmar five minutes this evening during open forum but in the future would not consider any more requests from Mr. Kasmar pertaining to this subject. There was a general consensus oft to allow Mr. Kasmar five minutes during the open forum session this evening. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Kasmar who again reviewed his reasons for not allowing prayer during the Council meetings. He noted prayer in this setting is very unchristian conduct. He went on to give some examples from the bible which stated prayer should be in private. Councilmember Cohen stated Mayor Gordon Erickson instituted the prayer at Council meetings in 1962. He stated he feels prayer is very appropriate before the Council meetings and noted as a nonchristian he has never had a problem or been uncomfortable with participating in the brief prayer before the Council meeting. He noted with all due respect to Mr. Kasmar's opinion, he feels the prayer before Council meetings should be continued. OATH OF OFFICE The City Clerk administered the oath of office to Philip Cohen. 6/12/89 -1- Mayor Nyquist and Councilmember Paulson thanked Councilmember Cohen for agreeing to serve on the Council and stated his experience and background will be a good asset to the City Council. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any item removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Cohen requested item 9f be removed. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 89 -104 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR EMERGENCY REPAIRS OF AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM FOR CIVIC CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -105 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF SHADE TREES (ORDER NO. DST 06/12/89) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -106 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) TOW TYPE AUGER /PAVER The motion for the adoption,,of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -107 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) COMPUTERIZED ENGINE ANALYZER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION N0. 89 -108 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET 6/12/89 -2- I The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -109 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -110 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF TWO GREENS COVERS, ONE POWER CART, LANDSCAPE ROCK, AND INSTALLATION OF BLACKTOPPING FOR CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -111 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR A GRANT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -112 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF WALK -IN COOLER FOR LIQUOR STORE #3 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to approve the following list of licenses: AMUSEMENT DEVICE - OPERATOR Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Chuck Wagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave. N. Davanni's 5937 Summit Drive Earle Brown Bowl 6445 James Circle Green Mill Inn, Inc. 5540 Brooklyn Blvd. Lynbrook Bowl 6357 North Lilac Dr. Metropolitan Transit Commission 6845 Shingle Creek Pkwy. 6/12/89 -3- AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR American Amusement Arcades 850 Decatur Avenue Carousel International Corporation P. 0. Box 307 FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Church of the Nazarene 501 73rd Ave. N. Brooklyn United Methodist Church 7200 Brooklyn Blvd. Jenny Craig Weight Loss Centre 5951 Earle Brown Dr. New Horizon Nursery School 1200 69th Ave. N. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Fire Department Evergreen Park Brooklyn Center Fire Department Central Park Brooklyn Center Fire Department Earle Brown Days Parade Brooklyn Center Parks & Rec Dept. Central Park Olson Popcorn Co. Earle Brown Days Parade Straight's Concessions Central Park MECHANICAL SYSTEMS ACI Mechanical Corporation Box 192 Conrad Mechanical Contractors 509 1st Avenue NE P & D Mechanical Contracting Co. 4629 41st Ave. N. Riccar Heating 2387 136th Ave. NW TAXICAB Airport Cab 3010 Minnehaha Ave. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager stated because two Councilmembers are absent from this evening's meeting, any resolution or ordinance which a Councilmember or the Mayor may be inclined to vote against should be tabled until the next Council meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 22 1989 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Mayor Nyquist to approve the minutes of the May 22, 1989, City Council meeting. The motion passed. Councilmember Cohen abstained from the vote. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT The Mayor stated the current chairman of the Planning Commission, Michael Nelson, has resigned from the Planning Commission. He noted he does have an application for a new commissioner. There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to accept the resignation of Michael Nelson from the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to appoint Mr. James McCloskey to the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. 6/12/89 -4- Mayor Nyquist stated he would like to recommend Molly Malecki as the new chairperson for the Planning Commission. He noted he was unable to talk with Ms. Malecki before this evening's meeting, and he would like to table appointment of the chairperson to the next Council meeting. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Petitions, Commencing Proceedings on Improvement, Receiving Report and Calling Hearing on Improvement Project No. 1989 -08. He noted this resolution and the three which follow it all relate to the alley improvement projects. The Director of Public Works went on to review the locations of each alley and the reports submitted for the alleys. He stated staff is recommending the City Council formally commence proceedings and conduct public hearings on all four of these projects. The Mayor pointed out the resolutions are primarily for setting the public hearing dates. There was some discussion regarding the advantages to installing concrete paving over bituminous surfacing. The Director of Public Works noted of the four alleys, there is really only one which would be a good candidate for bituminous surfacing. He noted with bituminous surfacing it is much more difficult to control the grade depth which in turn means, it is much more difficult to control the drainage problem. The Director of Public Works stated if the City Council adopts the resolutions this evening, all the information which has been presented this evening will be sent to the property owners along with the formal notice of a public hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -113 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITIONS, COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS ON IMPROVEMENT, RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -08 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. :S RESOLUTION NO. 89 -114 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITIONS, COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS ON IMPROVEMENT, RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -15 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -115 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITIONS, COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS ON IMPROVEMENT, RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT N0. 1989 -16 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. 6/12/89 -5- , RESOLUTION NO. 89 -116 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITIONS, COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS ON IMPROVEMENT, RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -17 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving Private Sale of One Parcel of Nonconservation Land to the Owner of an Adjacent Property (Parcel between 55th Avenue North and Ericon Drive, West of Oliver Avenue North). Councilmember Cohen inquired if this is the general policy to allow adjacent property owners to acquire vacant properties. The City Manager responded affirmatively. He noted the City would maintain underlying easements for utilities. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -117 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PRIVATE SALE OF ONE PARCEL OF NONCONSERVATION LAND TO THE OWNER OF AN ADJACENT PROPERTY (PARCEL BETWEEN 55TH AVENUE NORTH AND ERICON DRIVE, WEST OF OLIVER AVENUE NORTH) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCES The City Manager presented An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Easement in Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Shoppers Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. He noted this item was first read on May 22, 1989, published in the City's official newspaper on May 31, 1989, and is offered this evening for a second reading. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Easement in Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Shoppers Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak. No one appeared to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 89 -12 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF AN EASEMENT IN LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, SHOPPERS ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented An Interim Ordinance for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and the Health, Safety and Welfare of the Residents of the 6/12/89 -6- City, and Regulating and Restricting Certain Development at the Property Located at 6626 West River Road and All Land South of 66th Avenue and North of I -694 Lying between Willow Lane and Highway 252. He noted this item was first read on May 8, 1989, published in the City's official newspaper on May 17, 1989, and is offered this evening for a second reading. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Interim Ordinance for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and the Health, Safety and Welfare of the Residents of the City, and Regulating and Restricting Certain Development at the Property Located at 6626 West River Road and All Land South of 66th Avenue and North of I -694 Lying between Willow Lane and Highway 252 and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. Mayor Nyquist recognized Arlo Johnson of the Brookdale Motel. He inquired if this ordinance would affect all the land in this area or just the one parcel. The City Manager stated this ordinance affects all parcels in the description. The Director of Planning and Inspection pointed out the interim ordinance would allow all service /office developments. The Director of Public Works left the meeting at 7:46 p.m. Mr. Johnson stated he does not understand the need for a study or the moratorium. The City Manager explained there has been a suggested redevelopment in this area. He stated after much review by staff, the Neighborhood Advisory Group, and the Planning Commission, it was decided if an evaluation were to be rade of the area it would make more sense to include the surrounding parcels because new developments generally affect the surrounding parcels. He pointed out the evaluation of this area may or may not change the zoning of the parcels. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Merrigan, representing the owner, Howard Atkins. Mr. Merrigan stated the planning commission application has been pending since September 1988. He noted Fina Oil Company has been involved with this proposal since November 1988. He noted if the moratorium is approved there will be an even longer delay. Mr. Merrigan stated when the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1982, the property in this area was zoned C2. He noted the service /office use recommended by staff is economically unfeasible. He pointed out Brooklyn Center has a very high vacancy rate in office space, and it would not be feasible to open another office building. Mr. Merrigan stated Fina Oil Company allowed a set period of time for Mr. Atkins to obtain the necessary approvals, and if this moratorium is approved, it will go beyond the timeline set by Fina Oil Company. Mayor Nyquist inquired how Mr. Merrigan would distinguish this moratorium as compared to the moratorium which was in effect when the Target development was proposed. Mr. Merrigan stated he was not aware of the circumstances surrounding the Target development. The City Manager briefly explained the circumstances of the Target development and the moratorium which was in effect at that time. He noted the analysis which was completed under the moratorium demonstrated the staff was incorrect regarding the possible traffic problems in the area. 6/12/89 -7- Councilmember Paulson inquired if the study would be complete within the six - month time period. The City Manager stated staff would anticipate the study being complete before the six -month time period, but the six months would allow the Council time to make changes if they were necessary. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated he would hope to have a response from a consultant in three to four weeks but added if the deadline was not met the moratorium could be extended. Councilmember Paulson inquired when the deadline set by Fina Oil Company expired. Mr. Merrigan stated he believed it was in July. Councilmember Paulson inquired if Fina Oil Company would possibly extend this deadline. Mr. Merrigan stated he did not know if Fina Oil Company would extend the deadline. Councilmember Cohen inquired if the moratorium was not approved, what the timeline was before the Planning Commission application would reach the Council. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the Planning Commission has 60 days in which to take action on the application, and the Council is allowed another 30 days. He noted this would be approximately August 25. Councilmember Cohen asked the City Attorney to address the issue of downzoning and whether it is considered an actual taking of property. The City Attorney stated downzoning is considered a taking of property if the property is deprived of all reasonable uses. He noted if the property is deprived of all reasonable uses only during the moratorium, this is considered a temporary taking. Mayor Nyquist recognized the applicant, Howard Atkins. Mr. Atkins stated he feels the Council is making an arbitrary decision by allowing the SuperAmerica station to expand but not allowing his development. Councilmember Paulson stated if the moratorium is approved, a planning and land use study would be completed. He noted this study may or may not recommend changes and also the Planning Commission and Council may or may not agree with the findings of this report. The Director of Planning and Inspection briefly reviewed the Atkins Mechanical site and the area involved in the moratorium. He also reviewed the site of the SuperAmerica station. Mayor Nyquist recognized Arlo Johnson who stated if after the study is complete his property is rezoned to Cl, he felt this rezoning would have an adverse affect upon his property. He noted if the property were rezoned to Cl, the motel would become a nonconforming use in this area and it would most likely lower the property value when he tries to sell it. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ella Sander who stated she is a member of the Planning Commission and also lives in this area. She stated one of her fears is if this gas station /convenience store is developed in the area, the traffic flow problems s would become unbearable. Councilmember Cohen inquired if the traffic study were to show that the traffic problems could be alleviated, would Ms. Sander agree with the development. Ms. Sander stated she felt the City would have to work with the findings of the traffic study. 6/12/89 -8- There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager stated he did not want the applicant or the neighbors in this area to believe that because the moratorium was approved, downzoning of the area would automatically follow. He noted changes would occur in this area only if the findings of this study recommended it. Councilmember Cohen stated he supported the moratorium based on a need for overall study of the entire area. The City Manager stated staff would proceed with preparing and mailing the RFPs with as much expediency as possible. ORDINANCE NO. 89 -13 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN INTERIM ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY, AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6626 WEST RIVER ROAD AND ALL LAND SOUTH OF 66TH AVENUE AND NORTH OF I -694 LYING BETWEEN WILLOW LANE AND HIGHWAY 252 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. There was a general consensus among Councilmembers that staff should mail the RFPs by the end of the week and notify the Council of the progress at the next Council meeting. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification g g g of Certain Land. Considered under Planning Commission Application No. 89009. He noted this item was first read on May 22, 1989, published in the City's official newspaper on May 31, 1989, and is offered this evening for a second reading. The Director of Planning and Inspection ection P briefly reviewed the sites which were being considered for rezoning. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land Considered under Planning Commission Application No. 89009 and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak. There being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to table approval of a second reading of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land Considered under Planning Commission Application No. 89009 until the June 26, 1989, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE - 5449 EMERSON AVENUE NORTH The City Manager stated earlier today Administrative Aide Patti Page received a telephone call from the applicant stating he wished to withdraw his application 6/12/89 -9- for a private kennel license. He noted the applicant told Ms. Page he would be removing one of the excess dogs in order to comply with the City Ordinances. The City Manager stated he thought it would be appropriate if the Council allowed the applicant 30 days in which to remove the third animal. There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Cohen acknowledging withdrawal of the private kennel license for 5449 Emerson Avenue North and allowing the applicant 30 days in which to remove the third dog. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:46 p.m. and reconvened at 9 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 89013 SUBMITTED BY STEVE FIT ERMAN/ SUP ERAMERI CA REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A GAS STATION /CONVENIENCE STORE AND A STRIP SHOPPING CENTER ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 66TH AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN CAMDEN AVENUE NORTH AND HIGHWAY 252 AND PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NQ. 89014 SUBMITTED BY STEVE FITERMAN /SUPERAMERICA REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO RESUBDIVIDE THE LAND SOUTH OF 66TH AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN CAMDEN AVENUE NORTH AND HIGHWAY 252 The City Manager noted both items were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its May 25, 1989, meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspection referred the Mayor and Councilmembers to pages four through nine of the May 25, 1989, Planning Commission minutes and information sheet. He went on to briefly review the site plan for the Council. He noted the plan calls for the demolition of the existing SuperAmerica station and construction of a new building. He went on to review the 17 conditions which were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission noting that condition Nos. 1 through 12 are standard conditions. it The Director of Planning and Inspection stated two performance guarantees would be held for this development because construction of the two developments may not take place at the same time. The Director of Planning and Inspection then went on to review the six conditions which were recommended for approval of Planning Commission Application No. 89014. He stated a public hearing has been scheduled for each application and notices have been sent. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application Nos. 89013 and 89014 and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ron Krank, the architect for the shopping center, who stated he concurs with the decisions and recommendations made so far by staff and the Planning Commission. Councilmember Cohen inquired what has been done so far to address the impact of traffic to and from the development. The Director of Planning and Inspection briefly reviewed the entrance and exit points to the center. 6/12/89 -10- Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else who wished to address the Council. There being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application Nos. 89013 and 89014. 14. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Paulson stated this development appears to be similar to the proposal from Mr. Atkins, yet Mr. Atkins property is being placed under a moratorium. Councilmember Paulson inquired whether staff had considered putting this side of the street under the moratorium also. The City Manager stated staff did review this option but felt the issues pertaining to the east side of highway 252 are far different than those which pertain to the west side of highway 252. He noted there is also a continuity of use in this area because there already is a gas station in existence and there has been a strip shopping center there in the past. Councilmember Paulson stated in light of the action which was taken across the street on the moratorium and the fact that two Councilmembers are absent from the meeting this evening, it may be best to table this item until the entire Council is present. Councilmember Cohen stated being the applicant is this far along he can see no reason to delay action on the item. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Mayor Nyquist to approve Planning Commission Application No. 89013 submitted by Steve Fiterman /SuperAmerica subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is issued to SuperAmerica for the construction and operation of a convenience store /gas station. No other uses are comprehended. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Grading, drainage, utility, and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 5. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager for each of the two sites) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of ermit P s 6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. No dumpsters shall be permitted behind the shopping center building. 7. The buildings are to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6/12/89 -11- 8. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 9. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 10. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 11. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 12. The property owner shall enter into an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems prior to the issuance of permits. 13. The replat of the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits for construction. 14. The cross access and cross parking agreement covering the two lots shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney, shall be executed by the property owners, and shall be filed with the titles to the properties at the County prior to the issuance of building permits. 15. Partial vacation of the 60' wide utility easement along the common property line shall be approved by ordinance prior to the issuance of permits for the shopping center. 16. Property monuments for the plat shall be installed and inspected prior to release of the performance guarantee. 17. The plans shall be revised prior to issuance of building permits to indicate: it a) At least two additional shade trees in the greenstrip adjacent to 66th Avenue North and at least two shade trees in the greenstrip behind the shopping center. b) The grading plan shall indicate a break in the grade at the property line along Camden in the driveway behind the shopping center to contain all runoff off -site. c) The building elevation shall indicate wall lighting for security purposes along the back side of the shopping center. Such wall lights shall be shielded to focus the light downward. The motion passed with Councilmember Paulson opposed. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Mayor Nyquist to approve Planning Commission Application No. 89014 submitted S P by Steve Fiterman / uperAmerica subject to the followin g conditions: 6/12/89 -12- 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City ordinances. 3. The cross access and cross parking agreement covering the two lots shall be executed by the property owners and filed with the titles to the properties at the County prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. Partial vacation of the utility easement straddling the common property line shall be subject to normal ordinance procedure and shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of building permits for the shopping center. 5. Property monuments for the plat shall be installed and inspected prior to release of the site performance guarantee. 6. The applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City stipulating the payment of special assessments for public improvements and the responsibility for subdivision improvements. Said subdivision agreement shall be executed prior to final plat approval. The motion passed with Councilmember Paulson opposed. Councilmember Cohen inquired of the City Attorney what action would be needed if the entire Council should wish to reconsider this item. The City Attorney stated a majority vote of the entire Council would be required on a motion to rescind a previous action. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO 89015 SUBMITTED BY TOYS R US REQUESTING FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO COMBINE INTO A SINGLE PARCEL THE LAND ON WHICH THE PRESENT C.O.M.B BUILDING AND THE OLD MARC'S BIG BOY RESTAURANT ARE LOCATED The City Manager noted this item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its May 25, 1989, meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspection referred the Mayor and Councilmembers to pages nine and ten of the May 25, 1989, Planning Commission minutes and information sheet. He briefly reviewed the application and the four conditions recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 89015 and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to approve Planning Commission Application No. 89015 submitted by Toys R Us subject to the following conditions: 6/12/89 -13- 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 35 of the City ordinances. 3. Monuments to be installed pursuant to the plat shall be inspected prior to release of the performance guarantee for the Toys R Us development. 4. The applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City stipulating the payment of special assessments for public improvements and the responsibility for subdivision improvements. Said subdivision agreement shall be executed prior to final plat approval. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS APPOINTMENT OF TODD PAULSON TO RTB BOARD The City Manager stated there has been restructuring of the Regional Transit Board, and this has brought about a need for new applicants to the board. He noted Councilmember Paulson has expressed an interest in this area. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Mayor Nyquist directing staff to prepare and submit a resume to the Regional Transit Board for Councilmember Paulson. The motion passed. Councilmember Paulson abstained from the vote. Councilmember Cohen stated he would recommend staff sends notification of this action to the Northern Mayor's Association and ask their support of Councilmember Paulson's application. APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL LIAISON TO HOUSING COMMISSION Mayor Nyquist noted Councilmember Lhotka was the liaison to the Housing Commission. He noted that since Councilmember Cohen had been a member of the Housing Commission and is quite knowledgeable in this area, it would seem logical to appoint him as the Council liaison to the Housing Commission. There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Mayor Nyquist to appoint Councilmember Cohen as the liaison to the Housing Commission. The motion passed. Councilmember Cohen abstained from the vote. OTHER BUSINESS The City Manager stated he had been requested to speak briefly regarding the RFP for the prosecuting attorney. He stated he has not received any calls from Councilmembers Pedlar or Scott but added he would try to contact them to see if they had any concerns with the rough draft of the RFP. He stated he felt a section should be added pertaining lobbying of Councilmembers being discouraged. He noted he would make the appropriate changes and send copies to all Councilmembers for their review. Is 6/12/89 -14- Councilmember Paulson inquired whether an RFP has been written for the other attorney services. The City Manager stated at this time an RFP has not been prepared for the other services and that staff would prefer to handle these as two separate items. There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Cohen directing the City Manager to review the changes to the request for proposal for prosecuting attorney services with the absent Councilmembers and send out the RFP as soon as possible. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10:07 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 6/12/89 -15- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER councii Meetin Date 6 -25 -PP Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Performance Bond Release DEPARTMENT OVAL: Signature - title f Planning and a g Director o ' re- titltoo o ************************ MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below/attached- SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _} The following performance guarantee is recommended for release: 1. Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Boulevard Planning Commission Application No. 83045 Amount of Guarantee - $30,000 bond Obligor - Plaza Real Estate Partners All site improvements are complete. Landscaping has been done in the Shingle Creek greenstrip according to the Erkkila plan of 1984. Rooftop mechanical equipment has been screened. Recommend total release. Submitted by Gary Shallcross, Planner CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6/26/89 Agenda Item Number 102 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR 1989 SEALCOATING PROGRAM PROJECT NO. 1989 -09, CONTRACT 1989 -C DEPT. APPROVAL: , * * * * * * * * * * * **t*�lAW DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WOR * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Explanation Sealcoat Improvement Project 1989 -09, Contract 1989 -C bids were opened at 11:00 a.m., June 15, 1989. Three bids were received as follows: Option A Option B Bidder Trap Rock Granite Allied Blacktop Company $160,519.60 $159,077.34 Astech Asphalt Surface Technologies Corporation $169,361.58 $165,034.81 Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $199,026.68 $196,017.17 The 1989 sealcoat budget provides for $150,000 of sealcoating in 1989. The specifications provide for a quantity adjustment to equal the dollar amount 'budgeted for this improvement. The recent oil price increase has raised the price of sealcoating approximately 7 cents per square yard above 1988. Accordingly, we will reduce the area to be sealcoated so as to "stay within the budget." Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council award Contract 1989 -C to Allied Blacktop Company for Option A (trap rock) in the amount of $160,519.60. • Trap rock is superior in hardness and may lengthen repeat application by 1 to 2 years over granite. Trap rock is more brownish in color and absorbs the sun's heat for faster snow and ice melt. The specifications for Contract 1989 -C, specifically states on the Proposal Form and in Division B of the Special Provisions that the City of Brooklyn Center "reserves the right to select and award a contract for either Option A or Option B, whichever it deems to be in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center." City Council Action Required A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council for the award of Contract 1989 -C, Option A (trap rock). x Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR 1989 SEALCOATING PROGRAM PROJECT NO. 1989 -09, CONTRACT 1989 -C WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1989 -09, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 15th day of June, 1989. Said bids were as follows: Option A Option B Bidder Bid Amount Bid Amount Allied Blacktop Company $160,519.60 $159,077.34 Astech Asphalt Surface Technologies Corporation $169,361.58 $165,034.81 Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $199,026.68 $196,017.17 WHEREAS, it appears the Allied Blacktop Company of Maple Grove, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center to select Option A, as permitted by the Specifications for Contract 1989 -C, Special Provisions, Division B, B -7.3 "The Owner reserves the right to select and award a contract for either Option A or Option B, whichever it deems to be in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. That Option A (trap rock) is selected because of its superior hardness and may lengthen the repeat application by 1 to 2 years over Option B (granite) and that the brownish color absorbs the sun's heat faster to accelerate snow and ice melt. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract for Option A in the amount of $160,519.60, with Allied Blacktop Company of Maple Grove, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1989 -09 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. 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 6/26/89 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF A LASERJET PRINTER FOR ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPT. APPROVAL: * * * * * * * *** ** **LAPP 4RECTOR OF P *B I C WO * S MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation • The Public Works Department utilizes a Hewlett - Packard 150 computer workstation with a LaserJet printer for its office word processing and other microcomputer needs. The workstation and printer were purchased in January, 1985, and have been used constantly and heavily since that time. The printer has been experiencing numerous problems (see attached memorandum), has been serviced frequently, and has become unreliable. It is impossible to y P predict whether the printer may in the future have no further problem or if it will stop functioning entirely. I believe the best course of action is to purchase a new printer now, before any further problems occur. A new Hewlett- Packard LaserJet Series II printer with the appropriate cable will cost $1,690. The City's Data Processing Advisory Committee has recommended to the City Manager that this purchase be approved. Council Action Required A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF A LASERJET PRINTER FOR ENGINEERING DIVISION WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has advised the City Council that the laser printer in the Public Works Department has experienced several intermittent failures and has become unreliable; and WHEREAS, the City's Data Processing Advisory Committee has recommended replacing the printer with a new Hewlett - Packard LaserJet Series II laser printer; and WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General Fund Budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has advised the City Council that Cedar Computer Center can provide a new LaserJet Series II printer and cable for a cost of $1,690. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: That the 1989 General Fund Budget be amended as follows: Increase the Appropriations for the following line items Data Processing - No. 20, Object No. 4551 $1,690 Decrease the Appropriations for the following line items_ Unallocated Dept. Expense - No. 80, Object No. 4995 $1,690 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. June 7, 1989 • MEMORANDUM TO: Sy Knapp FROM: Diane Spector(jtbk� SUBJ: Office LaserJet Printer As you know, the Data Processing Advisory Committee has recommended that our request for a new HP Vectra workstation, including a new LaserJet II printer, be considered in the 1990 Division 20 request. Oor reasons for needing a new workstation include the growing age and unreliability of the HP 150 and LaserJet. We continue to have serious problems with the printer. During the week of May 15, the serviceman was in twice, repairing the same problem. This was during the preparation of the Council agenda materials, and the printer was out of service for at least a few hours each time. Because the HP 150 uses 3.5" floppy disks whereas most other departments use 5.25" disks, we are limited in our ability to utilize other departments' printers. The printer also exhibits intermittant problems, which are rarely reproducible for the serviceman. It's possible that we could have no further major problems with the printer, but it's also possible that we could have a breakdown at a most inconvenient time. In short, this printer is no longer reliable, and can be expected to continue to develop new problems, mostly as a result of the high volume of pages printed. At this point in its useful life, the printer can be expected to perform fairly reliably if used less intensively; at its current output, it's impossible to predict what will happen. Since it is doubtful that the volume of documents we produce will decrease, it would probably be a good idea to explore alternatives. As far as I know, there are no 'spare' printers available. It's doubtful that we could persuade any other department with a lower - volume user to temporarily trade printers. That leaves as our only alternative the purchase of a new printer. The price quoted by John Josephson for a LaserJet II with the appropriate cable is $1,690. Assuming our new workstation was apppoved, I had intended on moving the HP 150 and LaserJet to the table in Jill's area where her terminal and typewriter are now located, and via a switch making the LaserJet accessible by both the 150 and my Portable. If we were to purchase just the new printer, that space would not be available for the old printer - Jill would still need to access her terminal and her typewriter, and only I would be able to use the LaserJet. We may then need to also purchase a small printer stand, which generally run $100 -150. In the future, assuming the workstation (minus printer) is approved, the 150 and the LaserJet can be moved to the originally intended space, and some other person in City Hall could utilize the stand. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF OOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 BR TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 June 20, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter FROM: Data Processing Advisory Committee SUBJ: Recommendation on Proposed Equipment Purchase The Data Processing Advisory Committee met on June 19, 1989 to discuss the Public Works Department's request for approval of equipment purchase. The Department is seeking to purchase a new LaserJet II laser printer to replace as the primary office printer their existing LaserJet. The cost of a new LaserJet II with the appropriate cable is $1,690. The existing LaserJet was purchased in January, 1985, and has had heavy and constant use. It is now experiencing intermittant failures, and can no longer be considered reliable. This printer is the department's primary printer, and is used to generate a wide variety and large volume of material. The Committee has recommended the purchase in 1990 of an additional workstation for Engineering, including a new printer. Diane Spector believes that it is impossible to predict if the existing printer will have no further problems or whether it will stop functioning entirely. Purchasing a new printer now would prevent the department from being without a printer for the several weeks it would take to process a request for replacement should the existing printer break down between now and January. RECOMMENDATION The Committee recommends approval of this purchase, with the 1990 budget request adjusted accordingly. Chairman Secretary �"' 14861LL1MERKA Qi'/ =r ,40 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6/26/89 Agenda Item Number /0 C— REQUEST QU ST FOR COUNCIL U CIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED COST DISTRIBUTION FOR TWIN LAKES /RYAN LAKE OUTLET MODIFICATIONS *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation • Several areas in Brooklyn Center which are adjacent to the Twin Lakes and to Ryan Lake have historically been subject to periodic flooding, with large fluctuations in the water levels of those lakes. On February 13, 1989, the City Council received and reviewed copies of an engineering report entitled "Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Outlet Modifications" which was prepared for the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission ( SCWMC) by its engineer. tt The major impact of the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake engineering study is that it describes a system of improvements that can be made which will: • somewhat lower the maximum high water level in these lakes; • substantially reduce the length of time during which the lake levels remain high following a heavy runoff; while • maintaining the same "runout elevation" to assure that the lake levels during normal and dry periods are no lower than they are with the present outfall system. Following discussion of that report, the Brooklyn Center City Council adopted Resolution No. 89 -30 requesting y y the SCWMC to conduct a feasibility stud for implementation of the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Outlet Modification, and requesting the cities of Crystal and Robbinsdale to support that request. • Following receipt of Brooklyn Center's request and similar requests from Crystal and Robbinsdale, the SCWMC authorized the preparation of the feasibility report. A draft copy of that report has now been completed (copy attached). I • Essentially, the report states that the elements of the solution to the problem are: • increasing the capacity of the culvert under France Avenue, and installing a weir control (to assure maintenance of low water levels); • increasing the capacity of the culvert under the Soo Line tracks; and • participating in the oversizing costs of a new storm sewer which the City of Minneapolis proposes to build along 49th Avenue North. The report also estimates that the total cost of the improvement, including only the oversizing share of Minneapolis' 49th Avenue storm sewer, is $154,600. Of that total, the report finds that $153,900 is to be apportioned to the 6 cities within that branch of the watershed based on a 50/50 (area /tax capacity) formula as detailed in the Commission's Capital Improvement Policy, while the estimated $700 cost for construction of the proposed weir at France Avenue is a local improvement which benefits the City of Brooklyn Center. Accordingly the total cost distribution is as follows: Share of City Trunk Sewer Costs Local Costs Total Costs Brooklyn Center $12,159 $700 $12,859 Brooklyn Park 18,545 -- 18,545 Crystal 48,324 -- 48,324 Minneapolis 12,466 =_ 12,466 New Hope 28,240 28,240 Robbinsdale 34.166 34.166 $153,900 $700 $154,600 This report is currently being considered by the SCWMC. Before initiating further proceedings, the Commission requested that the City of Brooklyn Center agree to accept the $700 local,post apportionment. Recommendation I recommend that the Council adopt a resolution approving not only the local cost apportionment, but also recommending adoption of the report and requesting the Commission to commence proceedings to implement this project. City Council Action Required A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. i r Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 40 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED COST DISTRIBUTION FOR TWIN LAKES /RYAN LAKE OUTLET MODIFICATIONS I WHEREAS, on February 13, 1989, the Brooklyn Center City Council adopted Resolution No. 89 -30 requesting the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission ( SCWMC) to conduct a feasibility study for implementation of the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Outlet Modification; and WHEREAS, the SCWMC has completed a draft copy of that study and the Brooklyn Center City Council has reviewed that study and concurs with its findings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. that this Council recommends acceptance and approval of that study by the SCWMC; 2. that this Council agrees with the cost distribution formula as described in that report and specifically agrees that the estimated $700 cost for construction of a weir, and right -of -way costs related thereto should be considered as a local improvement benefiting the City of Brooklyn Center; and 3. that the SCWMC is hereby requested to commence proceedings to accomplish construction of this proposed improvement. 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 SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT TWIN LAKES /RYAN LAKE OUTLET MODIFICATIONS - JUNE 1989 I JMMAifnes M Montg Consulting Engineers Inc. i S�rina ;ha 'a "lo1d's ��= .,ohone Environrrentai Needs 7.2)473 -4224 FAX(512)473 -25 2 5, ins: ?n Mound Eu A. Hickok and Associates A D.vis;or Jsmes M. t tc .,c ry. Co _�_Ihng E :.eers Inc. June 8, 1989 Commissioners Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission 3030 Harbor Lane Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 ATTENTION: Neil Johnson, Chairman PROJECT: Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Outlet Modifications SUBJECT: Submittal of Draft Feasibility Study Report Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is the Draft Feasibility Study Report for the Twin Lakes/ Ryan Lake Outlet Modifications. This report was ordered by the Commission on May 4, 1989. Resolutions requesting the Commission to prepare a feasibility study were approved by the City Councils of Brooklyn Center, Crystal and Robbinsdale. Copies of the resolutions are included in Appendix A of this report. The report describes improvements for outlet modifications to the Twin Lakes Outlet at France Avenue and the Ryan Lake Outlet located in the northeast corner of Ryan Lake. In 1986, the Commission began studying ways to increase low flow capacity of Twin Lakes and reduce 100 -year flood elevations in Ryan Lake. The report also presents estimated costs for the improvements and a cost - sharing analysis for District C communities. Please review this draft report and provide any comments to be incorporated into the final report. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact Dale Claridge or myself at 473 -4224. Sincerely, William D Weidenbacher, P.E. Dale Claridge, P.E. Principal Engineer Project Manager bt 3 ( A 5 SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT ON TWIN LAKES /RYAN LAKE OUTLET MODIFICATIONS June 1989 Project No.'s 2405.0021 2405.0030 Prepared by: E. A. Hickok & Associates A Division of James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. 545 Indian Mound Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 — I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Registration No. i SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION Commissioners Sy Knapp Brooklyn Center Neil Johnson Brooklyn Park William Monk Crystal Gerry Butcher Maple Grove Marvin Hoshaw Minneapolis Mark Hanson New Hope Eugene Hakanson Osseo Fred Moore Plymouth Lee Gustafson Robbinsdale Administration Curt Pearson Legal Counsel Judie Anderson Recording Secretary i PROJECT STAFF JMM /E. A. Hickok and Associates ENGINEERING William D. Weidenbacher, Principal Engineer Dale Claridge, Project Manager REPORT PRODUCTION Cheryl R. Storevik Wanda M. Hermanson TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TWIN LAKES /RYAN LAKE SUBCOMMITTEE l Sy Knapp Brooklyn Center Neil Johnson Brooklyn Park William Monk Crystal Perry Damon Minneapolis Milt Christensen Minneapolis Mark Hanson New Hope Lee Gustafson Robbinsdale i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 9 CONCLUSIONS 1 - RECOMMENDATIONS 3 INTRODUCTION 6 a OBJECTIVE 6 EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM 9 TWIN LAKES OUTLET MODIFICATION 13 RYAN LAKE OUTLET MODIFICATION 19 RYAN CREEK CHANNEL /PIPE CAPACITY ANALYSIS 22 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS BY MINNEAPOLIS 25 RYAN LAKE OUTLET AND CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 27 COST- SHARING ANALYSIS 29 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 - Results of Hydraulic Analysis for Twin Lakes 15 Outlet Modification - 1 -Year Storm _ TABLE 2 - Preliminary Engineer's Cost Estimate for Twin 16 Lakes Outlet Modification - Option 1 TABLE 3 - Preliminary Engineer's Cost Estimate for Twin 18 Lakes Outlet Modification - Option 2 TABLE 4 - Results of Hydraulic Analysis for Ryan Lake 21 Outlet Modification - 100 -Year Storm TABLE 5 - Preliminary Engineer's Cost Estimate for 28 Ryan Lake Outlet Modification TWIN7.6 /OUTTOC -i- II i 4 LIST OF FIGURES Page FIGURE 1 - Project Study Area 8 FIGURE 2 - Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Drainage Area 11 FIGURE 3 - Ryan Creek Drainage System 12 FIGURE 4 - Flooding Resulting When Capacity of 24 48 -Inch RCP is Exceeded FIGURE 5 - Capital Improvement District C 30 APPENDICES I I 1 APPENDIX A - Resolutions adopted by the cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, and Robbinsdale requesting the SCWMC to prepare a feasibility study for the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Outlet Modification APPENDIX B - Cost estimate prepared by Minneapolis to increase the size of the proposed storm sewer enclosure of Ryan Creek from a 54 -inch pipe to a 60 -inch pipe TWIN7.5 /OUTTOC1 -ii- i A CONCLUSIONS , 3 The purpose of this study is to determine which combination of structure modifications to the Twin Lakes Outlet at France Avenue and the Ryan Lake Outlet will result in the most desirable alternatives to increase the low flow capacity of Twin Lakes and reduce 100 -year flood elevations in Ryan Lake. If a larger outlet is provided at France Avenue, the time necessary for lake levels in Twin Lakes to recede during a 1 -year frequency storm will be significantly reduced. The outlet of Ryan Lake located under the Soo Line railroad tracks controls water levels in the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Basin during a 100 -year frequency storm. If a larger outlet is provided from Ryan Lake, the peak elevation will be lowered. As a result, the number of low -lying structures that would experience flooding during a 100 -year storm will be reduced. Under existing conditions, the downstream capacity of the 48 -inch RCP storm sewer between Russell and Oliver Avenues is inadequate to contain 100 -year peak discharges from Ryan Lake. Flooding occurs at the intersection of Russell and 49th Avenue resulting in minor flooding of front yards and the parking lot on the south side of 49th Avenue. Stormwater eventually overflows to the east down 49th Avenue and drains to the larger 60 -inch RCP storm sewer at Oliver Avenue. If a larger outlet is provided from Ryan Lake, the peak flows downstream in - Ryan Creek will be increased. However, the resultin increase in flood levels at the intersection of 49th and Russell will be insignificant (as compared to existing conditions) due to the overflow capacity of 49th Avenue. i TWIN7.6 /OUT.1 -1- i j The City of Minneapolis is proposing to bypass the existing 48 -inch RCP by constructing a 54 -inch RCP to increase the flow capacity of the storm sewer. The existing 48 -inch RCP will be connected to the proposed 54 -inch RCP and utilized as a relief drain if necessary. The proposed 54 -inch RCP will accommodate 100 -year peak discharges from the existing 36 -inch RCP outlet at Ryan Lake as well as peak discharges from a proposed 42 -inch or 48 -inch RCP equivalent outlets. If the proposed storm sewer is increased to a 60 -inch RCP, it will have adequate capacity to handle 100 -year peak discharges from Ryan Lake with a proposed 54 -inch RCP equivalent outlet. The 54 -inch RCP equivalent was the largest outlet size considered for Ryan Lake since the existing outfall to Ryan Creek is a 54 -inch RCP under T.H. 152. On January 12, 1989 the Commission adopted a resolution defining districts P 9 within the Shingle Creek Watershed and establishing a capital improvement Policy. The proposed improvements to the Twin Lakes Outlet, Ryan Lake Outlet, and Ryan Creek are located within District C which includes the communities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Minneapolis, New Hope, and Robbinsdale. District C communities will be responsible for all capital improvement costs as outlined in the cost - sharing analysis section of this report. TWIN7.6 /OUT.1.1 r RECOMMENDATIONS The results of this study indicate that capital improvements are needed to accomplish the Commission's goals of increasing the low flow capacity of the Twin Lakes Outlet at France Avenue and reducing the 100 -year flood elevations in Ryan Lake. The proposed improvements as outlined in the report are feasible as they relate to general engineering principles and construction procedures. It is recommended that: 1. The Feasibility tud R as resented herein b Y Y r P P ee e adopted by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. 2. The low flow capacity of the Twin Lakes Outlet at France Avenue be increased by replacing the existing 48 -inch RCP culvert with a 6'x4' concrete box culvert at a lower elevation and installing 20 -foot long concrete weir upstream to maintain the existing runout elevation. Estimated Cost: Box Culvert $47,200 Weir $ 700 3. The projected 100 -year flood elevations in the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Basin be lowered by increasing he flow capacity of the existing 36 -inch 9 P Y 9 RCP outlet from Ryan Lake. Install a 30 -inch RCP alongside the existing outlet pipe at the same runout elevation (54 -inch RCP equivalent); clean out the existing 54 -inch RCP outfall to Ryan Creek under T.H. 152; and perform channel excavation along Ryan Creek to lower the channel bottom grade and improve hydraulic capacity of the channel. Estimated Cost: $70,000 TWIN7.6 /OUT.2 -3- 4. If the City of Minneapolis proceeds with the proposed storm sewer enclosure of Ryan Creek along 49th Avenue North which is scheduled for 1990, that the pipe size be increased from a 54 -inch RCP to a 60-inch c RCP. The Commission shall be responsible for the additional costs associated with the pipe size increase. These additional costs are outlined in the cost estimate prepared by Minneapolis and are included in Appendix B of the report. Estimated Cost: $36,700 5. The above recommended capital improvements, with the exception of the concrete weir at France Avenue, be considered 100 -year storm improvements that benefit all District C communities. The Commission shall be responsible for all costs associated with these 100 -year storm improvements based on the 50/50 formula (area /tax capacity) as outlined in the resolution adopted by the Commission defining districts within the Shingle Creek Watershed and establishing a capital improvement policy. As presented in the cost - analysis section of the report, the cost allocation for each District C community to fund the capital improvement costs for the 100 -year storm improvements are as follows: Brooklyn Center $ 12,159 Brooklyn Park 18,545 Crystal 48,324 Minneapolis 12,466 New Hope 28,240 Robbinsdale 34,166 Total $153,900 TWIN7.6 /OUT.2.1 _4_ i 6. The concrete weir at France Avenue, designed to provide additional low flow capacity while maintaining the existing runout elevation of Twin Lakes, be considered a local improvement benefitting the City of Brooklyn Center. Brooklyn Center shall be responsible for the costs of the weir ($700) and any right -of -way costs that may be required. 7. The additional 30 -inch RCP recommended at the outlet of Ryan Lake be bulkheaded if installed prior to the downstream improvements along Ryan Creek being in place. L_ t TWIN7.6 /OUT.2.2 -5- i INTRODUCTION A hydraulic analysis on Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake was undertaken by the Commission in i 1986 during the 509 planning process to address concerns regarding recent high water levels maintained in Twin Lakes after significant rainfall events. During a t _ 3 periods of low flow such as a 1 -year frequency storm, the 48 -inch RCP culvert under France Avenue controls the flow from Twin Lakes (see Figure 1). It was determined from the 1986 study that if a larger structure was placed at France Avenue, the time it takes for lake levels in Twin Lakes to recede during a i 1 -year frequency storm would be significantly reduced. During larger rainfall events such as 100 -year frequency storm, the smaller 36 -inch RCP culvert at the outlet of Ryan Lake was determined to control the water levels in the Twin Lakes/ Ryan Lake Basin. The 100 -year flood elevation projected by computer simulation methods would result in lake levels which would flood a number of homes adjacent to Twin Lakes and Ryan Lake. A further hydraulic analysis was performed in 1986 to determine the 100 -year flood elevation that would result in the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Basin if a larger structure was placed at the Ryan Lake outlet. It was determined that if the size of the Ryan Lake outlet was increased, the 100 -year flood elevation of the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Basin would be reduced. The larger outlet would also result in an increase in the peak discharge rate downstream in Ryan Creek. The effects of these increased flows in Ryan Creek were not determined as part of the 1986 analysis. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to determine which combination of structure modifications to the Twin Lakes outlet at France Avenue and the Ryan Lake outlet will result in the most desirable alternatives to increase the low flow capacity -6- i of Twin Lakes and reduce 100 -year flood elevations in Ryan Lake. Information a previously generated in the 1986 analysis will be incorporated into this report. The costs associated with any outlet modification will be estimated and the resulting increase in peak discharges to Ryan Creek will be analyzed downstream to determine whether adequate channel capacity exists. Should flooding occur in Ryan Creek under existing conditions or as a result of any proposed upstream modifications, measures to increase downstream capacity such as channel improvements, larger storm sewer, etc. will be considered and costs estimated for these improvements. Cost allocation associated with the recommended improvements is presented in the cost - sharing analysis section. Benefitted areas of the Shingle Creek Watershed, namely District C, will be responsible for the costs of the improvements. i -7- Kylawn J i, ail `r Park �I. ��!� W U �t; fGe� C 89 !, AV 846 dp6, I , —C �� x III �` + ,,J 59 LJ� � _ �,/ 59 H o, � I BARS- � 1N� T 0 A E LQ Northport i, r p r � / LJLJU I II 4 �_ J Park_ � 11 �I � � - I L E E �� �--� 2 i l - ._� i• t Par, II � �h�t h. _.� 4, � �� -- 5 O , E �'Vc Q W N ,4t- o E � o a i soo C�� IL T L�� r ML.. MVi,.r VE_.- . y-s ..�' ,C',y �A k _x 'Park s/sr AyE, n - hi lSo g e k LD h "ed6 P�.� r igh ch� OUTLET 36 RCP --- g Cav na INV 849.10 I � �� ' lJ L__2JL_ a - i .•Ib 4: _ 4. , OUTLET 48' RCP INV 85t35 " _ - L r � o �8 �J RYAN LAKE o I TO Y � M M /A D( VE ,862 Parr a > xk��iv ` i h v l 1 rin Sch A [ 1 ®I lto Sch �� t .� o �gh a en Y Sc \ `Fi r ld - Li 965 dou luu LA tP Lj r i A 90 A — , o � z w I \� P rk\ I � r O � �eh � �� Park �y� l e � hi, ' �h — �b N - - Pa �� Q o EON 4 �I . C w ` ( - i4 N� VF N V 9,0J / � O h H \ Q Dom , 1 I SHINGLE CREEK WMC E.A. HICKOK do ASSMATES AUG 88 PROJECT STUDY AREA HYDROLOGISTS -ENGWERS FIG 1 MPMAPOLIS - MMMSOTA 3 i . EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake The Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake drainage area consists of 5,720 acres of urban land located in the south central portion of the Shingle Creek Watershed. This drainage area consists of six subwatersheds located in parts of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Minneapolis, New Hope and Robbinsdale (see Figure 2). A 48 -inch RCP culvert with an invert elevation of 851.35 is located at France Avenue and is the outlet for the Twin Lakes system. This culvert controls the discharge from Twin Lakes during low flow events such as a 1 -year frequency storm. During larger storm events such as a 100 -year frequency storm, the smaller 36 -inch RCP located under the railroad tracks in the northeast corner of Ryan Lake, at an invert elevation of 849.10, controls the discharge from both Twin Lakes and Ryan Lake. Thus, the existing Ryan Lake outlet causes the reservoirs to function together as one basin. The 36 -inch RCP outlet from Ryan Lake is connected to a 54 -inch RCP storm sewer which outlets to Ryan Creek east of T.H. 152. The 54 -inch storm sewer also picks up local drainage from Howe Fertilizer, Inc. as well as drainage from the :S intersection of 49th Avenue and T.H. 152 and low areas along T.H. 152 and the railroad tracks. Ryan Creek y Ryan Creek, which consists of both open channel and storm sewer, flows easterly along 49th Avenue in Minneapolis outletting to Shingle Creek (see Figure 3). The first 1,600 feet of the creek between T.H. 152 and Russell Avenue is open channel. There is a 48 -inch CMP culvert located in the channel under a driveway across from Russell Avenue. East of Russell Avenue, Ryan Creek is enclosed in a -9- f storm sewer. The first section of storm sewer consists of 870 feet of 48 -inch RCP which was built in 1955. The remaining 2,000 feet of storm sewer increases to a larger 60 -inch RCP at Oliver Avenue. The 60 -inch RCP, which outlets to Shingle Creek, was installed in the previously open channel in 1981 and 1983. A storm sewer line was installed in the spring of 1988 along the south side of 49th Avenue from Washburn Avenue east past Sheridan Avenue where it outlets to Ryan Creek. This RCP storm sewer ranges in size from 18 -36 inches and collects runoff from a 19 acre drainage area. Additional runoff to Ryan Creek along 49th Avenue is collected in catch basins at the intersections of Russell, Queen, Penn Oliver Morgan, g Knox and James Avenues. i i -10- ••••••..•••«. ^4wwwr" +.W.Mwr h. raa�uleW t+. ,wFwy4Wif �.+wwww * i «rrywua. ,.nrw.swr wwwwww �wi�uNwi. r. ».w+rxOm dnWdxn,u:o� ,n. �woaw,,. „w �.. im,. e,,. _ SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED � MSG Sa MSC 7 \ J J MSC 2 I Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Drainage Boundary USC 4 MSC 6 MSC 4 ,. - Legal Watershed Boundary �ro SC I Subwatershed Boundary r _ Subwatershed Outlet/ I I MSC 3 / Outlet Control Structure USC 3 rx. ( USC I \ L5C 5 S US 2 TL 5 F `jr \ — USC 6 L5C 4 USC 9 USC 8 r-�) _._._ TL 4 ~ USC USC 10 J SC 3 .�. —� USC I '—' ° u USC 7 / 1 TL » 3 n •� `` �' ��zc TL 2 I 2 l� \ L t/2 0 y � llA � Scab In Miles NTH SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION E.A. HICKOK & ASSOCIATES AUG 88 TWIN LAKES / RYAN LAKE DRAINAGE AREA HYDROLOGISTS-ENGINIEERS FIG 2 MINNEAPOLIS - MINNESOTA f � d�_I � L _.'� U UJ •n' / I ��'• d aa. � �aa • lau d 3 t • i�N -3 11 U �IU UU .. 1 W .y yy rs_ LLI Ai x a W z i< I = Y a m p z aC ' r x'.s �'at INV 6 49TH AV O J Y 843 ' 4 I I > � " �-k m ..• '� ;° ," ' �.�, — 49TH A E 48 RCTr" +,.a .��..� ..� ...., acts 18- 36'RCP � .+r' 48' C M P �; re.. e.,. 6 0' R C P A� NpNP S00 LINE RAILROAD ? \ INV 849,1 y m eye HUMBOLDT YARDS - -- -- C RYAN LAKE = O nnc � OPEN CHANNEL —STORM SEWER = ( II I ~' I Z �vE.� -•.� M.N.n uzu lu one n L L IL W� + I ¢I I � _' �'• �o •¢ ato I �' �° �6Tw uo �v t1. � A � P - - o—i ° • -, -4. oiP'- "a Oe ' o— m �e � �,oe tay y � _ • __S ', fou � - — _ 1 � 111!0 k _.. — mo d �d. >• >. ,� w.. � pE>rORr4 -L • —i' IORING 2 � 6 •la -�(ue.,el —iii +.v ' '19 .9 � ' � 1/ S � SCHOOL ,4131 ...0 a o a,± ' ' .�. e --- - -- - (—� �= - -- -- -- -- - --- ~o _ — e �srJY •° i nu_H.•sa �' `:_' .•°e ' __ _e is••� (°� ,w ��, ` W _� � II I r� ' '�, .o( �.l ' �.� a �1 � J� O1 W uw "�' ti.zJ 'i'° � i � �' � tt�r �• 1t>y �H. � � - _ ��.a. _ � . ., X m �1(:Y .._ �' - �~ - �� U fJ! I ur > ZI.� Q� ,Q F"'1" �i ���. tY CG �Eee[R ^•� N SCALE 1 "- 500' SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION E.A. HICKOK & ASSOCIATES AUG 88 RYAN CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTEM HYDROLOGISTS -ENGMERS FIG 3 MINNEAPOLIS - MINNESOTA 3 z a TWIN LAKES OUTLET MODIFICATION The hydraulic analysis on Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake undertaken by the Commission in 1986 consisted of analyzing the hydraulic capacity of the existing 48 -inch RCP outlet at France Avenue as well as three different alternatives to increase the T capacity of the outlet and reduce the time necessary for lake levels to recede. The SCS TR -20 computer runoff model was used to simulate the effects resulting from a 1 -year frequency rainfall event on Twin Lakes considering four different outlet configurations. The following Twin Lakes outlet structures were analyzed: 1. Existing 48 -inch RCP culvert. 2. Existing 48 -inch RCP culvert plus one 18 -inch RCP culvert. 3. Existing 48 -inch RCP culvert plus two 18 -inch RCP culverts. 4. Existing 48 -inch RCP culvert plus three 18 -inch RCP culverts. The inverts of the 18 -inch RCP culverts were set at an elevation of 850.0. These culverts would be downstream of a 35 -foot long weir. The weir was set at an elevation of 851.35 to continue maintaining the existing runout elevation of _ Twin Lakes since low lake levels in the past have been a problem. The 18 -inch culverts were selected because they will be flowing full when water reaches elevation 851.5, thereby providing a high flow capacity when lake elevations range from 851.4 to 851.8. Results The results of the hydraulic analysis for the Twin Lakes outlet modification at France Avenue are summarized in Table 1. The time necessary for lake levels in Twin Lakes to recede during a 1 -year frequency storm was significantly reduced by increasing the capacity of the outlet. As shown in Table 1, if three 18 -inch RCP's were added to the existing 48 -inch RCP at France Avenue, the time necessary -13- to lower Twin Lakes from a peak elevation of 852.0 to 851.5 will be reduced from 600 hours to 85 hours, a difference of about 21 days. Modifications to the outlet at France Avenue will result in greater discharges and an increase in lake levels downstream in Ryan Lake during the 1 -year frequency storm. Since the Ryan l Lake outlet controls the discharge during a 100 -year frequency storm, modifications to the France Avenue culvert would not affect 100 -year lake levels of the basin since this structure equalizes lake levels in Twin Lakes and Ryan Lake. Cost Estimate A Preliminary Engineer's Cost Estimate to install one, two, or three additional 18 -inch RCP culverts at the existing outlet under France Avenue in conjunction with a 35 -foot long weir is shown in Table 2. ,o -14- 4 TABLE 1 RESULTS OF HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FOR TWIN LAKES OUTLET - 1 -YEAR STORM (Assumes existing 36 -inch RCP is in -place at Ryan Lake outlet) i Description of Peak Time to Drain From Peak Elevation Twin Lakes Outlet Elevation Peak Q Time to Peak Elevation to in Ryan.Lake at France Avenue (NGVD) (cfs) Peak (hrs) Elevation 851.5 (hrs) (NGVD) 48 -inch RCP 852.1 4.8 28.0 600 849.8 (Existing) 48 -inch RCP plus 852.0 14.5 26.2 185 850.4 one 18 -inch RCP 48 -inch RCP plus 852.0 24.1 25.6 107 850.8 two 18 -inch RCP's 48 -inch RCP plus 852.0 32.9 25.2 85 851.1 three 18 -inch RCP's LL TWI N7.6 /0(fM -15 - s - TABLE 2 3 f PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE FOR TWIN LAKES OUTLET TDIFICATION - OPTION 1 _ JACK INSTALLATION OF ONE 18 -INCH PIPE UNDER FRANCE AVENUE ALONG WITH CONSTRUCTION OF 35 -FOOT LONG SHEET PILE WEIR i Item No. Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization L.S. 1 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 2 Jack 30" Diameter Steel Casing L.F. 66 $ 200 $13,200 (1/4" Thick) with 18" RCP 3 Construct Jacking Pit L.S. 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 4 Rip Rap Class III, S.Y. 40 $ 30 $ 1,200 1 -Foot Thick with Filter Fabric 5 Restoration (Erosion Control L.S. 1 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Blankets) 6 Construct Bentonite Seepage Each 2 $ 300 $ 600 Dans 7 Furnish and Install Steel S.F. 200 $ 25 $ 5,000 Sheet Piling TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $27,000 ENGINEERING (10%) $ 2,700 ADMINISTRATIVE ( 5 %) $ 1,400 CONTINGENCIES ( 7%) $ 1,900 TOTAL $33,000 *If two 18 -inch RCP culverts installed, increase total project cost by $13,000. If three 18 -inch RCP culverts installed, increase total project cost by $26,000. Note: The above cost estimate does not include right -of -way costs for land that l may be required as part of this project. 1 TWIN7.6 /OUTT2 -16- j { . n BOX CULVERT OPTION 3 Subsequent to the above hydraulic analysis, the Commission discussed the possibility of replacing the existing 48 -inch RCP culvert at France Avenue with a concrete box culvert. The box culvert would need to provide sufficient low q _ flow capacity similar to that provided by the addition of three 18 -inch RCP's while maintaining the existing runout elevation of 851.35. A hydraulic capacity analysis was performed for different size box culverts and various weir lengths. It was determined that a 6 box culvert placed at an invert elevation of 850.0 and a 20 -foot long weir set at an elevation of 851.35 will achieve approximately the same low flow capacity as the existing 48 -inch RCP along with three 18 -inch RCP's and a 35 -foot weir. The 6 box culvert will also provide a greater flow capacity to handle storm events larger than the 1 -year storm. The estimated costs to install a 6'x4' box culvert and a 20 -foot weir are outlined in a preliminary engineer's cost estimate shown in Table 3. l i i -17- s TABLE 3 I PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE FOR TWIN LAKES OUTLET VODIFICATION - OPTION 2 REPLACE EXISTING 48 -INCH RCP CULVERT AT FRANCE AVENUE WITH A 6'x4' CONCRETE BOX CULVERT AND A 20 -FOOT LONG CONCRETE WEIR Item No. Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization L.S. 1 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 2 6' span x 4' rise precast L.F. 66 $ 300 $19,800 concrete box culvert 3 12" concrete headwalls and C.Y. 12 $ 200 $ 2,400 wi ngwral l s 4 6" concrete weir and slab C.Y. 3 $ 200 $ 600 5 Remove existing 48" RCP L.S. 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 culvert and wing walls 6 Remove and replace iron L.S. 2 $ 300 $ 600 railings 7 Trench rock Tons 65 $ 8 $ 520 8 Class II riprap (grouted) with C.Y. 40 $ 60 $ 2,400 geotextile fabric - 9 Remove and replace curb and L.F. 100 $ 8 $ 800 gutter 10 Class 5 :t Ton 110 $ 8 $ 880 11 Bituminous base Ton 50 $ 24 $ 1,200 12 Bituminous binder course _% 230 $ 2.80 $ 650 13 Bituminous wear course g.Y. 230 $ 2.80 $ 650 14 Concrete Sidewalk S.F. 600 $ 2.00 $ 1,200 i 15 Restoration L.S. 1 $ 500 $ 500 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $39,200 ENGINEERING (10%) $ 3,900 ADMINISTRATIVE ( 5 %) $ 2,000 CONTINGENCIES ( 7%) $ 2,800 I TOTAL $47,900 Note: The above cost estimate does not include right -of -way costs for land that may be required as part of this project. TWIN7.6 /OUTT3 -18- RYAN LAKE OUTLET MODIFICATION High water levels in the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Basin resulting from a 100 -year i frequency storm over the watershed is an important concern of the Commission since flooding of low -lying structures adjacent to Twin Lakes and Ryan Lake will occur. The downstream capacity of Ryan Creek to handle 100 -year peak discharges from Ryan Lake will be determined as part of this study. Existing drainage problems along Ryan Creek will also be identified which may be adversely affected by providing a larger outlet at Ryan Lake. Hydraulic Analysis A hydraulic analysis using the SCS TR -20 computer runoff model was used to simulate a 100 -year frequency runoff event to determine both peak discharge rates to Ryan Creek and projected 100 -year flood elevations in the Twin Lakes/ Ryan Lake Basin. Four different outlet configurations at Ryan Lake were analyzed. The existing and proposed outlet structures would continue to maintain the current runout elevation of Ryan Lake at 849.10. The existing 36 -inch RCP would continue to be used, while the outlet capacity would be increased by the installation of ari additional outlet pipe under the railroad _ tracks alongside the existing"36 -inch RCP. The maximum outlet size for Ryan Lake considered in this analysis is a 54 -inch RCP equivalent since the existing outfall to Ryan Creek is a 54 -inch RCP under T.H. 152. The following Ryan Lake outlet structures were analyzed: s _ 1. Existing 36 -inch RCP 2. Existing 36 -inch RCP plus 18 -inch RCP (Equivalent to a 42 -inch RCP) 3. Existing 36 -inch RCP plus 24 -inch RCP (Equivalent to a 48 -inch RCP) 4. Existing 36 -inch RCP plus 30 -inch RCP (Equivalent to a 54 -inch RCP) -19- 7 i It is important to note that storm sewers discharging to Ryan Creek downstream of Ryan Lake will not be affected by peak discharge rates from Ryan Lake since peak discharges from Ryan Lake will occur much later. Results The results of the hydraulic analysis for the Ryan Lake outlet modification are summarized in Table 4. The 100 -year peak elevation in the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Basin will be lowered as a result of increasing the capacity of the outlet. As the peak elevation of the basin is lowered, the number of low -lying structures that will experience flooding is reduced. However, the peak discharges downstream to Ryan Creek will be increased. As shown in Table 4, the installation of a 30 -inch RCP in addition to the existing 36 -inch RCP (equivalent to a 54 -inch RCP) will lower the 100 -year peak elevation from l 855.9 to 855.1, a difference of 0.8 feet. By lowering the peak elevation 0.8 feet, the number of structures below the 100 -year peak elevation that will experience flooding is reduced from 47 to 25, a difference of 22 structures. The corresponding peak discharge rate to Ryan Creek will be increased from 90 cfs to 135 cfs. .s At the 100 -year flood elevation of 855.1, the flow capacity of the existing 48 -inch RCP culvert at France Avenue plus three 18 -inch RCP's and a 35 -foot weir is 139 cfs. If a 6'x4' box culvert was installed at France Avenue as previously _ discussed, the flow capacity of the structure at the 100 -year flood elevation of 855.1 is 180 cfs. Therefore, both options for modifications to the France Avenue outlet would adequately pass the 100 -year peak flow of 135 cfs and the Ryan Lake outlet would continue to act as the control for the system. E -20- __ I TABLE 4 RESULTS OF HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FOR RYAN LAKE OUTLET - 100 -YEAR STORM Peak Nunber of Description of Ryan Lake Elevation Structures Below Peak Q Time To Outlet Under Railroal Tracks (NGVD) Peak Elevation (cfs) Peak (hrs) 36 -inch RCP (Existing) 855.9 47 90 185 a 36 -inch RCP plus 18 -inch RCP 855.5 39 107 167 (Equivalent 42 -inch RCP) 36 -inch RCP plus 24 -inch RCP 855.3 33 120 159 (Equivalent 48 -inch RCP) 36 -inch RCP plus 30 -inch RCP 855.1 25 135 152 (Equivalent 54 -inch RCP) * Nunber of structures adjacent to Twin Lakes and Ryan Lake with lowest opening elevations below the projected 100 -year peak elevation. Additional structures located near Twin Lakes and Ryan Lake, specifically in the southwest corner of Ryan Lake, may also experience flooding at the peak elevations shown. ) TWIN7.6 /OUTT4 -21- RYAN CREEK CHANNEL /PIPE CAPACITY ANALYSIS A channel /pipe capacity analysis of Ryan Creek was completed to determine the flow capacity of the creek and to identify any existing flooding problems. All field information necessary to complete the analysis was provided by the City of Brooklyn Center. Field work performed in April and May of 1988 included taking cross- sections of the open channel, determining invert elevations of the existing storm sewer system, and determining centerline elevations along 49th Avenue. Lowest opening elevations of homes located at the intersection of 49th Avenue and Russell Avenue were also determined. Channel Capacity The estimated capacity of the open channel varies from 115 cfs to 422 cfs and thus has adequate capacity to handle estimated 100 -year peak discharges from Ryan Lake under existing outlet conditions. During field inspections, the channel was found to be in relatively poor condition. Dense brush, tall weeds, and small trees are present in some places within the channel bottom and along the banks, particularly east of Sheridan Avenue. Assorted debris such as tires, trash, cans, metal boxes, boards and tree stumps is also present within the channel. The brush and debris reduce the hydraulic capacity of the channel and may create obstructions in the downstream storm sewer system. The 54 -inch RCP outletting to Ryan Creek east of T.H. 152 has approximately 1.5 to 2 feet of sediment within the pipe at the outlet. Pipe cleaning and channel excavation would be necessary as part of any outlet modification of Ryan Lake to assure adequate capacity is provided. L -22- 3 Pipe Capacity The pipe capacity of the existing storm sewer system enclosing Ryan Creek between Russell Avenue and Shingle Creek was determined. The 48 -inch storm sewer at an average slope of .056% has a capacity of 40 cfs while the 60-inch RCP further downstream has an average slope of .25% and a flow capacity of 140 cfs Existing Flooding Problems The relatively flat slope and shallow depth of the 48 -inch storm sewer will result in flooding of the low area at the intersection of Russell and 49th Avenues as well as backing up water in the Ryan Creek channel. Figure 4 shows the area flooded when the capacity of the 48 -inch storm sewer is exceeded. Stormwater will eventually flow along 49th Avenue to the east to a low spot at the intersection of Oliver and 49th overflowing to catch basins draining to the larger 60 -inch storm sewer. It does not appear that any homes or businesses along 49th Avenue will experience direct flooding if the storm sewer capacity is exceeded since the area is relatively flat and stormwater will be contained mostly within the streets overflowing down 49th Avenue to the east. Some minor flooding will occur in front yards and in the parking lot on the south side of 49th Avenue. If a larger outlet is provided from Ryan Lake resulting in larger peak flows downstream in Ryan Creek, the increase in flood levels will be ! insignificant due to the overflow capacity of 49th Avenue. Residents along ! 49th Avenue have reported water seepage in basements when water is present in Ryan Creek. -23- f ?L� E r � n u q % I 3 XERXES ` N` .�� ��' E Ili 1 � ����.•.�.. 1 d a " .L F` } t r n : a y+�$t WASHBURN i "i VINCENT f 3� b� UPTON CA v Z r ; !7 r° m m c� U) m � L � 3 m Z THOMAS r '3: g E " �• ° ia �' 3 C 7 xa• n SHERIDAN -n 4ph Z Y d <+z I U) a PPP RUSSELL m 0 M Z 3 m }� n � 4 a z k 3 m � a � r �,p �\ !ter � _ f �' i, t _ QUEEN 5 X1 r a k PENN Y A D m d n m N s ch , L I 00 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS BY MINNEAPOLIS Construction plans have been re ared b the Ci of Minn t p p y y apolis o bypass the existing 48 -inch RCP located in the street by constructing a 54 -inch RCP storm sewer along the south side of 49th Avenue. The project would benefit the City of Minneapolis by minimizing local flooding and improve maintenance problems. _ The proposed 1,138 feet of 54 -inch RCP would extend from the existing 60 -inch RCP at Oliver Avenue west along 49th Avenue ending 180 feet west of Russell Avenue. The proposed storm sewer will replace 260 feet of open channel including the 48 -inch CMP culvert under the driveway across from Russell Avenue. The proposed 54 -inch storm sewer will have a flow capacity of 120 cfs at the design slope of 0.33 percent. The existing 48 -inch RCP will be connected to the proposed 54 -inch RCP at Queen and Oliver Avenues and utilized as a relief drain if necessary. The construction of the 54 -inch RCP storm sewer is scheduled for 1990. The estimated cost to install 1,138 feet of 54 -inch RCP b Minneapolis city crews is Y P y $384,000 A 60 -inch RCP constructed at the same slope would have a flow capacity of 160 cfs The additional costs associated with increasing the storm sewer from a 54 -inch to a 60 -inch RCP is $36,700 These estimated costs are documented in a letter from Perry Damon to Dale Claridge dated May 26, 1989 which are included in Appendix B of this report. Below is a summary of the hydraulic capacity of the existing and proposed storm sewer system in Ryan Creek. - Existing system 4 Capacity of 48 -inch RCP - 40 cfs Capacity of 60 -inch RCP - 140 cfs -25- - Storm sewer extension proposed by the City of Minneapolis (48 -inch RCP replaced by 54 -inch RCP) Capacity of 54 -inch RCP - 120 cfs Increase storm sewer extension capacity by installing a 60 -inch RCP instead of a 54 -inch RCP Capacity of 60 -inch RCP - 160 cfs* *Storm sewer system will be limited to 140 cfs, the capacity of the existing 60 -inch RCP downstream from Oliver to Shingle Creek. I °_ -26- RYAN LAKE OUTLET AND CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS Under existing conditions, the downstream capacity of the 48 -inch RCP storm sewer between Russell and Oliver Avenues is inadequate to handle estimated t 100 -year peak discharges from Ryan Lake. If improvements are made to the storm sewer system as proposed by the City of Minneapolis, the capacity of the storm sewer will be increased from 40 cfs to 120 cfs. As shown in Table 4, the 100 -year peak discharge rate to Ryan Creek is estimated to be 120 cfs if a 24 -inch RCP is installed in addition to the existing 36 -inch RCP. The downstream capacity could be further increased to 140 cfs if a 60 -inch RCP is installed instead of the proposed 54 -inch RCP. However, with minor surcharging of the 54 -inch RCP and utilization of the 48 -inch RCP bypass, the capacity would be increased to 140 cfs. As shown in Table 4, the 100 -year peak discharge rate to Ryan Creek is estimated to be 135 cfs if a 30 -inch RCP is installed in addition to the existing 36 -inch RCP. Any proposed modifications to the Ryan Lake outlet should include sediment cleanout of the 54 -inch RCP outfall pipe and channel excavation along Ryan Creek to lower the channel bottom grade. The existing channel bottom grade will need _ to be lowered an average of 2 feet over a distance of 1,300 feet to match the invert of the existing 54 -inch RCP outf all east of T.H. 152 and the invert of the proposed storm sewer inlet west of Russell Avenue. This channel improvement will not only improve the hydraulic capacity of the creek to adequately handle peak discharges from Ryan Lake but will also clean the channel of unsightly debris and other materials. Cost Estimate A Preliminary Engineer's Cost Estimate to install an additional 18 -inch RCP, - 24 -inch RCP, or 30 -inch RCP at the existing outlet of Ryan Lake in conjunction with Ryan Creek channel excavation is shown in Table 5. i -27- t TABLE 5 PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE FOR RYAN LAKE OUTLET MODIFICATION JACK INSTALLATION OF 18" RCP UNDER RAILROAD TRACKS ALONG WITH RYAN CREEK CHANNEL EXCAVATION Item No Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price 1 %bilization L.S. 1 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 2 Jack 30" Diameter Steel Casing L.F. 80 $ 200 $ 16,000 (1/4" thick) with 18" RCP 3 18" Flared End with Rip Rap L.S. 1 $ 600 $ 600 and Filter Fabric 4 96" Diameter manhole Each 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 1 5 Jacking Pit With Dewatering L.S. 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 6 Construct Bentonite Seepage Each 2 $ 300 $ 600 Dans 7 Construct Inlet Skirmier Each 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Structure 8 Restoration Erosion Control L.S. 1 $ 1 ODO $ 1 000 Blanket with Seed and Fertilizer) 9 Soil Stabilization (Trench C.Y. 10 $ 10 $ 100 Rock) 10 36" RCP Flared End with Rip L.S. 1 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Rap and Filter Fabric - 11 Channel Excavation C.Y. 3,400 $ 4 $ 13,600 12 54" RCP Sediment Clean Out L.F. 450 $ 8 $ 3,600 13 Restoration (Hydro-Mulching) Acre 1.5 $ 1,000 $ 1,500 _ 14 Clearing and Grubbing Acre 1.0 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 53,000 ENGINEERING (10%) $ 5,300 ADMINISTRATIVE ( 5%) $ 2,700 CONTINGENCIES ( 7%) $ 3,700 x TOTAL $ 64,700 * If 24 -inch RCP is installed, increase Total Project Cost by $2,800. If 30 -inch RCP is installed, increase Total Project Cost by $5,300. L TWIN7.6 /OUTT5 -28- COST- SHARING ANALYSIS i Article VII, Subdivision 4 of the Joint Powers Agreement provides that the Commission shall have authority to separate the Shingle Creek Watershed into subtrunks and subdistricts if the capital improvement project and costs only benefit a subtrunk or subdistrict area, and the Commission is further given authority to determine that a capital improvement benefits only a subtrunk or subdistrict area, which area shall be responsible for said costs, and allows the assessment of the costs to the subdistrict area rather than the entire watershed. On January 12, 1989, the Commission adopted a resolution defining districts within the Shingle Creek Watershed and establishing a capital improvement Policy. The watershed was divided into three capital improvement districts. The proposed improvements to the Twin Lakes Outlet, Ryan Lake Outlet, and Ryan Creek are located within District C which is shown in Figure 5. District C is defined as that area draining to Ryan Creek upstream of its confluence with Shingle Creek at 49th Avenue North in Minneapolis which includes portions of six communities, namely, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Minneapolis, New Hope, and Robbinsdale. Article VIII, Subdivision 5 of "the Joint Powers Agreement directs that the Commission shall apportion all capital costs based on 50 percent of the cost - being llocated on the e bass of real property values of each member within the boundaries, and 50 percent of all capital costs being allocated on the basis of area within the established boundaries, and allows this basic formula to be modified by a 7 /9th vote if: (a) any member receives a direct benefit from the capital improvements, which benefit can be defined as a lateral as well as a trunk benefit; or (b) the capital improvement provides a direct benefit to one or more members, which benefit is so disproportionate as to require in a sense of fairness a modification of the 50/50 formula. As provided in the resolution re p viously discussed, cost allocations for capital improvements shall be divided -29- "'. - --•. rvwYYMUY. i wr:pAdNY4 Y1rMwwYa.Y iWWfyyµM SNdIINRpr -Mj �WPNiYIWea tNWYWMMYF ...M►t+kKiN.tl IYWAauNW>nw` ie � I j SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MSC B � nu• / �` .w •,; l Sc 30 msc 7 MsF Bo MSC 1 •.uw c ` A/SCT J ) ^v , MSC 6 '— � use ♦ – \ MSC I 4 u ♦ w i � lM. •sls f. wl .»• MSC 3 S usl J r ,,,, ,,,, t Si I e 1 1 ✓ � iw� F � « ( / LSCS f u ?� n \ �T uses J a -•Z, -yam , • {law S use 6 use 9 �.. �_a L 1 Lsc \ ®�VSCB � ) - It � co \ a �\ K 1 8 \ DISTRICT C ' r ! M a I lw / � to I.• SCJ ax r.l.r i i •• i _ lw r - 1 M James M Montgomery rl r JA Consulting Engineers Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT C FIGURE 5 p 3 by the districts established by the resolution and shall follow the procedures outlined in the Joint Powers Agreement. The areas and 1988 tax capacities (replaces assessed valuations) were determined by each District C community and are shown below. DISTRICT C (Ryan Creek Drainage Area) Acreage and Assessed Valuation Summary Acreage 1988 Tax Capacity Brooklyn Center 621 $ 2,722,414 Brooklyn Park 892 4,401,836 Crystal 2,480 10,607,305 Minneapolis 498 3,495,828 New Hope 1,075 8,243,748 Robbinsdale 1,460 9,128,979 Totals 7,025 acres $38,600,110 F The following is a summary of the estimated costs associated with the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Outlet Modification Project. These costs include construction costs plus allowances for engineering (10 %), administrative (5 %), and contingencies (7 %). 1) France Avenue Outlet Improvements 6'x4' Concrete Box Culvert $ 47,200 Concrete weir (does not include $ 700 right -of -way costs that may be required) - 2) Ryan Lake Outlet Improvements Additional 30 -inch RCP outlet pipe $ 70,000 _ and downstream channel improvements to Ryan Creek 3) Ryan Creek Storm Sewer Oversizing proposed storm sewer $ 36,700* enclosure of Ryan Creek from 54 -inch RCP to 60 -inch RCP 10 TOTAL COST $154,600 * Includes only cost of oversizing. Source: City of Minneapolis. 1 -31- I Since capital improvements associated with a 100 -year storm benefit all District C communities, the Commission shall be responsible for these costs based on the 50/50 formula (area /tax capacity). With the exception of the weir at France Avenue, the above improvements are considered 100 -year storm improvements. The weir at France Avenue was designed to provide additional low flow capacity while maintaining the existing runout elevation of Twin Lakes. Increasing the low flow capacity of the weir is considered a local improvement benefitting the City of Brooklyn Center, therefore, Brooklyn Center shall be responsible for the costs of the weir ($700) and any right -of -way that may be required. Based on the 50/50 formula (area /tax capacity), the cost allocation for each District C community to fund the estimated capital improvement costs ($153,900) for 100 -year storm improvements are shown below. Cost Allocation Cost Allocation Based on Area Based on Tax Capacity Total Cost % Dollars % Dollars % Dollars Brooklyn Center 8.8 $ 6,772 7.0 $ 5,387 7.9 $ 12,159 Brooklyn Park 12.7 9,773 11.4 8,772 12.1 18,545 Crystal 35.3 27,163 27.5 21,161 31.4 48,324 Minneapolis 7.1 5,463 9.1 7,003 8.1 12,466 New Hope 15.3 11,773 21.4 16,467 18.3 28,240 Robbinsdale 20.8 16,006 23.6 18,160 22.2 34,166 TOTALS 100.0 $76,950 100.0 $76,950 100.0 $153,900 1 c -32- I i } I F y � y d APPENDIX A Resolutions adopted by the cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal and Robbinsdale requesting the SCWMC to prepare a feasibility study for the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Outlet Modification :: CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B R OO Of KLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE C ENTER RECEIVED 911 FEE' 1 61989 February 15, 1989 E.A. HICI ?l( Q .4cc0.iaiBS Mr. Neil Johnson, Chairman Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission Brooklyn Park City Hall 5800 - 85th Avenue North Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Re: Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Outlet Modifications Dear Mr. Johnson: Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No. 89 -30, as adopted by the Brooklyn Center City Council on February 13, 1989, wherein the City of Brooklyn Center requests the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission to conduct a feasibility study for implementation of the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Outlet . Modification as described in the September 8, 1988 report prepared by E. A. Hickok & Associates, and in accordance with the resolution establishing a Capital Improvement policy as adopted by the Commission on January 12, 1989. You will note that the resolution also requests that the cities of Crystal and Robbinsdale support this request by resolution of their City Councils. :t Please place this request on the agenda for the March 9, 1989 meeting. I'd also ask that you request Bill Wiedenbacker to submit a proposal to conduct the feasibility study so that this matter can be considered by the Commission at that meeting. Yours very truly, S nape y PP Enclosure cc: Bill Monk, City Engineer, Crystal }. Lee Gustafson, City Engineer, Robbinsdale Judie Anderson, Recording Secretary i G AM1 Wiedenbacker, E.A. Hickok & Associates SCWMMC Correspondence File Twin Lakes - Flood File '�il�'ot S 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN } ss. Certification as to Extract of Minutes CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Executive Director of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota do hereby certify as follows: 1. That attached hereto is an extract of minutes of a regular = meeting of the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center held on February 13 19 89 2. That said meeting was held pursuant to due call and notice thereof and was duly held at the City Hall in said City at 7 p.m. r 3. That I have carefully compared the attached extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office and the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same related to s Resolution No. 89 -30 tJTTNESS, my hand as such Executive Director and the Corporate seal of the Cxt� 'this'. . 15th day of February , 19 89 Executive Director .� CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 89 -30 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TO CONDUCT A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TWIN LAKES /RYAN LAKE OUTLET MODIFICATION WHEREAS, areas within the Cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal and Robbinsdale which lie adjacent to the Twin Lakes and to Ryan Lake experience wide fluctuations in lake water levels, sometimes resulting in considerable flooding damage; and a WHEREAS, the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission has recently completed preparation of a proposed management plan for the Shingle Creek Watershed, and a special report entitled "Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Outlet Modification "; and has adopted a resolution establishing a Capital Improvements Policy, and WHEREAS, the Watershed Plan, the proposed outlet modification, and the capital improvement policy provide a basis for proceeding with improvements to the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake outlet which will reduce flood damage resulting from high waters while protecting normal water levels. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. That the City of Brooklyn Center hereby requests the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission to conduct a feasibility study for [ i implementation of the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Outlet Modification. 2. That the Crystal City Council and the Robbinsdale City Council are hereby requested to support this request by the adoption of similar resolutions. February 13, 1989 Date .Mayo ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Jerry Pedlar, and Todd Paulson; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY. CRYSTAL 4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, MN 55422 - 1696.537 -8421 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE i 3 3 a STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ss CITY OF CRYSTAL I, Darlene George, duly appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of Crystal, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of the original Resolution No. 89 -10 lie pertaining to preparation of a feasibility study for / Ryan Lake outlet modifications ' which was adopted by the Crystal City Council at its regular meeting held on March 7,, 1989 Witness my hand as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of said City of Crystal this 8th day of March 19 8 :t } Darlene George City Clerk City of Crystal SEAL i 3 f RESOLUTION NO. 89 - _ RESOLUTION REQUESTING SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TO PREPARE A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR TWIN LAKE /RYAN LAKE OUTLET MODIFICATIONS WHEREAS, areas within Crystal, Robbinsdale and Brooklyn Center which lie adjacent to Twin Lake and Ryan Lake experi- ence wide fluctuations in lake water levels that can result in considerable flooding damage, and WHEREAS, previous preliminary studies indicate outlet modifications at Twin Lake and Ryan Lake can lower flood levels and reduce the resultant damage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Crystal City Council hereby requests the Shingle Creek Watershed Manage - ment Commission prepare a feasibility study detailing improvements by which flooding around Twin Lake and Ryan Lake may be reduced but the low lake levels protected. Said improvement study shall include cost data describing the Commission's involvement and the participation level esti- mated for each member municipality. Adopted this 7th day of March, 1989. MiOyor ATTEST: ' City Clerk i t Io i I i . r `ember u„ffe and Member Holtz seconded a motion that the i following resolution be read and adopted this 7th day of March 1989. RESOLUTION NO. 4154 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TO CONDUCT A FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE TWIN LAKES/ RYAN LAKE OUTLET MODIFICATION THAT INCLUDES FUNDING OPTIONS AND RETURN SUCH STUDY TO THE CITY OF ROBBINSDALE FOR FURTHER REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION WHEREAS, areas within the Cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal and Robbinsdale which lie adjacent to the Twin Lakes and to Ryan Lake experience wide fluctuations in lake water levels,.sometimes resulting in considerable flooding damage; and WHEREAS, the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission has recently completed preparation of a proposed management plan for the Shingle Creek Watershed, and a special report entitled "Twin Lakes/Ryan Lake Outlet Modification "; and has adopted a resolution establishing a Capital Policy, and Improvements Po i v WHEREAS, the Watershed Plan, the proposed outlet modification, and the capital improvement policy provide a basis for proceeding with improvements to the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake outlet which will reduce flood damage resulting from high waters while protecting normal water levels. i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Robbinsdale, Minnesota, that the City of Robbinsdale hereby requests the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission to conduct a feasibility study for the 'Fain Lakes /Ryan Lake Outlet Modification that includes funding options and return such study to the City of Robbinsdale for further review and { consideration. The question was on the adoption of the resolution and upon a vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: Ruffenach, Holtz, Johnson, Mayor Robb i and the following voted against the same: NONE ABSENT: BLONIGAN WHEREUPON SAID RESOLUTION WAS DECLARED DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 7 th DAY ` OF March , 1989. i J J b, Mayor i ATTEST: AZt�teH. �Leaf�,City lerk (seal) R s �__ 4154 i I i STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, CITY OF ROBBINSDALE II Bernadette H. Leaf City Clerk of the City of Robbinsdale, Hennepin County, Minnesota do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of resolution of the City Council of the City of Robbinsdale with the original record of such resolution in the minutes of the proceedings of said City Council held on March 7 19 89 and that the same is a true and correct copy of said original record and that said resolution was duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. In Witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 9th day of March 19 89 CITY CLERK (Seal) I i APPENDIX B Cost estimate prepared by Minneapolis to increase the size of the proposed storm sewer enclosure of Ryan Creek from 54 -inch pipe to a 60 -inch pipe O O DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS � 203 � CITY HALL MIN MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415 PERRY D. SMITH P.E. CITY ENGINEER - DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS s MARVIN A. HOSHAW, P.E. DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER J. M. GARBER ....... DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION RECEIVED J. F. HAYEK ........... DIRECTOR, WATER WORKS R. KANNANKUTTY ...... DIRECTOR, ENGR'G DESIGN May 26, 1989 M. J. KROENING ....... DIRECTOR, GEN'L SERVICES MAY 3 Q 89 B. J. LOKKESMOE ......... DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS A. E. MADISON MANAGER, FINANCE N . DIRECTOR, TRAFFIC ENGR'G T. # T. B. . SADLER ADLER ...... SUPERINTENDENT, EQUIPMENT S. J. SKOKAN .... MANAGER, PUBLIC WORKS BILLING 1 3 Dale Claridge JMM /Hickok, Consulting Engineers 545 Indian Mound Wayzata, MN 55391 Re: Estimate to oversize Ryan Creek enclosure (54" to 60 ") Dear Dale: Enclosed are two estimates on the enclosing of Ryan Creek from Oliver to Sheridan Ave. N. Our original estimate for 54" reinforced concrete pipe was $384,010.75. The revised estimate using 60" reinforced concrete pipe is $420,689.17 which is a $36,678.42 cost increase. :t I am also enclosing a copy of our cost estimate data sheet which we use for estimating construction costs. 3 Si ely, rr D. Damon P.E. Sewer Design Engineer Engineering Design fla iu f • it I� $AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER TTY/VOICE (612) 348 -2157 r k -j, _ - Z III � . . '- l� � i i _ t CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS SEWER CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE EST. NO. 1148 DATE: 4/4/88 i PROJECT: RYAN CREEK (SHERIDAN TO OLIVER) 54" PIPE SEWER PROJECT NO. PD7288 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL COST ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 812 12" R.C.P. CL.II LF 28 14.80 414.40 854 54" R.C.P. CL.II F &I LF 1138 178.00 202564.00 511 CONSTRUCT MANHOLE -60" DIA. LF 24 175.00 4200.00 500 CONSTRUCT INLET STRUCTURE EACH 1 15000.00 15000.00 500 CONSTRUCT LARGE CHAMBER EACH 1 8500.00 8500.00 530 CASTING ASSEMBLY -R &C EACH 5 321.00 1605.00 507 EXCAVATION CY 5235 6.80 35598.00 515 BACKFILL OF EXCAVATION CY 4194 5.70 23905.80 527 SAND FILL CY 40 11.00 440.00 516 COMPACTION CY 4234 2.40 10161.60 517 REMOVE EXCAVATED MATERIAL CY 500 12.00 6000.00 523 TURF ESTABLISHMENT SY 1890 5.40 10206.00 519 REPAIR STREET (OIL DIRT) SY 60 24.00 1440.00 521 CONCRETE CURB B -6 LF 90 9.50 855.00 708 CUT AND LOOP WATER MAIN EACH 2 2000.00 4000.00 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 2500.00 2500.00 LOCATION OF UTILITIES LS 1 4500.00 4500.00 MOBILIZATION 508,515,524,525 LS 1 3500.00 3500.00 MISC. (561,562,563,564) LS 1 5000.00 5000.00 ---------------------------------- S U B T O T A L= 340389.80 712 ENGINEERING DESIGN @ 9.0% 30635.08 S U B T O T A L= 371024.88 COMPTROLLER- TREASURER @ 3.5% 12985.87 T O T A L= 384010.75 r f CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS SEWER CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE EST. NO. 0048 DATE: 5/11/89 PROJECT: RYAN CREEK (SHERIDAN TO OLIVER) 60" PIPE SEWER PROJECT NO. PD7288 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL COST --------------------------------------------- - - - - - -- 812 12" R.C.P. CL.II LF 28 14.80 414.40 860 60" R.C.P. CL.II LF 1138 206.00 234428.00 511 CONSTRUCT MANHOLE -72" DIA. LF 24 202.00 4848.00 500 CONSTRUCT INLET STRUCTURE EACH 1 15000.00 15000.00 500 CONSTRUCT LARGE CHAMBER EACH 1 8500.00 8500.00 530 CASTING ASSEMBLY -R &C EACH 5 321.00 1605.00 507 EXCAVATION CY 5235 6.80 35598.00 515 BACKFILL OF,EXCAVATION CY 4194 5.70 23905.80 527 SAND FILL CY 40 11.00 440.00 516 COMPACTION CY 4234 2.40 10161.60 517 REMOVE EXCAVATED MATERIAL CY 500 12.00 6000.00 523 TURF ESTABLISHMENT SY 1890 5.40 10206.00 519 REPAIR STREET (OIL DIRT) SY 60 24.00 1440.00 521 CONCRETE CURB B -6 LF 90 9.50 855.00 708 CUT AND LOOP WATER MAIN EACH 2 2000.00 4000.00 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 2500.00 2500.00 LOCATION OF UTILITIES LS 1 4500.00 4500.00 MOBILIZATION 508,515,524,525 LS 1 3500.00 3500.00 MISC. (561,562,563,564) LS 1 5000.00 5000.00 S U B T O T A L= 372901.80 712 ENGINEERING DESIGN @ 9.0% -- 33561_16 - S U B T O T A L= 406462.96 COMPTROLLER- TREASURER @ 3.5% 14226.20 ----- - - - - -- T 0 T A L= 420689.17 s f CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Data 6/ Agenda Item Number / �ql REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF SHADE TREES *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL; 1rt - * * * * * * * * * * ** * *k * *R * ** OR *O ** PUBLIC WO S, * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached NO The attached resolution represents the official council action required to expedite removal of the trees most recently marked by the city tree inspector in accordance with the procedures outlined therein. It is anticipated that this resolution will be submitted for council consideration each meeting during the summer and fall as new trees are marked. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the council adopt the attached resolution. /00/ Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF SHADE TREES (ORDER NO. DST 06/26/89) WHEREAS, a Notice to Abate Nuisance and Shade Tree Removal Agreement has been issued to the owners of certain properties in the City of Brooklyn Center giving the owners twenty (20) days to remove shade trees on the owners' property; and WHEREAS, the City can expedite the removal of these shade trees by declaring them a public nuisance: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The shade trees at the following addresses are hereby declared to be a public nuisance. PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS TREE NUMBER FRANK /KATH DILLON 5719 NORTHPORT DR 43 WALTER JAMES 6228 BROOKLYN DR 44 L & J DONDELINGER 6229 BROOKLYN DR 45 RICHARD WOLFE 2806 MUMFORD RD 46 WILLIAM DURAND 2812 65TH AVE N 47 RAYMOND CANNON 2219 ERICON DR 48 DORIS JOHNSON 2118 ERICON DR 49 GEORGE BETZLER 5611 KNOX AVE N 50 FRANK SLOVAK 5442 OLIVER AVE N 51 TERRY EARL CASE 5639 HUMBOLDT AVE N 52 TERRANCE STAFFORD 5643 HUMBOLDT AVE N 53 H A SCOFIELD 5543 FREMONT AVE N 54 CITY OF B.C. BELVIEW PARK 55 EDWARD TABARA 5325 CAMDEN AVE N 56 CARL SWING 6329 HALIFAX DR 57 WM & JOAN QUAN 6309 GRIMES AVE N 58 JOSEPH /ROBIN SMITH 5819 DUPONT AVE N 59 CRAIG /NANCY HOLLER 7107 KNOX AVE N 60 MARVIN NIELSEN 5342 SAILOR LA 61 MARVIN NIELSEN 5342 SAILOR LA 62 MARVIN NIELSEN 5342 SAILOR LA 63 MARVIN NIELSEN 5342 SAILOR LA 64 SAMUEL ANDERSON 3800 ECKBERG DR 65 LEONA PALMER 3606 53RD AVE N 66 AUDREY HANSEN 5214 DREW AVE N 67 LEE /BEVERLY COOK 5341 BROOKLYN BLVD 68 DONALD ERICKSON 5309 CAMDEN AVE N 69 GLEN DAHL 5418 BRYANT AVE N 70 CITY OF BC BELVIEW PARK 71 CITY OF BC BELLVIEW PARK 72 CITY OF BC BELLVIEW PARK 73 CITY OF BC BELLVIEW PARK 74 I RESOLUTION 0 PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS TREE NUMBER CITY OF BC BELLVIEW PARK 75 CITY OF BC BELLVIEW L IEW PARK 76 CITY OF BC BELLVIEW PARK 77 DAVID DAHLGREN 6138 DUPONT AVE N 78 DOROTHY MAXWELL 2229 BROOKVIEW DR 79 EDYTHE METZ 2344 BROOKVIEW DR 80 PETER MOSELY 5345 OLIVER AVE N 81 DAVID KENNEY 5533 JAMES AVE N 82 ROBERT IVERSON 5513 IRVING AVE N 83 THOM /CHERYL MELSHA 1604 56TH AVE N 84 2. After twenty (20) days from the date of the notice, the property owners will receive a second written notice that will give them (5) business days in which to contest the determination of City Council by requesting a hearing in writing. Said request shall be filed with the City Clerk. 3. After five (5) days, if the property owner fails to request a hearing, the tree(s) shall be removed by the City. 4. All removal costs, including legal, financing and administrative charges, shall be specially assessed against the property. 0 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 6/26/89 Agenda Item Number /0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION MAKING NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) FOR WEST RIVER ROAD BETWEEN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 694 AND 73RD AVENUE NORTH (BROOKLYN CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -18) *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: ---�N 2L)-4-,� If SY K PP DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation On April 10, 1989, the City Council adopted a resolution accepting and approving the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) relating to the proposed reconstruction of West River Road between Interstate Highway 694 and 73rd Avenue North. Subsequently, that EAW has been submitted to other governmental units and agencies for their review and comment, as required by law. In addition, copies have been made available for public review and notices of the availability of the EAW for public review have been published as required. Attached hereto are the following items- * the EAW * 5 letters received from various agencies o a 6/15/89 letter from SEH (our consulting engineers for this project), and their responses to the comments received from PCA and DNR ( Note : no responses are needed to the letters from the other 3 agencies). Staff Recommendation I recommend that the City Council now adopt the attached resolution declaring that it is unnecessary to prepare an Environmental Assessment Statement for this project. With that phase of the project development completed, SEH will be able to proceed with the completion of the Project Feasibility Report. At this time we • expect to present that report to the City Council on July 24 and recommend that an Improvement Hearing on the project be held on August 28. Council Action Reguired Adoption of the attached resolution. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION MAKING NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) FOR WEST RIVER ROAD BETWEEN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 694 AND 73RD AVENUE NORTH (BROOKLYN CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -18) WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is the regulating governmental unit (RGU) in the processing of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the West River Road between Interstate Highway 694 and 73rd Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the EAW is based on three alternates for reconstruction of the road; and WHEREAS, the City has submitted a copy of the EAW to all public agencies on the EAW distribution list, provided a press release to local newspapers, and published a notice of EAW availability in the EQB Monitor on April 24, 1989, all of which were done in accordance with State Statute 6 MCAR 3.021; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center acknowledges the responses from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the fact that Brooklyn Center City staff has collected said responses with discussion presented to City Council for review; and WHEREAS, none of the commenting public agencies declared a need for an EIS on the proposed project(s); and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Park is the regulating governmental unit (RGU) in the processing of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the West River Road between 73rd Avenue North and 93rd Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has reviewed the City of Brooklyn Park's EAW and finds that each project in each respective city is separate and not a connected action, and that there are no significant cumulative impacts relating to the two projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that a negative declaration is made on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for West River Road between Interstate Highway 694 and 73rd Avenue North. i I T � 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 -_ r t CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561.5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET NEST RIVER ROAD BETWEEN I -694 AND 73RD AVEMJE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA t 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. 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 - r 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 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: .i 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 - 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 T 3 -8 / d ( ypes ) 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. i 4 - I 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 If yes, explain: 21. Describe the erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after construction of the project. u D ring 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 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. 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 - Emission Assumptions Year of Analysis = 2010 Temperature = 20 Degrees Fahrenheit Vehicle Classification Mix Light Duty Vehicles = 86.6% Light Duty Trucks = 5.8% 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 required. 7 - 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 w i l l 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 state standards with the construction of T.H. 252. Mitigation of this noise is constrained by 8 - 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 X 10 X 50 X 10 X 50 X 10 X 50 X 10 X 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 i 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): tt 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 - West River Road serves man varied types of land uses. As the area continues to Y YP 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 ear 2010 immediate) south of 93rd Avenue would be approx- Y Y 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 hereby certify I y tfy 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 10 - ,, ••MiSS.� � - \ ti NEPIN GAL IAT K� �\ zr COUNTY `. • J . 31 • W t NESOTA ' woe Caw I `'< COOK DA04DG Room�r .•\ . ��( • S' . ?:. CU:iOt(AL PAFL ul i 7r c` 17 S�Stpp .•w _ / —15 • 1 14 1 1 '^' BROOKLYN PARK ��•'., > ' 31 <BR • LYN ' • _ / �,•�- /�- --1•.� �� .k < �9< � jy7 a �d is �'�: 5r� � :! 11 t9/ .A•. r.�l PROJECT AREA ��-��■ AW FILE N0. —� BROOKLYN CENTER,MINNESOTA 89160 .� ORG NO ENC/NEERSaARCMIrECTS/PLANNERS EXHIBIT 4.b.1 � 1 � ,1 7�� E[r��i�. I� I r ■i �— "�� � � � ���t, � �'�' ;`-• _ yam. •� I � , �' I'•►�IL„" :���'; pis" - ) If PR Ch • • • if I ` Field _ MINNE NO Geh SCALE 1:24000 1967 PHOTOREVISED 1972 . 1980 BROO KLYN DMA 7374 Ill SE—SERIES V872 EXHIBIT .. a j1r1.252 � I D < m z ••••. WILLOW W k 011919111 • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• DURNAM ISLAND LEGEND MISSISSIPPI RIVER EnEUEE�EEEEEEETRAIL SITE ONLY ••••••••••• TRAIL CONSTRUCTED BY MN /DOT EXHIBIT 4.b.3,1 FlLE NO AIIIIIIIIIIII AWWA'�A� BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA e9160 WEST RIVER ROAD DRG. , NQ FMCINEFRS • ARCHIIEC l51 PI ANNFRS t c, cy, co 7 _ _r D D 5th ST. m m m , < z m z z Z - - — — — — i T 252 _— c W ST RIVER ROAD I DAL S Z I � m I I AVE N. Z _ WILLOW LA.I N. I W 1L`044 f I I I RI VER LEGEND —v — <<— EXISTING STORM SEWER M � SS lSS/PPI -- i--« -- PROPOSED STORM SEWER. ALTERNATES 2 & 3 PROPOSED ROADWAY DURNAM ISLAND os(((os((o(s(((((TRAIL SITE ONLY EXHIBIT 4.b.3,2 FILE NO ,.:SEMI BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA 89160 WEST RIVER ROAD nNC {NCMIF(FS / (NCNI ffC �S / OI •NNf AS ` O� CD � 9LF m Z i z — -- T.H. 252 _ T 1 . 252 _ — - — j rB E R M 7 - — ES RIVER RD. I F DALLAS RD. DALLAS RD. = v p N � a D D < < LEGEND m m . —o- -«— EXISTING STORM SEWER z Z �-44 PROPOSED STORM SEWER ALTERNATES 2 & 3 PROPOSED ROADWAY EXHIBIT 4.b.3,3 FILE NO ��� BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA DRG N RG NO. WEST RIVER ROAD 3 ENCIMEERf / wNCMIif CIS / Dl wNNE15 F w 1R�71 �: ::r i ►viii iiC^ Si ■i ���_` `�: �� �� �e !■n i �� •� i seem N .r �$ 0011 Ines 4111111111111 son virs K6 .� -- ■■■ ■■■ �� �..z NOR . 1� ■r 11111il v s. U min all all" mm m we moll dw_ � �3 • sue• �� ;.':::•.: = ' _ 0 =1= 11MI� M ` � m AVVI Norm ` _- _- mw _ -10 ttl��- t, - - ..- MM in 2 _111 all all „® • A 11 ■� ■• Cif /� n IS IND .� all - I6�� f ' lk •• all Cm IN •� .ter ,a, ,,1 i �� 4 • , B 10 mm mm lllm CENTE FILE • 8 9160 ZONING •' • EXHI j y v mx HUA J s ..� ,j� 't'{ - s X <� .�4 Y r •fe T �11iAf... £ire ' t •.,, Y z � � z�s �'" �� x � L MR t1 13 UP X. 1a' r x ` klj3 4 r dt a`x �4s Lc< �Et�i kd yam,, z i \, {'i xlA �' {Ct: -3a "✓ s >• '�" a n it t �� ` ` Y k j�LK@ F 2 3 f }3 .�' , s `ti4 - � �,• Sdi f ���� x at PROJECT AREA •..•... BROOKLYN CENTER,MINNESOTA FILE No, 89160 SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS ORG, NO. ENCINEERS ■ AgCHIMCTS N Pt ANN[RS EXHIBIT 1 5 I ---jj AVE. N CH 85TH AVE. D a 81ST AVE. N Q. Q w 5 cr. --RRQQKQALE_ 11 ui — a > a w °C ro z o y w 73RD L AVE. z h- N W 3 69TH L AVE. PROJECT AREA•�•.����� 66TH AVE. 94 a 694 z z yy O a 100 a EXHI BIT 23 , a FILE NQ WEST RIVER ROAD 89160 �- RECEPTOR LOCATION ORG. NO. ENGINEERS / ARCMITECTS • PLANNERS 1233 1 900 C H L AVE. N 2200 3300 2650 3900 2900 85TH AVE. NO 4300 2500 3700 3100 0 3800 81 ST AVE. NO. cc 4430 cc 3300 > 2000 5 " 2500 2700 BROCADALE 3300 rz a > a 1000 uj '� z 1200 2200 3 73RD AVE. z 2700 c 750 -1988 ADT. (TYP.) 3 950 -2010 ADT. (TYP.) 69TH AVE. PROJECT AREA •�•���� = 66TH AVE. _ — 1 94 694 z z O 100 a o EXHIBIT 28,1 FILE NO. WEST RIVER ROAD 89160 ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) p N ENGINEERS • ARGM17EC7S / PLANNERS 120 190 c AVE. N 220 330 270 390 290 85TH AV N 0. 430 250 310 370 380 0 a 81ST AVE. NO. � 443 w 540 200 5 cc 250 270 330 BROOK DRIVE w ui > a a > N 100 z a N 120 0 z 73RD AVE. a 75 -1988 ( TYPICAL) 95- 2010(TYPICAL) t� W 3 69TH AVE. PROJECT AREA = 66 TH AVE. 94 694 z z O 100 M EXHIBIT 28,2 0 i FILE N0. WEST RIVER ROAD 89160 a 0 &MWAA SE P.4. PEAK HOUR ESTIMATED VOLUMES ORG. N0. ENGINEERS ■ ARCNRBGTS • PLANNERS ENGINEERS N ARCHITECTS R PLANNERS 222 EAST LITTLECANADAROAD ,STPA UL, MINNESOTA 55177 612484 -0272 June 15, 1989 RE: BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA WEST RIVER ROAD EAW SEH FILE NO: 89160 Mr. Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Knapp: Please find enclosed answers to agency reviews of the EAW for West River Road. We only received copies of comments from the PCA and the DNR. We did not receive any written comments from citizens directed specifically to the EAW. These comments to the agency reviews will assist the City Council in reaching a decision regarding an EIS in accordance with the letter from the EQB dated June 1, 1989. If you have any questions, please call. S' erely, Richard E. Moore REM /cih Enclosure SHORT ELLIOTT ST PAUL, CHIPPEWA FALLS, HENDRICKSON INC. MINNESOTA WISCONSIN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA WEST RIVER ROAD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ANSWER TO AGENCY QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY The dBA noise levels under question can be attributed to factors other than specifically the West River Road project. One important element is the environmental impacts (i.e., noise) due to the location and traffic volumes on the recently completed T.H. 252. These factors were previously analyzed by Mn /DOT in the T.H. 252/T.H. 610 Crosstown Noise Plan (March 1984) and the T.H. 610 /T.H. 252 Final Environmental Impact Statement (June 1982) Both noise level(s) and mitigation measures were reviewed. Further, in relation to these studies, future traffic forecasts on West River Road are viewed as significantly less than Mn /DOT originally anticipated. Although the West River Road project only involves reconstruction and improvement to the existing section alignment, alternative designs were pointed out in the EAW to discourage non -local traffic from utilizing the road. The feasibility of an inter- secting street connecting West River Road at Dupont Avenue as well as the discontinuation of West River Road at Dupont and other locations is being studied. Such alternatives could reduce noise levels because of a reduction in overall traffic volumes. It should be reemphasized, however, that the major contributor to noise levels at the 73rd and 85th Avenue receptor areas is T.H. 610. Further mitigation measures (i.e., berms /landscaping) are limited due to constraints of the intersection designs and safety measures. s w BROOKLYN CENTER WEST RIVER ROAD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ANSWER TO AGENCY QUESTIONS MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES The EAW requires a list of known local, state and federal permits required. The Corps of Engineers was included in the list if their approval was required for additional storm sewer on the project because of the critical rivers area boundary. Since existing storm sewer outlets will be utilized, no permit require- ment is anticipated at this time. The West River Road roadway construction ends at 66th Avenue on the south end. Only a proposed bike trail will be constructed south along the west side of Willow Lane to T.H. 694 right-of- way. This trail system would be at existing boulevard grade, therefore not requiring any filling within the 500 -year flood plain. We contacted Mr. John Stone of the DNR and he said the 500 -year flood plain is not an issue. The existing roadway is approximately 32' wide for the surfaced area. The EAW proposes a 28' wide roadway, which is a reduction. The storm sewer between 66th Avenue and 69th Avenue will discharge into the existing storm sewer system in T.H. 252. Mn /DOT provided inlet pipes to the west side of the River Road when T.H. 252 was constructed for this purpose. The existing storm sewer on T.H. 252 flows to detention areas before discharging into the Mississippi River. New storm sewer on the West River Road will be constructed between 70th and 73rd Avenues. This storm sewer will discharge into an existing Brooklyn Center storm sewer which discharges to the Mississippi River along 70th Avenue. A part of the proposed project is to abandon an 18" storm sewer on 69th Avenue which also discharges to the river. L No use of any existing wetlands for storm water detention is planned for this project. .L Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 41,9im 'r 520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 l�l N;Cuj Telephone (612) 296 -6300 0 MINNESOTA 1990 may 16 1989 Mr. Sy Knapp Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Mr. Knapp: RE: West River Road Between I -694 and 73rd Avenue North, City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) The staff of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has reviewed the above referenced document. Noise levels, with the exception of unprotected homes near the intersection of 73rd Avenue North and West River Road, were within three dBA of the state noise standards. However, the project will contribute significantly to noise impacts at the residential receptor at this intersection. As such, the MPCA staff will require the abatement of noise impacts at this receptor. Please contact Becky Niedzielski of the Division of Air Quality at 612/296 -7898 regarding potential noise mitigation measures for the project. As you are probably aware, the City of Brooklyn Park is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for the preparation of an EAW on the adjacent project, improvements to the West River Road between 73rd Avenue North and Trunk Highway 610. Please contact Mr. Charles Lenthe, the city engineer, to coordinate the cities' efforts for noise abatement at the 73rd Avenue North and West River Road intersection. .S Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Marlene Voita of the Office of Planning and Review at 612/296 -7275. Sincerely, C ford T. Anderson Director Office of Planning and Review CTA:bh cc: Gregg Downing, Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Becky Niedzielski, MPCA, Division of Air Quality Charles Lenthe, City of Brooklyn Center, Engineering Department Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall - Rochester Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled Paper lt �} STATE OF J H L� OO C TA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DNR INFORMATION 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA • 55155 -40 (612) 296.6157 May 25, 1989 I 'VE Ar. Sy Knapp _gP0RT IL1.")7 City f Brooklyn Center y y 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway MAY 31 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: West River Road Between I -694 and 73rd Avenue $T. PAU Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Knapp: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the above- referenced document, and we offer the following comments for your consideration. We are unsure what the permits are that the EAW refers to as "drainage facilities" permits. The south end of the project is within the 500 -year floodplain. The city should review the project with John Stine, Regional. Hydrologist, at 296 -7523, to be certain there is no . effect on the floodplain. - Considering the generally developed nature of the area and the fact that the existing alignment will be maintained, impacts on fish and wildlife'. resources are not expected to be significant. The only potential impacts are those related to drainage and wetlands. The EAW contains little information on this aspect. In general, we recommend retention of stormwater in dedicated retention ponds, rather than in existing wetlands. Use of wetlands for stormwater retention may reduce their value for wildlife habitat. Drainage - related impacts can be minimized by minimizing the amount of impervious surface. From our perspective, an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this project. Thank you for the opportunity to review this EAW. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please call Don Buckhout at (612) 296 -8212. Sincerely, Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor NR Planning and Review Section #890177 -2 c: Kathleen Wallace John Stine Ron Lawrenz Gregg Downing - EQB Laurel Reeves Robert Welford - USFWS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER MCI, 1 r MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOUNDED IN 1849 Fort Snelling History Center, St. Paul, MN 55111 (612) 726 -1171 18 198 May , 9 Mr. Sy Knapp City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Mr. Knapp: Re: Improvements to West River Road from I694 to 73rd Avenue North S25/36, T119, R21, Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County MHS Referral File Number: 89 -1681 Thank you for the opportunity to review and canment on the above- referenced project. The above- referenced project affects non - federal public lands which may contain state sites as def ined in the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act (Minnesota Statutes 138-31-42). This review reveals the location of no recorded sites of historic, architec- tural, cultural, or engineering significance within the area of the proposed project. Although there are no known archaeological sites in the proposed project area, there is reason to believe that such sites may exist. It is our understanding that the area is scheduled to be surveyed by the Municipal and County Highway Archaeologist, Scott Anfinson, in the coming field season. Therefore,. we withhold our final cam ent until the results of the survey are reviewed. If you have not already done so, please send Dr. Anfinson a set of detailed plans for the proposed undertaking. Thank you for your close attention to historic and prehistoric values in your planning process. Sincerely, V� Dennis A. Gimmestad Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DAG:dmb cc: Scott Anfinson County-Municipal. Hi , ghway Archaeologist Fort Snelling History Center, St. Paul, MN 55111 Clem Kachelmyer, Preliminary Design Engineer, MnDOT 612H Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 �r v/ c Pee' v METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park centre, 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MM. 55101 612 291 -6359 April 27, 1989 Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 RE: EAW West River Road Between I -694 and 73rd Avenue Metropolitan Council District 10 Dear Mr. Knapp: Council staff has conducted a preliminary review of this environmental assessment work sheet to determine its adequacy and accuracy in addressing regional concerns. The staff review has concluded that the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional purposes. This will conclude the Council's review of the EAW. No formal action on the EAW will be taken by the Council. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Ahne Hurlburt, Council staff at 291 -6501. Sincerely, Roger Israel, Director Research and Long -Range Planning RI/kp cc: John Evans, Metropolitan Council District 10 John Rutford, Metropolitan Council Staff Anne Hurlburt, Metropolitan Council Staff J 1 .tA �NNESpT 1 z OW 300 Centennial Building -s58 Cedar Street•St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 E Q.B 612- 296-2603 SNORT :11.:37 };l'< RIND N, INN. June 1, 1989 i n� Mr. Sy Knapp Director of Public Works ST PAUL City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: Close of EAW Review Period for West River Road -- Brooklyn Center Dear Mr. Knapp: The 30 -day review and comment period for this EAW ended on May 31, 1989. A decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must now be made in accordance with the standard and procedures of part 4410.1700. An EIS must be ordered if you find that the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. In making this decision you must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur with the following criteria: a. type, extent, and reversibility of effects; b. cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; c. extent to which effects can be mitigated by ongoing public regulatory authorities; and d. extent to which effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or of previous EISs. In making the EIS decision the following procedural requirements must be met: 1. The timeframe for the decision depends upon whether the decision will be made by a single individual or by a council, board, or other body which meets only periodically. If by an individual, the decision is to be made within 15 working days of the expiration of the comment period. If by a body which meets only periodically, the decision is to be made at the first meeting held three or more working days after the end of the comment period and no more than 30 calendar days afterwards. These timeframes may be extended for the reason cited in item 3 below. 2. You must maintain a written record of some sort, including specific findings of fact, which supports your decision. The record must include specific responses to all substantive, timely comments received on the EAW. The record should reflect the findings about the project with respect to the criteria listed above based on the information in the EAW itself and in any timely comments received. An Equal Ol WOU city EmPblw 1 S -2- i 3. If you determine that information critical to a reasoned decision about the potential for, or significance of, any possible environmental effects is lacking, you must postpone the decision on the need for an EIS for up to 30 days in order to obtain the lacking information, or alternatively, you may proceed to prepare an EIS and obtain the information as part of the EIS process. If the decision is postponed, you must provide a written notice within five working days to the proposer, the EQB staff, and anyone who submitted substantive comments on the EAW; the notice must identify the lacking information. 4. A notice of the decision on the need for an EIS is to be sent within five working days to the EQB staff, all persons on the EAW distribution list, all persons who commented, and anyone else who requests notification. Along with the notice, all persons who submitted timely, substantive comments must receive a copy of your response to their comments. The EQB will publish notice of your decision in the EQB Monitor 5. If your decision is to prepare an EIS, your notice must also include your proposed scope of the EIS and the date, time and place of the scoping meeting. Please call me before scheduling a scoping meeting to assure that the meeting will fall between 10 working days and 20 calendar days after publication of the notice in the EQB Monitor The scoping meeting must also be noticed by a press release. Please contact me if you have any questions about the EIS need decision process. Sincerely, Gregg V M. Downing Environmental Review Coordinator (612) 296 -8253 Toll -free: 1 -800- 652 -9747; ask for EQB, Environmental Review Program CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6/26/89 Agenda Item Number _ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RATES FOR RECYCLING SERVICES AND RECYCLING CONTAINER CHARGE FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER'S CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: HRG Administrator Signat re - title = � * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report / Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ORDINANCE NO. 89 -11, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the Brooklyn Center Code Relating to Collection of Recyclable Materials and Yard Wastes; Prohibiting Scavenging of Recyclable Materials; Authorizing Collection Districts provides that the City Council may establish rates for recycling services including the cost of recycling containers. The HRG has set a rate of $1.05 per month per household for the curbside recycling program in all three members cities. The total program cost for the curbside program in the HRG cities is projected at $2.10 per month per household. The HRG anticipates at least a 50% reimbursement of program costs from Hennepin County based on projected tonnages of recyclables to be collected in 1989. Therefore, 50% of the total amount or $1.05 must be funded by the HRG member cities. Also, the County is funding $5 of the total $8.60 container cost so that $3.60 remains to be funded by the cities for recycling container purchases. ORDINANCE NO. 89 -11 adopted by the City Council requires that rates for recycling services must be established by the City Council. The attached resolution provides for the establishment of rates for recycling services and container charge as per the recommendations of the HRG. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RATES FOR RECYCLING SERVICES AND RECYCLING CONTAINER CHARGE FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER'S CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is a member of the Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG) , which is a joint powers group formed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 1987, Section 471.59; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the joint powers agreement was to create an organization by which the member cities may jointly and cooperatively provide for the efficient and economical collection, recycling, and disposal of solid waste within and without their respective corporate boundaries, all in compliance with Minnesota Waste Management Act, Minnesota Statutes, 1987, Chapter 115A; and WHEREAS, the HRG has established a curbside recycling program for its member cities to meet the requirements of Hennepin County ordinance No. 13, Solid Waste Source Separation for Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center ordinance No. 89 -11 authorizes the City to establish rates for recycling services and charges for recycling containers; and WHEREAS, the HRG has established a rate of $1.05 per month per household for recycling services and a $3.60 per household charge for the recycling container; and WHEREAS, the rates for recycling services and the charge for the recycling container established by the HRG reflect the amount needed to fund the City's curbside recycling program after the projected reimbursement of recycling program costs from Hennepin County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the above described rates established by the HRG for recycling services and container charge are hereby approved. 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 6 -24 -89 Agenda Item Number e ' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION -�"- ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DOMESTIC ASSAULT INTERVENTION PROJECT DEPT. APPROVAL: Signatur - title James Lindsay, Ch' o c MANAGER'S RE ECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The Police Department has been involved in the domestic assault intervention project for several years. The program has proven itself to be an invaluable service to the community. The department contracts for the service through the Minnesota • Program Development, Inc. in Duluth, MN. This organization is the parent organization which handles the contracts and budgetary items. We have received the agreement which covers the year 1989. The amounts listed iii the agreement are the same amounts that were approved in the 1989 Budget. RECOMMENDATION: } The City Council pass the resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to enter into the contract for the year 1989 with the Minnesota Program Development, Inc. to provide the City of Brooklyn Center with the services of the domestic assault intervention program. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DOMESTIC ASSAULT INTERVENTION PROJECT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with the Minnesota Program Development, Inc. Domestic Assault Intervention Project for the general purpose of intervening in domestic assault cases by providing information and advocacy for victims of domestic assault and by advocating appropriate responses to assailants within the criminal justice and mental health systems. 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. AGREEMENT This is an agreement effective January 1, 1989, between the city of Brooklyn Center, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter City) and the Minnesota Program Development, Inc. (hereinafter MPDI) . WHEREAS, MPDI has organized a Domestic Assault Intervention Project within the city of Brooklyn Center for the general purpose of intervening in domestic assault cases by providing information and advocacy for victims of domestic assault and by advocating appropriate responses to assailants within the criminal justice and mental health systems; and WHEREAS, City, recognizing its commitment to the exploration and development of appropriate community actions in response to domestic violence, has pledged the sum of twenty thousand, seven hundred dollars and No /100 ($20,700) for 1989, to contract with MPDI for the services of MPDI in accordance with MPDI's Domestic Assault Intervention Project. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual convenants and conditions hereinafter contained, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. TERM: MPDI shall render services to City in accordance with MPDI's Domestic Assault Intervention Project, for a period of one year, beginning January 1, 1989, and ending December 31, 1989. 2. DUTIES OF MPDI: During the period specified in Section 1, MPDI shall provide City with the services of trained and qualified Project Staff who will work a minimum of 20 hours per week. MPDI, in conjunction with Project Staff, shall provide the following services: a) Administer and supervise implementation of MPDI's Domestic Assault Intervention Project in the City of Brooklyn Center. b) Recruit, train and supervise volunteers in accordance with MPDI's Domestic Assault Intervention Project and maintain a 24 -hour schedule of volunteers and /or Project Staff. c) Upon notification by City police department, trained volunteers and /or Project Staff will follow domestic assault arrests with immediate visits to the homes of victims (within one hour of arrest). d) At the time of the visit to the home and throughout the arrest and court process, trained volunteers and /or Project Staff will Provide domestic assault victims with information concerning emergency shelter, protective orders, legal services and support/ educational groups available to domestic assault victims. e) Trained volunteers and /or Project Staff will follow domestic assault arrests with visits to assailants in the detention facility. Such visits will take place prior to the assailant's arraignment. City police department will allow trained volunteers and /or Project Staff into the detention facility visitors' area for this purpose. f) During the visit in the detention facility, assailants will be provided with information on the Domestic Assault Intervention Project and information about domestic assault service agencies and counseling. g) In cases where arrests are not made, Project Staff will attempt to contact persons identified as victims with information as set forth in paragraph (d) above. City police department will provide access to information for this purpose. h) Maintain a twenty -four hour telephone service. MPDI, through its twenty -four hour telephone service shall contact the appropriate Project personnel and volunteers as soon as domestic assaults and /or arrests are called in by the Brooklyn Center Police Department. i) Provide weekly support /educational groups for victims. j) Develop and provide a training program to the Brooklyn Center Police Department on the Domestic Assault Intervention Project. k) Generally act as a support for City domestic assault victims and their children. 1) Provide quarterly reports to City within 30 days after the end of each quarter addressed as follows: City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 ATTENTION: Chief James Lindsay m) The Coordinator of the Project shall meet with City staff periodically as the demands of the Domestic Assault Intervention Project require. All of the above duties shall be performed by MPDI in consultation with City Police Chief or his delegate. 3. CONSIDERATION: The total obligation of the City for all compensation and reimbursement to MPDI shall not exceed twenty thousand, seven hundred dollars ($20,700). 4. TERMS OF PAYMENT: Consideration for all services performed by MPDI pursuant to this agreement shall be paid by the City as follows: a) Reimbursement shall be in three payments b) Payments shall be made by the City promptly after MPDI's presentation of invoices for services performed. c) Invoices shall be due according to the following schedule: June 30, 1989 $10,350 August 1, 1989 5,175 October 1, 1989 5,175 Said invoices shall be mailed to: City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 ATTN: Chief James Lindsay 5. CANCELLATION: This agreement may be cancelled by the City or MPDI at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. In the event of such cancellation, MPDI shall be entitled to payment determined on a pro rata basis for work or services performed up to the date of cancellation. 6. LIABILITY: MPDI is acting as an independent contractor. Any Project Staff provided hereinunder, or other agents, or employees of MPDI shall not be employees of the City, and MPDI agrees to be responsible for any and all workers' compensation, employee benefits, withholding, FICA, and taxes applicable to such persons. Nothing contained in this agreement shall render either party an agent of the other for any purpose, or either party liable for any debts, liabilities, or obligations of the other, whether now existing or incurred in the performance of this agreement, and neither party shall have the authority by virtue of this agreement to represent or bind 'the other in any manner whatsoever. 7. INSURANCE: MPDI hereby further agrees to carry and keep in force all applicable insurance including but not limited to liability insurance and workers' compensation insurance. Said insurance policies shall be reliable insurance companies licensed to do business in Minnesota. 8. INDEMNIFICATION: MPDI agrees to indemnify and keep indemnified and defend, hold and save City harmless from and against any and all actions or cause of action, claims, demands, loss, damage or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, which City shall or may at any time sustain precipitate or incur by reason of the conduct of MPDI or employees, agents or servants of MPDI acting within the scope of and in connection with the Domestic Assault Intervention Project. 9. NON- ASSIGNABILITY: This agreement is personal to the parties specified herein and may not be transferred or assigned by either party hereto. 10. INTEGRATION: This written agreement constitutes the entire understanding of and fully sets forth the rights and obligations of the parties hereto, and shall not be altered or modified except by an instrument in writing and signed by the Director of MPDI and City Manager. 11. Services to be rendered pursuant to this agreement shall be provided regardless of race, color, national origin, religion or sex. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the execution of this agreement on their behalf by their duly authorized representatives. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC. " By By (Its Mayor) (Its Director) BY (Its City Manager) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6 /26 /89 Agenda Item Number / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE NORTHERN MAYORS ASSOCIATION JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION- No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The Northern Mayors Association has recently contacted me (see attachments) with proposed changes in their joint powers agreement. Attached are the resolutions necessary to accomplish the changes proposed by this organization. While there are minor nonsubstantive language changes included in this request, the two major changes are basically changing of the name from the Northern Mayors Association to the North Metro Mayors Association and the name for the marketing arm of the association is the North Metro Development Association. None of the proposed changes really are substantive as it relates to the operation of the joint powers agreements. However, the name change is important because the organization has been confused with northern Minnesota mayors associations and organization, and the name change is an attempt to eliminate that confusion. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend favorable consideration of the attached resolutions. s NORTHERN MAYORS ASSOCIATION Organized 1985 June 14, 1989 Mr. Jerry Splinter City Manager 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Splinter: At our last Board of Directors meeting two actions where taken which require each participating community to pass new joint powers resolution. The Board elected to change the name of the Northern Mayors Association to: North Metro Mayors Association (NMMA) Enclosed for your processing is a new joint powers agreement reflecting this change. Some minor non - substantative language changes, are also included, that were suggested by counsel from one of our member communities. The Board also selected a name for the new joint powers marketing organization, to wit: North Metro Development Association (NMDA). For those eleven communities that are participating in the North Metro Development Association find enclosed a revised joint powers agreement reflecting this name change, as well as, some minor non substantative language changes that make the document consistent with the NMMA agreement. Please have your city council pass resolutions adopting these joint powers agreements. Request that you return to my attention both a certified copy of the resolutions adopting these new - joint powers agreements as well as, a copy of the new joint Mowers agreements fully executed. Note, only those communities that are members of the North Metro Development Association need to return that agreement. If you have questions please call. Sincerely, o thD. Strauss 8525 Edinbrook Crossing, Suite 5, Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 (612) 493 -5115 FAX (612) 424 -1174 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO FORM THE NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION (NMMA) WHEREAS, on April 7, 1986, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center authorized the Mayor and City Manager to execute a joint powers agreement with other metropolitan communities for the purpose of forming the Northern Mayors Association; and WHEREAS, the Northern Mayors Association wishes to change the name of the group to North Metro Mayors Association to alleviate the confusion with northern Minnesota mayors associations and organizations; and WHEREAS, the name change and other minor nonsubstantive language changes make it necessary to execute a new joint powers agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute a joint powers agreement to form the North Metro Mayors Association (NMMA). 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. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO FORM A COALITION OF METROPOLITAN COMMUNITIES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1989, by and between the city of and other political subdivisions executing identical agreements, hereinafter referred to as "Agencies." The Agency hereto agree to establish an organization to be known as the North Metro Mayors Association to promote transportation and economic development projects. Any other public entity may become an agency upon approval by a majority of the then Agencies. Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59 authorizes two or more governmental units to enter into an agreement for the joint and cooperative exercise of any power common to the contracting parties. Whereas, improvements to transportation systems serve the Agencies by promoting the public's health, safety and s general welfare and economic development enhances the local tax base thereby enabling the Agencies to provide needed municipal services at acceptable tax rates. NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59, the parties hereto do agree as follows: 1) BOARD OF DIRECTORS. The governing body of the coalition shall be its Board of Directors. Each agency shall be entitled to two (2) directors. Each director shall have one (1) vote. Each agency shall appoint two (2) directors, one (1) of whom shall be the City Manager or Administrator or other designee. 1 A majority of the Board of Directors shall constitute a quorum of the Board. 2) MEETINGS. The coalition shall meet on call of the president or by the Operating Committee. 3) OPERATING COMMITTEE. The Board of Directors shall appoint an Operating Committee. The Operating Committee shall have authority to manage the affairs and business of the coalition between coalition meetings, but at all times, shall be subject to the control and direction of the Board. The Operating Committee shall meet as needed at a time and place to be determined by the Operating Committee. 4) FINANCIAL MATTERS. Coalition funds may be expended by the Board. Other legal instruments shall be executed with the Authority of the Board. The Board shall have no authority to expend funds in excess of the coalition funds or incur any debt. The financial contribution of the Agencies in support of the coalition shall 'be per capita for full members. Each of the Agencies shall, by February 2nd of each year, pay to the coalition an amount as annually determined by the coalition based on the most recent Metropolitan Council population estimates. The Board may authorize changes in the per capita charge for all members upon majority vote. The annual assessment levy shall be determined by October 1st of the preceding year. 2 The Board may receive financial contributions from private associations, entities or financial institutions. Such associations, entities or institutions shall then become honorary associate members. Honorary associate members may send representatives to Board meetings, but shall not be entitled to representation on the Board or have any voting rights. 5) WITHDRAWAL. Any Agency may withdraw from this agreement effective on January 1 of any year by giving notice prior to October 15 of the preceding year 6) TERMINATION. The coalition shall be dissolved if less than three (3) Agencies remain, or by mutual signed agreement of all of the Agencies. Upon termination, remaining assets of the coalition shall be distributed to the full members still remaining at the time of termination, pro rated according to their respective contributions. 7) NOTICES. All notices or other communications required herein shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when delivered or mailed by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following parties: President, Board of Directors, and Chairman, of the Operating Committee. 8) AMENDMENTS. This agreement may be amended and become effective only by written agreement entered into by all members in good standing. 9) MULTIPLE EXECUTION. This Joint Powers Agreement may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts, each of which counterparts shall be deemed to be an original and all such counterpart shall constitute but one and the same instrument. An originally executed counterpart shall be filed with Joseph D. Strauss, Executive Director, North Metro Mayors Association, 8525 Edinbrook Crossing, Suite #5, Brooklyn Park, MN 55443. 3 10) EFFECTIVE DATE. This agreement shall be in full force and effect upon receipt by Joseph D. Strauss, Executive Director, North Metro Mayors Association, 8525 Edinbrook Crossing, Suite #5, Brooklyn Park, MN 55443, if at least three (3) joint agreements, along with a copy of a certified resolution of the governing bodies authorizing the execution and delivery of the contract,. CITY OF By: By: 4 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A JOINT POWERS. AGREEMENT TO FORM THE NORTH METRO DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION WHEREAS, on May 22, 1989, the Brooklyn Center City Council acting as the Economic Development Authority approved membership in the North Metro Development Association; and WHEREAS, a proposed joint powers agreement for this purpose has been submitted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute a joint powers agreement to form the North Metro Development Association (NMDA). 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. NORTH METRO DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION THIS AGREEMENT, is executed this day of , 1988, by (hereinafter referred to as the "Agency"). WHEREAS, the Agency, or the city in which the Agency is located, is a member of the North Metro Mayors Association, a coalition of metropolitan communities organized to promote economic development and transportation projects within the communities which comprise the North Metro Mayors Association; and WHEREAS, there has been presented to the Agency a proposal by the North Metro Mayors Association to establish an association (the "North Metro Development Association ") for the sole purpose of assembling and disseminating information concerning the communities within which the members of the North Metro Development Association are located (which geographical area is hereinafter referred to as the "Northern Suburbs ") and to promote economic development within the Northern Suburbs through the implementation of a public relations and marketing plan and related governmental relations activities; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59 authorizes two or more governmental units to enter into an agreement for the joint and cooperative exercise of any power common to the contracting parties; and WHEREAS, the assembly and dissemination of information concerning the Northern Suburbs and the promotion of economic development within the Northern Suburbs through the implementation of a public relations and marketing plan and related governmental relations activities serves the Agency by enhancing the economy and general welfare of the Northern Suburbs and of the community in which the Agency is located. NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59, the Agency does hereby agree that the Agency shall be a participating member in the North Metro Development Association which shall be organized and have the powers as are set forth in this Agreement. 1. Board of Directors. The governing body of the North Metro Development Association shall be its Board of Directors. Each member of the North Metro Development Association shall be entitled to two (2) directors. Each director shall have one (1) vote. Each member agency shall appoint two (2) directors, one (1) of whom shall be the City Manager or Administrator or other designee of the city in which the member agency operates. A majority of the Board of Directors shall constitute a quorum fo the Board. 1 2. Meetings. The North Metro Development Association shall meet on call of the president of the Board or by the Operating Committee. 3. Operating Committee The Board of Directors shall appoint an Operating Committee. 'The Operating Committee shall have authority to manage the affairs and business of the North Metro Development Association between meetings, but at all times, shall be subject to the control and direction of the Board. The Operating Committee shall meet as needed at a time and place to be determined by the Operating Committee. 4. Financial Matters. Each member of the North Metro Development Association shall contribute an annual fee to finance the activities of the North Metro Development Association in such amount as is established by the Board. The Board shall have no authority to expend funds in excess of available contributed funds or to incur any debt. The amount of the fee to be contributed by each member shall be established by the Board of Directors by October 1 of each year, which fee shall be payable in full by each member by February 2 of the subsequent year. The Board may receive financial contributions from private associations, entities or financial institutions. Such associations, entities or institutions shall then become honorary associate members. Honorary associate members may send representatives to Board meetings, but shall not be entitled to representation on the Board or have any voting rights. 5. Withdrawal. Any member may withdraw from this agreement effective on January 1 of any year by giving notice prior to October 15 of the preceding year. 6. Termination. The North Metro Development Association shall be dissolved if less that three (3) members remain, or by a mutual signed agreement of all of the members. Upon termination, remaining assets of the North Metro Development Association shall be distributed to the members still remaining at the time of termination, pro rated according to their respective total contributions during the term of their membership. 7. Notices. All notices or other communications required herein shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when delivered or mailed by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following parties: President, Board of Directors, and Chairman, of the Operating Committee. 2 8. Amendments. This agreement may be amended g y and become effective only by written agreement entered into by all members of the North Metro Development Association. 9. Multiple Execution This North Metro Development Association may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts, each of which counterpart shall be deemed to be an original and all such counterparts shall constitute but one and the same instrument. An originally executed counterpart shall be filed with Joseph D. Strauss, Executive Director, North Metro Mayors Association, 8525 Edinbrook Crossing, Suite #5, Brooklyn Park, MN 55443. 10. Effective Dat e. This agreement shall be in full force and effect upon receipt by Joseph D. Strauss, Executive Director, North Metro Mayors Association, 8525 Edinbrook Crossing, Suite #5, Brooklyn Park, MN 55443, if at least three joint agreements, along with a copy of a certified resolution of the governing bodies authorizing the execution and delivery of the contract. BY Its By Its 3 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 12th day of June , 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land. Auxiliary Aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City's Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND CONSIDERED UNDER PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 89009 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -1110. TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R2). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (R2) Two Family Residence District zoning classification. That area bounded by the following: Beginning at the intersection of 55th Avenue and the west right -of -way line of F.A.I. No. 94; thence southerly along the west right -of -way line of F.A.I. No. 94 to the south City limits (centerline of 53rd Avenue) ; thence west along the south. City limits to its intersection with Russell Avenue; thence north along Russell Avenue (and Russell Avenue extended to its intersection with 54th Avenue (and 54th Avenue extended); thence east along 54th Avenue to its intersection with the west property line (extended) of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1, Meri -dale Addition; thence northward along the west property line (extended) of Lots 1 and 2 to its intersection with the north property line of Lot 3, Block 1, Krutzig's Addition; thence west along said north property line to its intersection with the east property line of Lot 4 of said Block 1, Krutzig's Addition; thence north along the east property line (extended) of said Lot 4 to its intersection with 55th Avenue; thence east along 55th Avenue to the point of beginning [ . ] , except those properties explicitly described in Section 35 -1130 as belonging in the R4 zoning district. That area bounded by the following: The Mississippi River on the east; the south City limits on the south; F.A.I. No. 94 on the west and north [ . ] , except those properties explicitly described in Section 35 -1130 as belonging in the fC zoning district. Section 35 -1130. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R4). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (R4) Multiple Family Residence District zoning classification: That part of Lot 46, Garcelon's Addition to Minneapolis lying west of the east 200 feet thereof, except street. ORDINANCE NO. • Lot 1, Block 2, Reidheid's Addition. The west 112 of the north 131.39 feet of the east 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 1, Township 118, Range 21, except street. Lots 1 and 2, Blcck 1, Ledin Addition. The west 99.32 feet of Lot 11, Block 2, Bellvue Acres Addition. The east 100 feet of the west 199.32 feet of Lot 11, Block 2, Bellvue Acres Addition. That part of Lot 22, GarcelonIs Addition to Minneapolis, lying south of the north 2 feet thereof, except state highway. Lot 20, and the north 100 feet of the south 200 feet of the east 15 feet of Lot 38, Garcelon's Addition to Minneapolis, except state highway. Lots 29 and 30, Block 2, Fairhaven Park Addition. Lots 13, 14 and 15, Block 4, N. and E. Perkin's Addition to Minneapolis. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1989. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JUNE 15, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Commissioner Lowell Ainas at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann, Wallace Bernards, Bertil Johnson, Ellamae Sander and James McCloskey. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Commissioner Malecki had called to say she would be unable to attend and was excused. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE The Secretary then administered the oath of office to Planning Commissioner James McCloskey. He noted that Commissioner McCloskey is from the northwest neighborhood and his appointment by the Mayor was confirmed by the City Council on June 12, 1989. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 25, 1989 Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the May 25, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Commissioners Mann, Ainas, Johnson and Sander. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Bernards and McCloskey. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89016 (Sherman Boosalis Interests, Inc.) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89016 attached). The Secretary also added some comments regarding exterior treatment. He pointed out that the policy of a consistent exterior treatment is not to discourage quality. He stated that there had been a lot of discussion on the old Ethan Allen building north of the freeway regarding consistent exterior treatment pertaining to the mansard treatment. He also reviewed with the Commission some examples where a mixture of treatments has been allowed, including the Brooklyn Center Service Station at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard and the Parkway Place building on Shingle Creek Parkway. He stated that the City is generally looking for consistency in the quality of materials and similar appearance around a building. He stated that he did not see a major problem with the proposal as submitted. Commissioner Bernards noted that the present building sits far back oA the lot and that it is not very visible. He stated that he did not often see the sides of the building anyway. The Secretary stated that he had noticed the sides of the building from Shingle Creek Parkway. Commissioner Bernards asked about landscaping in that area. The Secretary noted that there is some berming along Shingle Creek Parkway. He reviewed the building elevations of the proposed building with Commissioner Bernards. In response to a question from Commissioner Sander, the Secretary noted the materials to be used around the building, including cedar shakes on the front mansard. Commissioner Bernards asked how far back the building would be relative to Burger Brothers. The Secretary pointed out on the transparency that the buildings would be fairly close in their setback off John Martin Drive, although the building under consideration would be set back somewhat further. 6 -15 -89 -1- Commissioner McCloskey stated that the proposed exterior would definitely have a facade rather than a wrap around treatment of the building. The Secretary stated that it is a judgment call for the Commission to make regarding exterior treatment. He stated that the purpose of the policy was to encourage quality and avoid false facades. He noted that in the past the front of the building was usually dressed up facing the street while the back of the building was left untreated facing residential development. He stated that this sort of contrast was something to be avoided. Commissioner Bernards stated that he felt the proposed addition would be an improvement to the building. Commissioner Ainas asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Jens Beck, the architect for the project, reviewed with the Commission a rendering of the site plan. He noted the presence of conifers along the back side of the site to shield the loading dock area and to break up the parking on -site from the U. S. West Direct parking lot to the south. He stated that the plans would be revised to indicate handicapped parking in front of the building and an extra space reserved for the service entrance in the rear. He then reviewed with the Commission briefly the exterior treatment of the building, noting that the height of the mansard would basically match the elevation of the cedar siding along the sides and rear of the building. Commissioner Ainas asked whether they were open to making the stucco a sandstone color so that it would be less of a contrast with the brick. Mr. Beck stated that the color of the stucco could be changed. Commissioner McCloskey agreed with this suggestion and asked whether the trash enclosure would be enlarged to accommodate the large cartons that would be discarded from the operation. Mr. Beck answered that there would be a number of cartons discarded when the original display furniture was installed, but that normally furniture was installed, would be sold in the carton. Commissioner mm ssioner Johnson asked what the size of the walkway would be in front of the building. Mr. Beck responded that it would be 7' wide. Commissioner Bernards noted that the site was constrained as to how much landscaping could be added. Mr. Beck agreed, noting that there is a power line easement along the west property line which would prevent additional plantings in that area. Commissioner Ainas asked the Commission for their comments on the exterior treatment question. Commissioner Sander asked the Secretary how he felt about the beige stucco as opposed to the existing white. The Secretary stated that he could live with either color, but that the beige was a good suggestion. Commissioner McCloskey noted that repainting the stucco would allow for a more consistent color around the building. Commissioner Mann stated that she felt the contrast was fine the way it was. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt the architect has done a fine job, considering the building he had to work with. Commissioner Johnson stated that he felt the beige color would be better for the building. Commissioner Ainas asked Mr. Beck if there would be a problem changing the color of the stUcco to beige. Mr. Beck answered that it can be done. Commissioner Ainas suggested adding a condition that the architect work with staff to make the stucco color more consistent with the brick. Commissioner Sander noted that part of the canopy in the cupola area would also be a stucco treatment and should match the stucco on the building. Commissioner Ainas explained to the applicants that they were not trying to dictate design, but making recommendations so that the treatment of the building would be reasonably consistent. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION 10. 89016 ISherman Boosalis Interests, nc. Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 89016, subject to the following conditions: 6 -15 -89 -2- 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 7. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 8. The plans shall be revised, prior to the issuance of permits to indicate: a) 250 watt bulbs on the light pole east of the northeast corner of the building so as to reduce light intensity at the property line to 10 foot candles. 9. The applicant is directed to work with staff on a mutually acceptable tint to the stuccato board treatment around the west, south and east sides`of the building to be compatible with the brick treatment. Voting in favor: Commissioners Ainas, Mann, Bernards, Johnson, Sander and McCloskey. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Bernards asked when the addition would be built. Mr. Tim Mannie, with Sherman Boosalis Interests, stated that they hoped to build the addition in July and August and open in September, if possible. } OTHER BUSINESS h� e Secretary informed the Commission that the June 29 meeting would be cancelled and that the next meeting would be July 13. He stated that the Commission would have the last chapter of the group home study from Consultant Donn Wiski. He stated that there would also be a need at that meeting to comment on modifications to the tax increment district plan in the center of town. He also informed the Commission that a housing study was being performed and that when it was completed, there would be a joint meeting with the Housing Commission. He also stated that at some future study meeting he hoped to have the City Attorney come to the Planning Commission to review with the Commission their legal function and authority. 6 -15 -89 -3- Commissioner Ainas informed the Commission of a survey done by the Planning Commission in Worcester, Massachusetts regarding community concerns. He noted that the survey results showed that 90% of community residents favored group homes, but that only 12% wanted them in their neighborhood. He noted that the problems with group homes are the same around the country. The Secretary concluded by informing the Commission of some modifications to the bunkhouse at the Earle Brown Farm and also, that the City Council had approved the moratorium on development at 66th and West River Road and that the Request for Proposals would be sent soon. ADJOURNMENT Motion b Commissioner Mann Y seconded b Commissioner y Sander to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:21 p.m. Chairman I 1 5 -15 -89 -4- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89016 Applicant: Sherman Boosalis Interests, Inc. Location: 5939 John Martin Drive Request: Site and Building Plan Location /Use The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a 4,760 sq. ft. addition to the former Showbiz Pizza building at 5939 John Martin Drive. The use of the building would be for an Ethan Allen furniture store. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by John Martin Drive, on the east by Burger Brothers sporting goods store, on the south by the U. S. West Direct office building, and on the west by the State Farm Insurance claims center. The retail sale of furniture is a permitted use in the C2 zoning district. Access /Parking The site gains access off John Martin Drive via a 30' wide driveway shared with Burger Brothers to the east. The retail parking formula requires 123 spaces for the 14,960 sq. ft. building (10,200 sq. ft. existing plus 4,760 sq. ft. proposed addition). The proposed site plan calls for 127 spaces, including three handicapped spaces to the east of the building. We have requested, and the architect has agreed to relocate these handicapped stalls to the row immediately north of the building. One space behind the building has been "x -d" out to allow truck access to the service door near the southeast corner of the building. We would recommend at least one more space be reserved for this purpose. Landscaping The plan calls for most existing landscaping to remain and for eight additional Colorado Spruce to be added along the southerly greenstrip adjacent to U. S. West Direct. The site also contains 11 Skyline Locust and 34 Junipers of various types. The point value of existing and proposed plantings comes to 175 points, 130 of which are usable under the point system. This just meets the requirement for the 1.62 acre site. Grading, Drainage, Utilities The only change to the surface of the site is the expansion of the building approximately 56' northward from its present location. Drainage on the site is generally from west to east into three existing catch basins in the common driveway serving this and the neighboring site to the east, and one catch basin in the north Parking lot. These are connected by a 12" storm sewer line to a catch basin in John Martin Drive. Water and sanitary sewer services are as existing. Building The plan proposes to continue the existing building treatments along;the east and west elevations of the building. This consists of brick along the :lower 3' 4 11 , stuccato board on gypsum for the middle 8' , and 6 cedar lap siding on the upper 5' 9". On the front (north) elevation, the plan proposes a totally brick exterior with a 5' 6 high canopy mansard built out over a 6' wide sidewalk. We have questioned this treatment as a "false facade ", but the applicant feels that brick will wear better than stucco over time. The Commission should discuss the question of exterior treatment and make a recommendation to the City Council. When an Ethan Allen store was built north of the freeway (now the Salvation Army offices), there was considerable discussion about the mansard treatment which was extended partially along the side elevations, but was not carried entirely around the 6 -15 -89 -1- Application No. 89016 continued building. We do not believe, in light of what was approved in that case, that the City should require a mansard entirely around the building. The treatment proposed is really a canopy and canopies are not extended entirely around buildings. The canopy mansard is approximately at the same elevation and of similar materials as the cedar lap siding along the other three sides of the building. The main question, as we see it, is the use of brick on the front facade. We don't mean to discourage quality, but the policy of consistent exterior treatment would seem to call for a mixture of brick and stucco on all four sides or brick on all four sides. We would certainly like to see all brick, but that cannot be required per se. Nevertheless, the policy of consistent exterior treatment has been consistently applied, though some variations have been allowed. The Commission should make some judgment as to whether the proposed exterior is an acceptable variation on that policy. The interior of the building will be completely remodeled. Most of the buidling will be a sales room. A 2,000 sq. ft. warehouse section is to be located at the southeast corner of the building. Two small offices are indicated. Restrooms which must be accessible to the handicapped are to be located at the southwest corner of the building. Lighting /Trash A lighting plan has been submitted documenting the light intensity at the property line from light fixtures placed around the site. The maximum permitted by ordinance is 10 foot candles adjacent to commercial property (3 ft. candles adjacent to residential property) . The only area of concern is in the common access drive, immediately east of the northeast corner of the building, where the light intensity would reach 12.8 foot candles. The bulb is a 400 watt high pressure sodium bulb on a 25' high pole. This particular pole would have two fixtures. Staff would recommend some modification, perhaps with a reduction in wattage, for this pole. Trash is to be located in an enclosure at the southeast corner of the property as existing. Recommendation Altogether,the plans are generally in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6 -15 -89 -2- + Application No. 89016 continued 6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 7. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 8. The plans shall be revised, prior to the issuance of permits to indicate: a) 250 watt bulbs on the light pole east of the northeast corner of the building so as to reduce light intensity at the property line to 10 foot candles. 6 -15 -89 _3_ CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6 -26 -8C Agenda Item Number ` a/ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 89016 submitted by Sherman Boosalis Interests, Inc DEPARTMENT OVAL: /� aw....� C - tj4x�� Signature - title Director of Planning an nspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X } The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a 4,760 sq. ft. addition to the former Showbiz Pizza building at 5939 John Martin Drive. A furniture store is proposed for that location. The application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 15, 1989. A map of the area, site plan, Planning Commission Information Sheet and minutes from the June 15 meeting are attached. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application subject to the 9 conditions listed on page 3 of the minutes attached. 11. : _ • AW it s ' T , FIRM . . br 4i PT i lTr f2a7 1 1 4 K' 9140LlsvMti Lni r / 1 \ I — bbl '1 H ✓ 4 -- � I • 4+ .►�e� ��Hnr ��H� 't'ia70a �!'D� �'19t►� J�� �IHA(' s11.10d1S - i 1 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 REGULAR SESSION JUNE 15, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Commissioner Lowell Ainas at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann, Wallace Bernards, Bertil Johnson, Ellamae Sander and James McCloskey. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Commissioner Malecki had called to say she would be unable to attend and was excused. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE The Secretary then administered the oath of office to Planning Commissioner James McCloskey. He noted that Commissioner McCloskey is from the northwest neighborhood and his appointment by the Mayor was confirmed by the City Council on June 12, 1989. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 25, 1989 Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the May 25, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Commissioners Mann, Ainas, Johnson and Sander. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Bernards and McCloskey. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89016 (Sherman Boosalis Interests, Inc.) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89016 attached) . The Secretary also added some comments regarding exterior treatment. He pointed out that the policy of a consistent exterior treatment is not to discourage quality. He stated that there had been a lot of discussion on the old Ethan Allen building north of the freeway regarding consistent exterior treatment pertaining to the mansard treatment. He also reviewed with the Commission some examples where a mixture of treatments has been allowed, including the Brooklyn Center Service Station at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard and the Parkway Place building on Shingle Creek Parkway. He stated that the City is generally looking for consistency in the quality of materials and similar appearance around a building. He stated that he did not see a major problem with the proposal as submitted. Commissioner Bernards noted that the present building sits far back on the lot and that it is not very visible. He stated that he did not often see the sides of the building anyway. The Secretary stated that he had noticed the sides of the building from Shingle Creek Parkway. Commissioner Bernards asked about landscaping in that area. The Secretary noted that there is some berming along Shingle Creek Parkway. He reviewed the building elevations of the proposed building with Commissioner Bernards. In response to a question from Commissioner Sander, the Secretary noted the materials to be used around the building, including cedar shakes on the front an m Bard. Commissioner Bernards asked how far back the building would be relative to Burger Brothers. The Secretary pointed out on the transparency that the buildings would be fairly close in their setback off John Martin Drive, although the building under consideration would be set back somewhat further. 6 -15 -89 -1- Commissioner McCloskey stated that the proposed exterior would definitely have a facade rather than a wrap around treatment of the building. The Secretary stated that it is a judgment call for the Commission to make regarding exterior treatment. He stated that the purpose of the policy was to encourage quality and avoid false facades. He noted that in the past the front of the building was usually dressed up facing the street while the back of the building was left untreated facing residential development. He stated that this sort of contrast was something to be avoided. Commissioner Bernards stated that he felt the proposed addition would be an improvement to the building. Commissioner Ainas asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Jens Beck, the architect for the project, reviewed with the Commission a rendering of the site plan. He noted the presence of conifers along the back side of the site to shield the loading dock area and to break up the parking on -site from the U. S. West Direct parking lot to the south. He stated that the plans would be revised to indicate handicapped parking in front of the building and an extra space reserved for the service entrance in the rear. He then reviewed with the Commission briefly the exterior treatment of the building, noting that the height of the mansard would basically match the elevation of the cedar siding along the sides and rear of the building. Commissioner Ainas asked whether they were open to making the stucco a sandstone color so that it would be less of a contrast with the brick. Mr. Beck stated that the color of the stucco could be changed. Commissioner McCloskey agreed with this suggestion and asked whether the trash enclosure would be enlarged to accommodate the large cartons that would be discarded from the operation. Mr. Beck answered that there would be a number of cartons discarded when the original display furniture was installed, but that normally furniture was installed, would be sold in the carton. Commissioner Johnson asked what the size of the walkway would be in front of the building. Mr. Beck responded that it would be 7' wide. Commissioner Bernards noted that the site was constrained as to how much landscaping could be added. Mr. Beck agreed, noting that there is a power line easement along the west property line which would prevent additional plantings in that area. Commissioner Ainas asked the Commission for their comments on the exterior treatment question. Commissioner Sander asked the Secretary how he felt about the beige stucco as opposed to the existing white. The Secretary stated that he could live with either color, but that the beige was a good suggestion. Commissioner McCloskey noted that repainting the stucco would allow for a more consistent color around the building. Commissioner Mann stated that she felt the contrast was fine the way it was. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt the architect has done a fine Job, considering the building he had to work with. Commissioner Johnson stated that he felt the beige color would be better for the building. Commissioner Ainas asked Mr. Beck if there would be a problem changing the color of the stUbco to beige. Mr. Beck answered that it can be done. Commissioner Ainas suggested adding a condition that the architect work with staff to make the stucco color more consistent with the brick. Commissioner Sander noted that part of the canopy in the cupola area would also be a stucco treatment and should match the stucco on the building. Commissioner Ainas explained to the applicants that they were not trying to dictate design, but making recommendations so that the treatment of the building would be reasonably consistent. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION N0. 89016 (Sherman Boosalis Interests, nc. o ion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 89016, subject to the following conditions: 6 -15 -89 -2- I 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 7. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 8. The plans shall be revised, prior to the issuance of permits to indicate: a) 250 watt bulbs on the light pole east of the northeast corner of the building so as to reduce light intensity at the property line to 10 foot candles. 9. The applicant is directed to work with staff on a mutually acceptable tint to the stuccato board treatment around the west, south and east sides of the building to be compatible with the brick treatment. Voting in favor: Commissioners Ainas, Mann, Bernards, Johnson, Sander and McCloskey. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Bernards asked when the addition would be built. Mr. Tim Mannie, with Sherman Boosalis Interests, stated that they hoped to build the addition in July and August and open in September, if possible. OTHER BUSINESS h'I e Secretary informed the Commission that the June 29 meeting would be cancelled and that the next meeting would be July 13. He stated that the Commission would have the last chapter of the group home study from Consultant Donn Wiski . He stated that there would also be a need at that meeting to comment on modifications to the tax increment district plan in the center of town. He also informed the Commission that a housing study was being performed and that when it was completed, there would be a Joint meeting with the Housing Commission. He also stated that at some future study meeting he hoped to have the City Attorney come to the Planning Commission to review with the Commission their legal function and authority. 6 -15 -89 -3- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89016 Applicant: Sherman Boosalis Interests, Inc. Location: 5939 John Martin Drive Request: Site and Building Plan Location/Use The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a 4,760 sq. ft. addition to the former Showbiz Pizza building at 5939 John Martin Drive. The use of the building would be for an Ethan Allen furniture store. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by John Martin Drive, on the east by Burger Brothers sporting goods store, on the south by the U. S. West Direct office building, and on the west by the State Farm Insurance claims center. The retail sale of furniture is a permitted use in the C2 zoning district. Access /Parking The site gains access off John Martin Drive via a 30' wide driveway shared with Burger Brothers to the east. The retail parking formula requires 123 spaces for the 14,960 sq. ft. building (10,200 sq. ft. existing plus 4,760 sq. ft. proposed addition). The proposed site plan calls for 127 spaces, including three handicapped spaces to the east of the building. We have requested, and the architect has agreed to relocate these handicapped stalls to the row immediately north of the building. One ace behind the building s been 11 x-d 11 g p b lding ha be out to allow truck access to the service door near the southeast corner of the building. We would recommend at least one more space be reserved for this purpose. Landscaping The plan calls for most existing landscaping to remain and for eight additional Colorado Spruce to be added along the southerly greenstrip adjacent to U. S. West Direct. The site also contains 11 Skyline Locust and 34 Junipers of various types. The point value of existing and proposed plantings comes to 175 points, 130 of which are usable under the point system. This just meets the requirement for the 1.62 acre site. Grading, Drainage, Utilities The only change to the surface of the site is the expansion of the building approximately 56' northward from its present location. Drainage on the site is generally from west to east into three existing catch basins in the common driveway serving this and the neighboring site to the east, and one catch basin in the north parking lot. These are connected by a 12" storm sewer line to a catch basin in John Martin Drive. Water and sanitary sewer services are as existing. Building The plan proposes to continue the existing building treatments along east and west elevations of the building. This consists of brick along the lower 3' 4 11 1 stuccato board on gypsum for the middle 8' , and 6 cedar lap siding on the upper 5' 9 ". On the front (north) elevation, the plan proposes a totally brick exterior with a 5' 6" high canopy mansard built out over a 6' wide sidewalk. We have questioned this treatment as a "false facade ", but the applicant feels that brick will wear better than stucco over time. The Commission should discuss the question of exterior treatment and make a recommendation to the City Council. When an Ethan Allen store was built north of the freeway (now the Salvation Army offices), there was considerable discussion about the mansard treatment which was extended partially along the side elevations, but was not carried entirely around the 6 -15 -89 -1- Application No. 89015 continued building. We do not believe, in light of what was approved in that case, that the City should require a mansard entirely around the building. The treatment proposed is really a canopy and canopies are not extended entirely around buildings. The canopy mansard is approximately at the same elevation and of similar materials as the cedar lap siding along the other three sides of the building. The main question, as we see it, is the use of brick on the front facade. We don't mean to discourage quality, but the policy of consistent exterior treatment would seem to call for a mixture of brick and stucco on all four sides or brick on all four sides. We would certainly like to see all brick, but that cannot be required per se. Nevertheless, the policy of consistent exterior treatment has been consistently applied, though some variations have been allowed. The Commission should make some judgment as to whether the proposed exterior is an acceptable variation on that policy. The interior of the building will be completely remodeled. Most of the buidling will be a sales room. A 2,000 sq. ft. warehouse section is to be located at the southeast corner of the building. Two small offices are indicated. Restrooms which must be accessible to the handicapped are to be located at the southwest corner of the building. Lighting /Trash A lighting plan has been submitted documenting the light intensity at the property line from light fixtures placed around the site. The maximum permitted by ordinance is 10 foot candles adjacent to commercial property (3 ft. candles adjacent to residential property) . The only area of concern is in the common access drive, immediately east of the northeast corner of the building, where the light intensity would reach 12.8 foot candles. The bulb is a 400 watt high pressure sodium bulb on a 25' high pole. This particular pole would have two fixtures. Staff would recommend some modification, perhaps with a reduction in wattage, for this pole. Trash is to be located in an enclosure at the southeast corner of the property as existing. Recommendation Altogether,the plans are generally in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6 -15 -89 -2- Application No. 89016 continued 6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 7. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 8. The plans shall be revised, prior to the issuance of permits to indicate: a) 250 watt bulbs on the light pole east of the northeast corner of the building so as to reduce light intensity at the property line to 10 foot candles. 6 -15 -89 -3- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6/26/89 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS REGARDING THE IMPROVEMENT OF FOUR ALLEYS DEPT. APPROVAL: I i""l * * * * * * * * * * * * *N * ** **R*** OR *O PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation Four public hearings regarding the possible improvement of the four remaining alleys in the City which have been opened for travel, but have not been improved, are scheduled at 8:00 p.m. on June 26, 1989. History Attached hereto is a booklet which contains previous reports to the City Council as submitted on May 8, May 22, and June 12, copies of all information sent to all property owners (both the original information which was sent with the petition forms and the official notices of public hearing) and other information relating to these proceedings. Also included are copies of all correspondence from property owners which we have received to date in response to the Notices of Public Hearing. Council Action Reguired • Conduct Hearings Note Staff will be prepared to first present an overview of the proposed improvements and the proceedings covering all four alleys, and to discuss them in general with the City Council. Following that general discussion, the hearings on each improvement (i.e., each alley) should be conducted separately in the order listed on the agenda. Again, staff will be prepared to present information specific to each improvement (i.e. - slides showing existing conditions, estimated costs, petition analyses, etc.) before the hearing is opened to the public. We will also note for the record all items of written correspondence received either supporting or opposing the proposed improvement. When all persons desiring to be heard on each improvement have been heard, that hearing should be closed, by motion of the Council. • Consider Adoption of Resolution(s) Ordering Improvement(s) Note 1 : The Council may wish to consider each of these resolutions immediately following the closing of the hearing on each improvement, OR, may wish to complete all hearings before considering the adoption of any or all of the resolutions. Note 2 : Before voting on each resolution, the Council should, by motion, agree on which type of surfacing (concrete or bituminous) will be installed if the resolution is adopted. That decision should then be included in the resolution which is voted on. Note 3 : Because each of these proceedings were officially initiated by City Council action, a 4 /5ths vote is required by Minnesota Statutes to order the improvement. The vote on each resolution must be taken as a "roll call" vote. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -08 WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 12th day of June, 1989, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed surfacing improvement of the following described alley: Between Fremont Avenue and Girard Avenue From 55th Avenue to 57 Avenue Improvement Project No. 1989 -08 AND WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 26th day of June, 1989, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the proposed improvement and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Such improvement, using surfacing, is (concrete or bituminous) hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution adopted the 12th day of June, 1989. 2. The plans and specifications for the proposed improvements as b with prepared y the City Engineer are approved and ordered filed i h the Cit y Clerk. 3. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published as required by law, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until the date and time specified, at which time they will be publicly opened at City Hall by the City Clerk and the City Engineer. Subsequently, the bids shall be tabulated and will then be considered by the City Council at a meeting of the City Council. The advertisement shall state that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for 5 percent of the total amount of such bid. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. I I RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon roll call vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -15 WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 12th day of June, 1989, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed surfacing improvement of the following described alley: Between Girard Avenue and Humboldt Avenue From 54th Avenue to 55th Avenue Improvement Project No. 1989 -15 AND WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 26th day of June, 1989, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the proposed improvement and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Such improvement, using surfacing, is (concrete or bituminous) hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution adopted the 12th day of June, 1989. 2. The plans and specifications for the proposed improvements as prepared by the City Engineer are approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 3. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published as required by law, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until the date and time specified, at which time they will be publicly opened at City Hall by the City Clerk and the City Engineer. Subsequently, the bids shall be tabulated and will then be considered by the City Council at a meeting of the City Council. The advertisement shall state that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for 5 percent of the total amount of such bid. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon roll call 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 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -16 WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 12th day of June, 1989, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed surfacing improvement of the following described alley: Between Emerson Avenue and Fremont Avenue From 53rd Avenue to 54th Avenue Improvement Project No. 1989 -16 AND WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 26th day of June, 1989, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the proposed improvement and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Such improvement, using surfacing, is (concrete or bituminous) hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution adopted the 12th day of June, 1989. 2. The plans and specifications for the proposed improvements as prepared by the City Engineer are approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 3. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published as required by law, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until the date and time specified, at which time they will be publicly opened at City Hall by the City Clerk and the City Engineer. Subsequently, the bids shall be tabulated and will then be considered by the City Council at a meeting of the City Council. The advertisement shall state that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for 5 percent of the total amount of such bid. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon roll call vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -17 WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 12th day of June, 1989, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed surfacing improvement of the following described alley: Between Lakeview Avenue and Twin Lake Avenue From Lakebreeze Avenue to Lakeside Avenue Improvement Project No. 1989 -17 AND WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 26th day of June, 1989, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the proposed improvement and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Such improvement, using surfacing, is (concrete or bituminous) hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution adopted the 12th day of June, 1989. 2. The plans and specifications for the proposed improvements as prepared by the City Engineer are approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 3. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published as required by law, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until the date and time specified, at which time they will be publicly opened at City Hall by the City Clerk and the City Engineer. Subsequently, the bids shall be tabulated and will then be considered by the City Council at a meeting of the City Council. The advertisement shall state that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for 5 percent of the total amount of such bid. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon roll call 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. r� CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER COMPILATION OF PROCEEDINGS RE: SURFACING IMPROVEMENTS IN 4 ALLEYS Project No. Description 1989 -08 Fremont & Girard Avenues 55th to 57th Avenue 1989 -15 Girard & Humboldt Avenues 54th to 55th Avenue 1989 -16 Emerson & Fremont Avenues 53rd to 54th Avenue 1989 -17 Lakeview & Twin Lake Avenues Lakeside to Lakebreeze Avenue TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION DESCRIPTION 1 PRELIMINARY REPORT AND COST ESTIMATE (5/8/89) 2 COST ESTIMATE REPORT, UPDATED UNIFORM ALLEY POLICY, AND DEFERRED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY (5/22/89) 3 SUMMARY OF PETITION RESPONSES (6/12/89) 4 PROJECT 1989 -08 FREMONT TO GIRARD /55TH TO 57TH LETTER AND PETITION TO PROPERTY OWNERS ENGINEER'S REPORT RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING LETTER AND NOTICE OF HEARING TO PROPERTY OWNERS 5 PROJECT 1989 -15 GIRARD TO HUMBOLDT /54TH TO 55TH LETTER AND PETITION TO PROPERTY OWNERS ENGINEER'S REPORT RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING LETTER AND NOTICE OF HEARING TO PROPERTY OWNERS 6 PROJECT 1989 -16 EMERSON TO FREMONT /53RD TO 54TH LETTER AND PETITION TO PROPERTY OWNERS ENGINEER'S REPORT RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING LETTER AND NOTICE OF HEARING TO PROPERTY OWNERS 7 PROJECT 1989 -17 LAKEVIEW TO TWIN LAKE AVE /LAKESIDE TO LAKEBREEZE LETTER AND PETITION TO PROPERTY OWNERS ENGINEER'S REPORT RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING LETTER AND NOTICE OF HEARING TO PROPERTY OWNERS 8 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meetin Date 5/8/89 ' Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION IT DESCRIPTION: PRELIMINARY REPORT AND COST ESTIMATE REGARDING PAVING OF FOUR UNPAVED ALLEYS DEPT. APPROVAL: MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation Attached hereto is a detailed report regarding considerations relating to the four unimproved alleys which remain in the City. City Council Action Required Discussion of the report. Direction to City staff regarding possible changes in policies and procedures, as itemized in the report. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK 'PARKWAY OF IB:ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE C ENTER 911 TO: G. G. Splinter City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp Director of Public Works DATE: May 4, 1989 RE: Status of Public Alleys History During the early stages of the development of the City, 19 "City blocks" were platted which included dedicated public alleys. Following is a status summary of those 19 alleys: 1 - alley has been officially vacated. 3 - dedicated alleys have never been opened for public travel. 2 - dedicated alleys have never been opened for public travel but short portions of these alleys are used as joint driveways by property owners near the ends of those 9 - alleys have been opened for public travel and have been surfaced with bituminous paving. Of these: 6 - were completed after initiation by petitions of property owners between 1975 and 1978. 2 - were completed in 1978 after initiation of these projects by the City Council and receipt of substantial public support at the improvement hearings. 1 - was completed in 1982 after initiation by petition of a majority of property owners. 4 - alleys have been opened to public travel but remain as unimproved, gravel surfaced alleys. cp`c�,y' r Page Two ' May 4, 1989 Existing Policies The City's existing policies regarding alley improvements are shown on the. following documents (copies attached). Resolution 75 -89 - which establishes the basic policy regarding design of the alley, y, iveway provisions and assessment policies. (Exhibit A) The "Uniform Alley Improvement Policy" dated 4/10/75 - which complements Resolution 75 -89, and provides additional details. (Exhibit B) Resolution No. 82 -208 - which provides that alley improvement proceedings may be initiated by a petition of 30 percent of the property owners or by a petition signed by less than 30 percent of the property owners, "when the City Engineer reports to the City Council that existing conditions within the alley are such that significant safety or health hazards exist, or that the existing conditions endanger private or public properties or improvements." (Exhibit C) Previous Proceedings Regarding the Four Unimproved Alleys Regarding the four established alleys which remain unimproved, it is noted that in 1978 the City Council initiated proceedings and conducted improvement hearings on a staff proposal to improve all unimproved alleys then remaining. Following those hearings the City Council terminated proceedings on these projects primarily because of objections to the proposed assessments by a majority of the property owners, { , In addition to the objections to special assessments, the following issues were raised during those proceedings: - questions regarding proper drainage of the alleys; - property owners who did not use the alley as an access route to their garage or driveway objected to paying special assessments at the same rate as those property owners who do use the alley for such access; - property owners with large lots and /or large frontage on the alley objected to the policy of "front footage" assessments, noting that they receive no more benefit than owners with smaller lots and narrower frontages; - a few property owners questioned the use of bituminous paving and stated that they would prefer the use of concrete paving; and I S Page Three May 4, 1989 - a number of property owners expressed concern that if the alley(s) were paved, drivers would drive faster, thereby accentuating safety problems which already exist. Since 1978 periodic inquiries have been made by property owners in each of the four alleys in question, with some expression of interest in having their alley paved. However, when advised of the existing policies and of the estimated costs, none of these owners have circulated and returned a petition asking for the improvement. Current Evaluation of the Four Unimproved Alleys Following is a location description and discussion of each of the four remaining unimproved alleys: Alley Location Description Discussion 1 Between Fremont and This is a 2 -block long alley which abuts 30 Emerson Avenues from individual lots. Of these, 19 have garages 55th to 57th Avenues which access to the alley while 11 do not use the alley for access at this time. . This alley has a low point in the middle of the block with no outlet. As a result, the alley, several adjacent properties and some garages abutting the alley get flooded frequently, and it is impossible to maintain this alley in good condition - or even in fair condition. Installation of a storm sewer is mandatory if this alley is to be improved. it 2 Between Fremont and This is a 1 -block alley which abuts 19 lots. Girard Avenues from Of these, 15 have garages which access to 54th to 55th Avenues the alley while 4 do not use the alley for access at this time. While the alley does not have a low point, the grades are so flat that installation of a storm sewer is required to assure proper drainage. Even with a storm sewer, control of grades is critical in matching grades to existing driveways and garages. I Page Four May 4, 1989 Alley Location Description Discussion 3 Between Fremont and This is a 1 -block alley which abuts.23 lots. Emerson Avenues from Of these, 19 have garages which access the 53rd to 54th Avenues alley while 4 do not use the alley for access at this time. This alley also does not have a low point, but the grades are so flat that installation of a storm sewer is required to assure proper drainage. Even with a storm sewer, control of grades is critical in matching grades to existing driveways and garages. 4 Between Lakeview This is a dead -end alley which extends Avenue and Twin south approximately 400 feet from Lakebreeze Lake Avenue from Avenue. There are 14 lots which abut the Lakeside Avenue to alley. Of these, 7 have garages which Lakebreeze Avenue access the alley while 7 do not use the alley for access at this time. About the southerly one -third of this alley is undeveloped and unused at this time. If the entire alley is to be improved, it will require substantial grading so that grades can be developed in a way which makes the alley accessible to all properties. Regarding the type of paving to used if any of the alleys are to be improved, the following comments are offered: Type of Pavine Advantages Disadvantages Bituminous o Less Expensive - works o It is not possible to well when centerline accurately control grades so grades of 1.0% or as to meet existing driveways greater can be and garages while also developed. developing a good centerline grade. • Has a short (10 -15 year) life expectancy. • Because grades are always critical, future overlay of a bituminous alley will cause new drainage problems. Page Five May 4, 1989 Type of Paving Advantages Disadvantages Concrete o Provides maximum o Substantially more expensive. ability to control grades, so as to o Does not comply to existing match existing driveways policy. and garages, and to assure positive drainage. o Has a 25 -30 year life expectancy. Cost Estimates Following are preliminary cost estimates for improvement of the four alleys in question. Alternate cost estimates are provided for bituminous and concrete paving. Estimated Total Costs* Portion Of Total Costs Which Relate To Alley Using Bituminous Using Concrete Storm Sewer No. Location Paving_ Paving Installation 1 Fremont /Emerson_ $79 Alt 1 ** $105,500 Alt 1 ** 31,300 55th to 57th 91,200 Alt 2 ** 117,300 Alt 2 ** 43,100 2 Fremont /Girard $32,100 Alt 1 * ** $ 48,700 Alt 1 * ** 17,300 54th to 55th 35,200 Alt 2 * ** 51,800 Alt 2 * ** 20,400 3 Fremont /Emerson $33,100 $ 39,950 16,300 53rd to 54th 4 Lakeview /Twin Lake $19,000 $ 30,000 -0- Ave. South of Lakebreeze * Estimated total costs include all grading and subgrade preparation costs, paving of the alley, reconstruction of driveway approaches as necessary to match the new alley grade, landscaping (i.e. topsoil and sodding), storm sewer costs, engineering, legal and administrative costs, and a 25% contingency. Note All costs are calculated on the assumption of each alley r Page Six May 4, 1989 as a single project. If 3 or 4 of these projects are completed under a single contract, costs would be reduced by 10 to 25 %. * In alley no. 1, Alternate No. 1 is based on the ability to obtain an easement across private property in mid - block, so as to allow the storm sewer to be connected to the existing storm sewer on Fremont Avenue. Alternate No. 2 is based on installation of a longer storm sewer following the alley to 55th Avenue. * * *In alley no. 2, Alternate No. 1 is based on the availability of an easement across private property while Alternate No. 1 is based on the assumption that no easement would be available. Survey of Other Cities Attached to this report is a summary of a survey which we recently completed of 10 suburban communities regarding their alley paving programs and policies. Of the 10 cities surveyed, only 5 have constructed alley paving inprovements during the past 5 years. Among those 5, the design standards for alleys varies substantially and the policies regarding funding and special assessment varies greatly. One special explanation is needed regarding the difference in special assessment rates for concrete alleys constructed by Robbinsdale ($14.50 and $15.03 per foot) vs. the assessment rates charged by St. Louis Park ($23.96 and $29.81 per foot). Following discussions with these cities provides the following additional information: • St. Louis Park's design standards for the alley pavement are somewhat higher than Robbinsdale's.:, • St. Louis Park includes the cost for storm drainage improvements into their special assessments, while Robbinsdale pays these costs from its Storm Sewer Utility fund. • St. Louis Park's projects includes all costs relating to rebuilding driveways to meet the new alley grades, and landscaping (i.e. regrading, topsoil and sodding) along the sides of the alley (this is similar to Brooklyn Center's policies and procedures) while Robbinsdale assigns that responsibility to the property owners. Recommendations Because the continuation of existing policies and existing procedures has failed to resolve the conditions which exist in these four alleys, I recommend that the City Council consider amending the City's existing policies. Following is a series of questions for which decisions should be made in an attempt to resolve this issue and my recommendations. Page Seven May 4, 1989 Question Recommendation Should policy be amended hi Despite the her costs for concrete P g to provide for concrete paving, it is recommended that concrete paving be paving of alleys under considered as the only proper solution in alley certain conditions? no. 1, and that it be strongly preferred in alleys no. 2 and no. 3. While concrete paving would also be preferred in alley no. 4, I believe this alley could be successfully improved using bituminous paving. Should the existing policy I recommend that the City consider paying all or a be amended to provide substantial portion of the cost of storm sewer City participation in the construction as necessary to provide drainage costs of alley paving? for the alley. The Council may also wish to consider another basis for City participation in the costs. Note City participation in the cost of alley improvements can be supported, at least in part, by the reduced costs of maintenance (estimated at $800 /year for each of alleys no. 2, 3 and 4 and at $2000 /year for alley no. 1). Should the policy be I suggest adoption of a policy similar to St. amended to provide two Louis Park's policy wherein a portion of the costs rates of assessment, i.e, are defined as "indirect benefits" and levied direct assessments to uniformly to all properties while the remaining those properties who use costs are defined as "direct benefits" which are the alley for access, and levied only against those properties who use the indirect assessments to alley for access. While St. Louis Park has split those who do not? these costs on a 30%/70% basis, I suggest a 40 %/60% or 50%/50% split. Should assessments Because it is difficult to prove more benefit to a continue to be levied property with one garage on a 100 foot lot than to on a "front foot of a property with a similar garage on a 60 foot lot, abutting property" I suggest that the policy be changed to levy basis, or on some assessments on a "per buildable parcel" basis. other basis? ( Note : This policy is currently used by Brooklyn Center for street improvements and for utility improvements.) r L Page Eight i May 4, 1989 Should the City continue Under the existing policy I believe it would be the policy that these proper for me to recommend the improvement of projects must be alley no. 1 because I believe that significant initiated by petition safety and health hazards exist, and that private of property owners unless and public properties and improvements are the City Engineer finds endangered to the extent of serious deterioration, that safety or health increased maintenance costs and reduced life hazards exist (as per expectancies. Obviously, I do not recommend Resolution 82 -208, discouraging the use of petitions. However, I do Exhibit C)? suggest that the Council consider initiating proceedings on all four of these alleys - after revising the policies as described above. This recommendation is based on the following considerations. • Substantial cost savings (10% to 25 %) can be realized if all are completed under a single contract instead of one -at -a -time. • Regardless of whether the project is initiated by petition or by City Council action, the procedures of MS 429 must be followed. These include preparation of a feasibility report, notices to property owners, conduction of an improvement hearing, and a vote by the City Council. The major structural difference is that if an improvement is initiated by a petition of 35% or more of the property owners (in interest), the project can be approved by a single majority vote of the City Council, while if the project is initiated by Council action (or by a petition of less than 35% of the property owners), a 4 /5ths vote of the City Council would be required to approve the project. o Completion of all four alleys would eliminate the City's "No Win" position which currently prevails in these four alleys, by eliminating the need to maintain an "unimproved alley maintenance program." Page Nine May 4, 1989 What steps can the City While this question is difficult to answer, it is take to assure that the my opinion that: installation of alley paving doesn't accentuate o While the speed of vehicles traveling the alley safety problems? may increase immediately after the alley is improved, the speed of vehicles 6 -12 months after construction would be very similar to those which now exist. • If an alley is improved, the City should pay special attention to reducing sight obstructions as a part of that improvement. In the alleys in question many blind spots exist because of shrubs, hedges, fences and other intrusions within the alley right -of -way. By eliminating as many of these as possible, the safety of the alleys can be significantly improved. • State laws have recently been changed to allow the City to post and enforce 10 mile - per -hour speed limit signs in public alleys. I do not recommend installing such signs unless a clear problem exists. However, if a clear problem is documented, the installation and enforcement of this speed limit should be considered - whether the alley is improved or unimproved. Conclusion I recommend that this matter bq and considered by the City Council at its May 8, 1989 meeting. If the Council provides tentative direction at that time, we will then follow -up with a detailed analysis of the financial /funding impacts of those tentative decisions. That analysis, a revised policy resolution, and more detailed feasibility reports on the proposed improvements could be provided for formal consideration by Council at its next meeting. Following is a tentative schedule of proceedings which would allow initiation and completion of some or all of these projects this year: • This report reviewed by City Council 5/8/89 • Detailed cost analyses, formal policy revisions, and feasibility report submitted to Council on 5/22/89 Page Ten May 4, 1989 • Improvement hearing set to be held on 6/12/89 ( Note : individual notices of this hearing would be sent to all property owners, and published in Brooklyn Center Post) • Council approves (or disapproves) projects on 6/12/89 • If project(s) are approved, plans and specs submitted to City Council for approval on 6/26/89 • Open bids on 7/20/89 • Award contract on 7/24/89 • Completion date 9/30/89 Respectfully submitted, Sy Knapp Director of Public Works I w / V ��� �'�■ =i■ emu:, rasa i�■ (ir ■;> �� tiu� w� �:.+w -o t � ■ ,, t■a� .w..; =_ �. i, ■. = = =.• -` � fit` CM Mill NOR COP ;� �"' �—. ■ - - ' ce . 11 mom ■� ELM mc M- ■gym � �; �■i _■ �= �D �� - _ � �q \ �► -900 ilia Im '� � _= ■ ■� / ■ ■/t� -- w- L o��-h n- w Elm mm ..■ — 3 • • Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 75 -89 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A UNIFORM ALLEY IMPROVEMENT POLICY WHEREAS, citizens of the City of Brooklyn Center are becoming interested in improving the alleys abutting their property; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary to adopt a uniform alley improvement policy which establishes certain policies for the construction of and the assessing of the costs for alley improvements; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the following uniform alley improvement policy be adopted relative to construction standards and cost assessment factors: 1. Work items to be included in the total project cost and assessed uniformly over each project in proportion to the dimensions of the property abutting the alley (front footage) shall consist of the following: a) Installation of a 10 -foot wide alley pavement consisting of hot mixed bituminous asphalt. b) Installation of sod in the area between the edge of the alley pavement and the property line or disturbed lawn areas with the costs associated therewith being in relation to the distance between the alley pavement and the property line. c) Restoration of existing permanent driving surfaces requiring removal during alley construction. d) Installation of necessary storm drainage facilities. 2. Driveway provisions: a) All existing gravel, crushed rock, or other driveways that are not hard surfaced shall be replaced with hot mixed bituminous asphalt surfacing between the alley pavement and the property line. b) The cost of an installed bituminous driveway minus the cost of sod restoration for an area equivalent to the driveway shall be added to the uniform assessment rate for respective properties. c The er prop ty owner shall have the prerogative of recommending a driveway width to suit his garage situation and /or parking needs. 3. The special assessment period for alley projects shall be ten (10) Y ears. EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 75-89 May 5, 1975 Date Mayor ATTEST: �....� Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Maurice Britts , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, Tony Kuefler and Robert Jensen; and the following voted against the same: none, absent: Bill Fignar; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. T4tT I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER UNIFORM ALLEY IMPROVEMENT P01ICY T , ."PE OF CONSTRUCTION The Uniform Alley Improvement Policy comprehends constructing a ten (10 foot wide, 2" thick; hot mixed bituminous asphalt alley. The bituminous will be placed on four (4) inches of Class 5 aggregate base material, which is placed on a properly graded and compacted sub - grade. The inverted crown principle of sloping the pavement toward the center of the alley to form a gutter line will be incorporated into the design. The water will flow along the inverted crown gutter line to storm sewer catch basins or to the street gutters at the ends of the alley. When the alley cannot be sloped to drain adequately, additional storm sewer will be installed. RESTORATION The area between the edge of the paved alley and the property line or disturbed yard areas shall be replaced with four (4) inches of black dirt and sodded. DRIVEWAYS Any existing permanent driveway surface that does not match the proposed paved alley grade will be cut back a sufficient distance to adequately adjust the existing surface to match the proposed alley. The driveway surface that is removed will be replaced with hot mixed bituminous asphalt. All gravel, crushed rock, or other driveways that are not hard surfaced shall be replaced with hot mixed bituminous asphalt pavement to the property line. The residents shall have the prerogative of recommending a driveway width to suit their garage situation and /or parking needs. ASSESSMENT Uniform Rate The following work shall be included in the total cost and assessed uniformly over each project in proportion to the dimensions of the property abutting the alley (front footage). :i 1) The cost of installing the ten (10) foot wide paved alley. 2) The cost of sodding the disturbed area between the edge of the paved alley .and the property line or undisturbed area. 3) The cost of restoring existing permanent driveways that require adjustment - during construction. 4) The cost of installing new or modifying existing storm sewer facilities associated with the alley paving projects. Driveways The cost of constructing a hot mixed bituminous asphalt driveway between the paved portion of the alley and the property line where gravel, crushed rock, or other non- hard surfaced driveways exist (minus the cost of sod restoration for an equivalent area) shall be individually computed and added to the uniform assessment for the specific property involved. , All new bituminous pavement construction beyond the alley property limits will be the responsibility of the individual property owner. - Assessment Period and Interest The assessment period for the alley pavement projects shall be ten (10) years and the interest shall be charged at the current rate as determined by the City Council. The unpaid balance may be paid off at any time the property owner desires. nitni7q EXHIBIT B Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 4 RESOLUTION NO. 82 -208 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR INITIATION OF ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary to establish uniform procedures for the initiation of proceedings regarding drainage and surfacing improvements to alleys within the City of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City Council will consider requests or recommendations for drainage and /or surfacing improvements to alleys within the City when: 1. A petition for the improvement is submitted which bears the signatures of at least 30 percent of the number of auners whose properties abut the proposed improvement; or 2. when: a. a petition for the improvement is submitted which bears the signatures of less than 30 percent of the number of owners whose properties abut the proposed improvement; and b. the City Engineer reports to the City Council that existing conditions within the alley are such that significant safety t or health hazards exist, or that existing conditions within the alley endanger private or public properties or improvements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all proceedings regarding proposed alley improvements will be conducted in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, and that the construction standards and cost assessment policy shall be in accordance with Resolution No. 75 -89. �t October 25, 1982 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for th doption of the foregoing.resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following_ voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich.Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. EXHIBIT C 1989 SURVEY RE: ALLEY PAVING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 1. Have you constructed alley paving improvements in residential areas of your City during the past 5 years? If so, what type of paving was installed? Bituminous Concrete ------------------------------------------------ Brooklyn Park N Crystal YES ( X Edina YES X Fridley N Golden Valley N Minnetonka N Robbinsdale YES ( X Roseville YES X y St. Louis Park YES X White Bear Lake N ------------------------------------------------ 2b. What are your design standards? Crystal: See attached detail. Edina: Bituminous - 6" Cl. II Gravel 2" MNDOT 2341 Wear, FA3 Trap Rock Seal Coat, Depress Crown 2" Depression, Concrete 6" Cl. II Gravel Robbinsdale: 6 concrete, non - reinforced - see attached. Roseville: 7 ton 6" Class V, 2" bit. St. Louis Park: See attached typical section. 3. Was it necessary to install storm sewers into the alley, to provide drainage, at the same time that the alley was paved? If yes, describe: Crystal: Yes - copy of plan enclosed (example 1). Edina: Now paid out of storm drainage utility fund. Prior to fund assessed as part of paving project. Robbinsdale: Yes. Prior to adopting our storm drainage utility storm sewers were assessed 100 %. Subsequent to adopting the utility the storm sewers were funded 100% from the storm drainage fund. EXHIBIT D St Louis Park: In some cases it does require storm sewer. This cost is 100% assessed to the entire project. 4. Please describe your policy for special assessment levies to cover a portion or all of the costs of your two most recent improvements: A. For bituminous surfacinz of allevs Crystal: 1. Access: 1987: $8.99 /abutting foot; 1985: $11.12 /abutting foot. 2. Abutting: Same as above 3. Storm sewer: 1987: $,076 /sq ft of lot area; 1985 $.057 /sq ft Roseville: 1. Access: 1981: $2.68/? 2. Abutting: Same as above 3. Storm sewer: 25% of cost when built 4. In general, what percentage of total project costs are recovered by special assessments? Crystal: 100% Edina: 80% Roseville: 25% 5. If the City pays a portion of project costs, please describe the rationale for this. Roseville: Other people use the road and the city wants to upgrade all 3 ton roadways. At 25% assessed most;,,,Vroperty owners don't fight it. 6. If you have a written policy covering sppcial assessments for alley paving, please send a copy. Roseville: Used the street policy 7. If you have made any major changes to your policy in the past 5, years, please describe why. St. Louis Park: Previous policy left gaps in what procedure was to be followed when when access and garages were not in place but could be constructed in the future. B. For Concrete Paving � f Alleys St Louis Park: 1. Access: 1987: $29.81/ff; 1987: 23.96/ff 2. Abutting: 1987: $8.28/ff; 1987: 7.19 /ff 3. Storm sewer; N/A Note: Example 1: 70% direct benefit — 21.52 30% indirect s 8.28 Total $29.81 Edina: 1. Access: 1988: $877/lot; 1984: $1,002 /lot 2. Abutting: Same as above 3. Storm sewer: None Robbinsdale: 1. Access: 1988: $14.50/lf; 1987: 15.03/lf 2. Abutting: Same as above 3. Storm sewer: 1988: from storm sewer fund; 1987: N/A Note: Example #1 for 5 alleys; example #2 for 1 alley Only 2 -4 properties are typically found abutting the alley. Assessment is justified by telling the owners that they have the option to abut the alley. 1 4. In general, what percentage of total project costs are recovered by special assessments to property owners? Edina: 80% Robbinsdale: 100% St Louis Park: 100% 5. If the City pays a portion of project costs, please describe the rationale for this. Edina: City pays for 20% of all concrete paving. Policy set in early 60s on premise concrete costs less to maintain. I ti Robbinsdale: The city has not as of this date. We are, however, considering paying for a portion of the costs for upcoming projects (e. alley adjacent P J g Y to J MnDOT, BNRR property, etc.) 8. Other comments I Robbinsdale: I would not even consider using ituminous for paving alleys. g P g s. Y 1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/22/89 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: REPORT REGARDING COST ESTIMATES, DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION AND PETITION PROCESS RELATING TO IMPROVEMENT OF FOUR UNIMPROVED ALLEYS DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy KNA DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached YES } Explanation On May 8th the City Council approved several changes in the City's policies regarding alley improvements. Based on those policy changes we have developed and sent packets of information to all property owners abutting the four unimproved alleys. The information sent (copies attached) included: • a cover letter • an updated summary of the established policies regarding alley improvements • cost and special assessment information • individualized petitions which property owners may use to petition for or against the improvement of their alley, and to express their preference for bituminous surfacing or concrete paving. We have asked all property owners to return these petitions to our office by May 31st. After receiving the petitions, our office will review, analyze and summarize them, and submit a report covering each of the four alleys to the City Council on June 12th. If, at that time, the City Council decides that there is enough support to conduct a public hearing, the Council would then adopt a resolution accepting the petition and calling for the public hearing to be held. If such resolution is adopted, notices of the public hearing would be sent to every property owner abutting the alley(s) in which improvements are proposed, and a notice of the hearing would be published in the official newspaper - all in accordance with procedures established by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. Following a public hearing(s), the City Council would then vote whether or not to order the improvement(s). i Following is a tentative schedule of proceedings which would allow initiation and completion of some or all of these projects this year: Petitions received 5/31/89 Council adopts resolution accepting petition(s), ordering feasibility report(s), ordering preparation of plans and specifications, and setting date of public hearing(s) 6/12/89 Public hearing held - If City Council approves project(s) the resolution(s) could also approve plans and specifications and authorize advertisement for bids 6/26/89 Open bids 7/20/89 Award contract 7/24/89 Completion date specified 9/30/89 City Council Action Required No action is required at this time. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MAY, 1989 UNIFORM ALLEY IMPROVEMENT POLICY PROJECT INITIATION The City Council will consider requests or recommendations for improvements to alleys when: (a) at least thirty (30) percent of owners of property abutting the alley petition the Council for such an improvement; or (b) when fewer than thirty (30) percent of owners of property abutting the alley petition the Council but where the City Engineer deems that existing conditions within the alley are such that significant safety or health hazards exist, or that existing conditions within the alley endanger private or public properties or improvements. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION The type of construction for alley paving shall be either: (a) A ten (10) foot wide, two (2) inch thick hot mixed bituminous pavement placed on four (4) inches of aggregate base material, which is placed on a properly graded and compacted subgrade; or (b) A ten (10) foot wide, six (6) inch thick concrete pavement placed on a properly graded and compacted subgrade. (Note: this type of construction is recommended in alleys with flat grades so as to allow accurate control of centerline grades and to improve the ability to meet existing driveways, garages, and yards.) The inverted crown principle of sloping the pavement toward the center of the P g P alley to form a gutter line will be incorporated into the design. The water will flow along the inverted crown gutter line to storm sewer catch basins or to the street gutters at the ends of the alley. When the alley cannot be sloped to drain adequately, additional storm sewer will be installed. RESTORATION The area between the edge of the paved alley and the property line or disturbed yard areas shall be replaced with four (4) inches of black dirt and sodded. DRIVEWAYS Any existing permanent driveway surface that does not match the proposed paved alley grade will be cut back a sufficient distance to adequately adjust the existing surface to match the proposed alley. The type of driveway surface that is used to match existing driveways to the new alley pavement will be as follows: (a) If a bituminous alley pavement is installed, all replacement driveway surfacing will be completed with hot mixed bituminous pavement; or (b) If a concrete alley pavement is installed, all replacement driveway surfacing will be of the same type as is in place on the existing driveway. All gravel, crushed rock, or other driveways that are not hard surfaced shall be replaced with hot mixed bituminous pavement or concrete to the property line. The property owners shall have the prerogative of recommending a driveway type and width to suit their garage situation and /or parking needs. COST DISTRIBUTION Where it is necessary to install a storm sewer to provide drainage for the alley, the City will pay the cost of such storm sewer from general City funding sources. All other costs for the alley improvements shall be levied as special assessments to abutting properties on the basis of the following policy. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY Special assessments for the cost of improving the alley shall be levied on a per buildable lot basis. Where a lot could be legally subdividable, additional units will be assessed. Forty percent of the improvement cost shall be assessed equally to all owners of lots abutting the alley. The remaining sixty percent shall be assessed equally to all owners of lots utilizing the alley for access. The following work shall be included in the total cost assessed to property owners in accordance with the rate policy described above: 1) The cost of installing the ten (10) foot wide paved alley, including subgrade and base preparation. 2) The cost of sodding the disturbed area between the edge of the paved alley and the property line or undisturbed area. 3) The cost of restoring existing permanent driveways that require adjustment during construction. Driveways .s The cost of constructing a hot mixed bituminous asphalt or concrete driveway between the paved portion of the alley and the property line where gravel, crushed rock, or other non -hard surfaced driveways exist (minus the cost of sod restoration for an equivalent area) shall be individually computed and added to the assessment for the specific property involved. All new bituminous or concrete pavement construction beyond the alley property limits shall be the responsibility of the individual property owner Assessment Period and Interest The assessment period for the alley pavement projects shall be ten (10) years for bituminous and twenty (20) years for concrete improvements. Interest shall be charged at the current rate as determined by the City Council. The unpaid balance may be paid off in full at any time the property owner desires. Calculation of Special Assessment Costs Improvement of Four Alleys (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) # of COST PER PROPERTY Direct TOTAL COST - - Storm - - - NET COST - - - - 60% DIRECT COST - - 40% REMAINING COST - Access $ of - - Bituminous - - - - Concrete - - Sewer ACCESS Proper- Proper- Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Alley Bituminous Concrete Cost Bituminous Concrete Bituminous Concrete Bituminous Concrete ties ties Access Access Access Access I Fremont /Emerson I I I I I I I 1 155th to 57th I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 $79,400 $105,500 I $31,300 I $48,100 $74,200 I 28,860 44,520 1 19,240 29,680 1 20 30 1 $2,084.33 $641.33 1 $3,215.33 $989.33 1 I I I I I I I I 1 IFremont /Girard I I I I I I I 1 154th to 55th I I I I I I I I I 2 32,100 48,700 i 17,300 i 14,800 31,400 i 8,880 18,840 i 5,920 12,560 i 15 18 i 920.89 328.89 i 1,953.78 697.78 I Fremont /Emerson I I I I I I I 153rd to 54th I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I 1 3 33,100 39,950 I 16,300 I 16,800 23,650 I 10,080 14,190 1 6,720 9,460 1 19 22 I 835.98 305.45 1 1,176.84 430.00 1 I I I I I I I I 1 ILakeview /Twin Lake Av I I I I I I I 1 ILakeside to Lakebreeze I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 4 19,000 30,000 I 0 I 19,000 30,000 1 11,400 18,000 1 7,600 12,000 I 6 12 1 2,533.33 633.33 ( 4,000.00 1,000.00 1 I I I I I I- 18-May-89 dfs NOTE ON COST PER PROPERTY: 60% of the net cost is divided equally among those properties using the alley for access. SPASSESS:alleysum The remaining 40X is divided equally among all properties abutting the alley. DEFERRED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 435.193 to 435.195, the City Council may, at its discretion, defer the payment of a special assessment for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older, or by a person retired due to a permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make a payment. The City Council has established the following qualifying conditions for applicants for deferred payment of special assessments: 1. Applicant must be 65 years of age or older, or retired due to permanent and total disability. 2. The applicant's annual income shall not exceed $16,900. 3. The aggregate total of previous special assessment installments plus the first year installment of the current levy must exceed two (2) percent of the applicant's annual income. The applicant will be required to pay up to two (2) percent of his or her annual income toward the special assessment; any excess can be deferred. 4. Special assessments levied due to an applicant failure to pay charges for City services or failure to comply with City codes are not eligible for deferment and will not be included in calculating the aggregate total of annual special assessment installments. When deferment of a special assessment terminates, for any reason provided in the law, all amounts of accumulated plus applicable interest become due. Further information regarding deferred assessments and application forms are available at the City Clerk's office. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6j1 ?/89 Agenda Item Number " REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: FOUR RESOLUTIONS RELATING TO ALLEY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS NOTE INDIVIDUAL FEASIBILITY REPORTS AND RESOLUTIONS ARE PROVIDED FOR EACH PROJECT *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: su lemental sheets attached Y ( pp shed es Explanation At the May 8 and May 22 City Council meetings, staff presented reports regarding the status of the four remaining unpaved alleys in the City. Based on the Council's discussion and direction at those meetings, packets of information were sent to all property owners abutting the four unimproved alleys. The information packets which were sent included: • a cover letter • an updated summary of the established policies regarding alley improvements • cost and special assessment information • individualized petitions which property owners could use to petition for the improvement or to petition in opposition to the improvement in their alley, and to express their preference for bituminous surfacing or concrete paving. The attached feasibility reports include a tabulation of the petitions submitted. Petitions supporting the projects by at least 50% of the property .owners were received on two projects. On the other two projects less than 30% of all property owners supported the project. However, when analyzed on the basis of total special assessments to be levied, based on the newly- adopted two - tiered assessment policy, the petitions supporting those two projects represent a 31.27% and 31.67% (respectively) support level for those two projects. Following is a summary of the petition responses for all four alleys: SUMMARY OF PETITION RESPONSES Support or Opposition to Project Support For Project Based # Of Petitions % Of Petitions On Special Property Total Supporting Total Opposing No Assessments Owners Responses Project Possible Project Response To Be Levied Fremont - Girard/ 55th - 57th 30 26 8 26.7% 18 4 31.7% Girard - Humboldt/ 54th - 55th 18 14 9 50.0% 5 4 44.0% Emerson - Fremont/ 53rd - 54th 24 17 14 58.3% 3 7 61.2% Lakeview - Twin Lake/ Lakeside - Lakebreeze 11 7 2 18.2% 5 4 31.3% Type of Surface Preferred Concrete Bituminous No Choice Fremont - Girard/ 55th - 57th 5 17 4 Girard d Hu mboldt/ 54th - 55th 6 7 1 Emerson - Fremont/ 53rd - 54th 8 7 2 Lakeview - Twin Lake/ Lakeside - Lakebreeze 0 6 1 in addition to this information regarding the petition responses, I wish to note the following: o The alley between Fremont and Girard Avenues from 55th to 57th Avenues is undoubtedly the worst alley in the City, in terms of physical condition and the City's inability to maintain it. As noted in my feasibility report, it is my opinion that these existing conditions result in significant safety and health hazards. I therefore recommend that the Council consider proceeding with this proposed improvement. o The dead end alley between Lakeview Avenue and Twin Lake Avenue from Lakebreeze Avenue to Lakeside Avenue is only partially developed and used at this time. At a public hearing, discussion and consideration could be given to paving only the portion of the alley which is being used, and possibly vacating the unused portion. Accordingly, I recommend that the Council formally commence proceedings and conduct public hearings on all four of these projects. Following the public hearings the Council members would then consider each project individually, based on all information available to them at that time. A 4 /5ths vote would be required to order the construction of any of these projects. I also recommend that the public hearings be conducted to include both the bituminous surfacing option and the concrete paving option. Again, the Council would have more complete information available following the public hearing to make this selection. Following is a tentative schedule of proceedings which would allow initiation and completion of some or all of these projects this year: Council adopts resolution accepting petitions(s), ordering feasibility report(s), ordering preparation of plans and specifications, and setting date of public hearings(s) 6/12/89 Public hearing held - If City Council approves project(s) the resolution(s) could also approve plans and specifications and authorize advertisement for bids 6/26/89 Open bids 7/20/89 Award contract 7/24/89 Completion date specified 9/30/89 City Council Action Reguired Consideration of each of the attached resolutions. L r CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE C ENTER 911 May 19, 1989 RE: Alley Between Fremont and Girard Avenues From 55th to 57th Avenues Dear Property Owner: The alley in your block is one of four remaining unpaved alleys in Brooklyn Center. Improvements to that alley have been considered at various times over the past several years. However, each time it has been considered, numerous questions and objections have been raised by the affected property owners. Because it was apparent that many of the questions and objections which related to the City's policies regarding special assessments for this type of improvement were valid, the City Council recently approved four substantive changes to the previously - established policies. These changes are summarized as follows: 1. Previously, special assessments for alley improvement costs were made on the basis of linear feet of abutting lot. Owners with larger lots were assessed a larger proportion of the costs than owners of smaller lots, even though they received no additional benefit. The Council approved a change in policy to provide the assessment of costs on a per buildable lot basis. Owners of single lots of varying sizes will be assessed equal shares of the costs. Where a lot could be legally subdivided, additional "units" will be ' assessed. 2. Previously, owners of all lots abutting an alley were assessed for alley improvements at an equal rate, whether or not they used the alley for access. The Council approved a new two - tiered assessment policy. Under the new policy, forty percent of the assessable cost of improving the alley will be assessed equally to all owners of lots abutting the alley, while the remaining sixty percent will be assessed equally to all owners of lots utilizing the alley for access. We believe this two tiered system will result in assessments that more equitably reflect the benefit received, between owners who rely on the alley for access and those who do not. "MUL-MUMAM _� May 19, 1989 Page 2 3. Previously, alleys were to be constructed only of bituminous material. The Council has approved the use of concrete in some cases. While concrete is more durable (i.e,, it has a life expectancy of 25 to 30 years vs. the 10 to 15 year life expectancy for a bituminous alley), it is more expensive. Where conditions warrant, bituminous will continue to be used. Note: Regarding the alley in your block, City staff strongly recommends the use of concrete because the grades in this alley are very flat. With the use of concrete, we will be able to much more accurately control y o the grade of the pavement, thereby assuring a much more positive drainage pattern, and a much better ability to match the grade of the alley to the levels of your garage, driveway, and /or yard. However, the City Council does wish to receive your opinion regarding the use of concrete paving vs. bituminous paving. 4. Previously, property owners were assessed the cost of any storm sewer improvements required. The Council has approved a change in policy to provide that, where storm sewers are required, the costs for installing the storm sewer will be paid by City funds. Note: Regarding the alley in your block, a storm sewer is needed to provide positive drainage. If the alley is improved, the estimated $43,100 cost for that storm sewer will not be assessed, but will be paid for from other City funding sources. Enclosed is a copy of the City's complete current policy for alley improvements, including the new revisions noted above. Also enclosed is a petition form which provides you with an opportunity to request that the alley in your block be improved this year or to oppose such an improvement. In addition, the provides an opportunity for you to express your preference for concrete paving vs, bituminous paving. We ask that you reply to both parts so that, even if you oppose the improvement, the City Council will know your preference regarding type of surface if a decision is made to improve the alley. Please review the enclosed materials and return your petition form by Wednesday_ May 31, 1989. In accordance with the established policy, if 30% or more of the property owners in your block petition the Council to improve the alley, the Council would then conduct a public hearing on the proposal (probably in late June). Notices of the hearing would be sent to each of you and, of course, the City Council would welcome your attendance and your comments and q uestions at that hearing. Following the public hearing, the City Council would then decide whether or not to proceed with the improvement. If that decision is made in late June, bids for construction would be requested in accordance with established State laws regarding public contracts, and a contract could be awarded in late July, with completion n s ecified for or late Se tember 1989. P P May 19, 1989 Page 3 Again, we ask that you complete, sign, and return the enclosed petition to this office by May 31, 1989. If you have any questions about this information, or about the improvement process, please contact me. Sincerely, Sy Knapp Director of Public Works Enclosures SK: jn i ALLEY IMPROVEMENT PETITION CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA RE: Alley Between Fremont and Girard Avenues From 55th to 57th Avenues TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER: 1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 I (we) the undersigned, owners of real property abutting on the above - described alley, hereby petition (or oppose) that such alley be improved in accordance with the City's currently - established policy for such improvements (check one): I (we) petition for this improvement I (we) petition in opposition to this improvement 2. Whether I (we) support this improvement, or oppose it, if the improvement is ordered by the City Council after formal proceedings and public hearing, I (we) prefer the following tpe of alley surfacing (check one): Bituminous Surface Concrete Pavement Name(s): (please print) Signature: Address (or legal description) of property abutting this ir4provement: Mailing Address (if different than the address of the property): Date NOTE Please return this petition by May 31, 1989 to: City of Brooklyn Center Engineering Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 I ' Engineer's Report Alley Improvement Project No. 1989 -08 F PROJECT LOCATION: Alley between Fremont Avenue and Girard Avenue from 55th Avenue to 57th Avenue PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Alley Improvement Project No. 1989 -08 Grading, Base, Bituminous or Concrete Paving and Landscape Restoration DISCUSSION: The City has received petitions both supporting and opposing the improvement of this alley. In addition, the petitions expressed their preference regarding the type of surfacing to be installed if the improvement is ordered by the City Council. Following is a summary of the petitions received through today (June 7, 1989): Total number of property owners = 30 Number % Property owners who petitioned in support of improvement. 8 27 Property owners who petitioned in opposition to improvement. 18 60 Property owners who did not submit petition either supporting or opposing improvement. 4 13 Totals 30 100% Alternate Petition Analysis Because the currently adopted policy (copy attached) relating to alley improvements provides that forty percent of the improvement costs (not including storm sewer installation costs which are not to be specially assessed) shall be assessed equally to all owners of lots abutting the alley, and that the remaining sixty percent shall be assessed equally to all owners of lots utilizing the alley for access, the following formula has been developed to show the petition responses on the basis of financial interest (i.e. - total dollars of assessments to be levied): if A — total number of petitioners who support the improvement and B — total number of petitioners who use the alley for access who support the improvement and X — total number of property owners abutting the alley and Y — total number of property owners who use the alley for access then: the percentage of support for the improvement, on the basis of financial interest (i.e. total dollars of special A B assessments to be levied) X X 40 + Y X 60 Engineer's Report Project 1989 -08 Page 2 Application of this formula shows the following level of support for the 8 X 40 + 7 X 60 32� improvement: = 30 20 Preference Regarding Type of Resurfacing Of those who submitted petitions, the following preferences were expressed regarding the type of surfacing to be installed if the improvement is ordered by the City Council: Number % Prefer Bituminous Surfacing = 17 77 Prefer Concrete Paving = 5 23 Totals 22 100% Evaluation of Existing Conditions and Proposed Improvement This is a 2 -block long alley which abuts 30 individual lots. Of these, 19 have garages with access to the alley while 11 do not use the alley for access at this time. This alley has a low point in the middle of the block with no outlet. As a result, the alley, several adjacent properties and some garages abutting the alley get flooded frequently, and it is impossible to maintain this alley in good condition - or even in fair condition. Installation of a storm sewer is mandatory if this alley is to be improved. It is my opinion that existing conditions in this alley are such that significant safety and health problems exist, and that they endanger both private properties and public improvements. Regarding the type of paving to be used if this alley is to be improved, the following comments are offered: Type of Paving Advantages Disadvantages Bituminous 0 Less Expensive - works • It is not possible to well when centerline accurately control grades so grades of 1.0% or as to meet existing driveways greater can be and garages while also developed (these developing a good centerline grades cannot be grade. accomplished in this alley. • Has a short (10 -15 year) life expectancy. • Because grades are always critical, future overlay of a bituminous alley will cause new drainage problems. I Engineer's Report Project 1989 -08 Page 3 Type of Paving Advantages Disadvantages Concrete • Provides maximum • Substantially more expensive. ability to control grades, so as to • Does not comply to existing match existing driveways policy. and garages, and to assure positive drainage. • Has a 25 -30 year life expectancy. Financial Considerations Following is a summary of estimated project costs for this improvement, showing costs for both surfacing alternates: Bituminous Concrete Surfacing Paving Construction contract costs $57,500* $76,100* Contingency (15 %) 8.625 11,400 Subtotal 66,125 87,500 Engineering Costs (8 %) 5,325 7,600 Administrative Costs (1%) 650 850 Legal Costs (1 %) 650 850 Capitalized Interest Costs (10 %) 6,650 8.700 Total Project Costs 79,400* 105,500* Less Storm Sewer Costs (including all additive costs) 31,300* 31,300* Net Project Costs to be Assessed $48,100 $74,200 *Note: These cost estimates are based on the ability to obtain an easement across private property in mid - block, so as to allow the storm sewer to be connected. If no easement is obtained, the City's costs for the storm sewer would increase by $11,800. This would not affect the amounts to be assessed. Estimated Special Assessments Based on the above cost estimates and the current assessment policies, the following tabulation shows the total assessments to be levied against "direct access" and "indirect access" properties, based on the alternate types of surfacing, and it shows the annual installments for each option. Engineer's Report Project 1989 -08 Page 4 a ALLEY 1 FREMONT /GIRARD FROM 55TH TO 57TH DIRECT ACCESS INDIRECT ACCESS PROPERTIES PROPERTIES Bituminous Concrete Bituminous Concrete 10 Yrs 20 Yrs 10 Yrs 20 Yrs - Principle: $2,084.33 $3,215.33 $641.33 $989.33 Year ---- - - - - -- ---------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ------------------ 1 $469.47 $563.68 $144.80 $174.13 2 396.02 466.22 121.85 143.45 3 375.18 450.15 115.44 138.51 4 354.34 434.07 109.03 133.56 5 333.49 417.99 102.61 128.61 6 312.65 401.92 96.20 123.67 7 291.81 385.84 89.79 118.72 8 270.96 369.76 83.37 113.77 9 250.12 353.69 76.96 108.83 10 229.21 337.61 70.48 103.88 11 321.53 98.93 12 305.46 93.99 13 289.38 89.04 14 273.30 84.09 15 257.23 79.15 18 17 241.15 74.20 225.07 69.25 19 209.00 64.31 20 192.92 59.36 176.73 54.34 TOTAL $3,283.25 $6,672.70 $1,010.52 $2,053.79 NOTES: The costs and payment schedule shown here are estimates and for illustration only. Many factors may affect the final cost. For example, these costs assume that only one alley is being improved. If more than one alley project is approved, the actual cost may be less because of economies of scale. Each payment includes one tenth (or twentieth) of the principle, plus interest on the remaining principle. The first years' payment includes fifteen months' interest (starting from when the levy is is assessed in October) and a Hennepin County lump -sum service charge of $.05 year (a total of $.50 for bituminous and $1.00 for concrete). Subsequent payments include twelve months' interest. Assessments may be paid in full at any time. Senior citizens and persons with a total and permanent disability may be eligible for a Hardship Deferment (see statement on the back of this page). 18 -May -89 dfs SPASSESS :alleyl w Engineer's Report Project 1989 -08 Page 5 DEFERRED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 435.193 to 435.195, the City Council may, at its discretion, defer the payment of a special assessment for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older, or by a person retired due to a permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make a payment. The City Council has established the following qualifying conditions for applicants for deferred payment of special assessments: 1. Applicant must be 65 years of age or older, or retired due to permanent and total disability. 2. The applicant's annual income shall not exceed $16,900. 3. The aggregate total of previous special assessment installments plus the first year installment of the current levy must exceed two (2) percent of the applicant's annual income. The applicant will be required to pay up to two (2) percent of his or her annual income toward the special assessment; any excess can be deferred. 4. Special assessments levied due to an applicant failure to pay charges for City services or failure to comply with City codes are not eligible for deferment and will not be included in calculating the aggregate total of annual special assessment installments. When deferment of a special assessment terminates, for any reason provided in the law, all amounts of accumulated plus applicable interest become due. Further information regarding deferred assessments and application forms are available at the City Clerk's office. I Engineer's Report Project 1989 -08 Page 6 j Summary This project is feasible under the conditions referenced and at the costs estimated. Some "quantity savings" should be realized if more than one of the alleys currently under consideration are improved under the same contract. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. Sylvester,/P. K app Registration No. 6242 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 89 -113 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITIONS, COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS ON IMPROVEMENT, RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -08 WHEREAS petitions have been submitted in support of, and in opposition to proposed surfacing improvements in the following described alley; Between Fremont Avenue and Girard Avenue From 55th Avenue to 57th Avenue . AND WHEREAS the Director of Public Works /City Engineer has submitted a report to the City Council as to the feasibility of the proposed improvement and he has advised the Council that existing conditions within this alley are such that significant safety and health hazards exist; and WHEREAS the City Council wishes to give further consideration to the proposed improvement, to conduct a hearing on the proposed improvement, and to assess the benefited properties for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 if the improvement is ordered constructed after such further consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn yn Center, Minnesota, that. 1. It is hereby proposed to construct a surfacing improvement in the following described alley: Between Fremont Avenue and Girard Avenue From 55th Avenue to 57th Avenue .F 2. The petitions both supporting and opposing the proposed improvement are hereby accepted. 3. The proposed project will be designated as Project No. 1989 -08. 4. The report prepared and submitted by the Director of Public Works /City Engineer is hereby accepted. 5. The Council will consider the improvement in accordance with the report and the assessment of benefited property as detailed in the report for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an P estimated total cost of the improvement of $79,400 for bituminous and $105,500 for concrete. 6. A public hearing shall be held on the proposed improvement on the 26th day of June, 1989, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 8 :00 p.m. local time, and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -113 June 12, 1989 Date Mayo ATTEST: , Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyguist, Todd Paulson, and Philip Cohen, and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. iT l CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 :BYROOKLYN TELEPHONE 561 -5440 CENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE -.FIRE 911 June 13, 1989 Dear Property Owner: At 8:00 P.M. on Monday, June 26, 1989, the Brooklyn Center City Council will conduct a public hearing on the proposed improvement of the alley in your block. Enclosed is a copy of the official "Notice of Public Hearing ". Also attached are copies of the following items: • the resolution adopted by the City Council on June 12, 1989 • the Engineer's Report regarding this project • the "Uniform Alley Improvement Policy" dated May, 1989. Please note that both surfacing alternates, bituminous and concrete, will be considered and discussed at the hearing. Following the hearing, the City Council will decide (1) whether or not to proceed with the improvement, and (2) if the decision is made to proceed, which type of surfacing will be used. The hearing is an opportunity for you to express an opinion on the proposed improvement, if you desire to do so. We wish to emphasize that no decision has been made on whether or not to proceed with this project. The City Council will consider your comments and input before making that decision. You are encouraged to call the City Engineering Department at 561 -5440, if you need additional information or have a question which could be resolved in advance of the meeting. Yours very truly, Sy Knapp Director of Public Works Enclosures SK: jn , rou muunu an i f CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 5543 BROOKLYN TELEPHONE 561 -5440 13 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE.-FIRE 911 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Brooklyn Center will meet in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway at 8:00 p.m. on June 26, 1989 to consider the making of surfacing improvements in the following described alley: Between Fremont Avenue and Girard Avenue From 55th Avenue to 57th Avenue Improvement Project No. 1989 -08 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapters 429.011 to 429.111. The area proposed to be assessed for such improvement is the property abutting such alley. The estimated cost of such improvement is $79,400 if bituminous surfacing is selected and is $105,500 if concrete paving is selected. Such persons as desire to bel with reference to the proposed improvement will be heard at this meeting. S , _/�/' D. K. Weeks City Clerk Published in the Brooklyn Center Post on June 14 and 21, 1989 MAU.MUW.C. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 E TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C NTERE EMERGENCY- POLICE.- FIRE 911 May 19, 1989 RE: Alley Between Girard and Humboldt Avenues From 54th to 55th Avenues Dear Property Owner: The alley in your block is one of four remaining unpaved alleys in Brooklyn Center. Improvements to that alley have been considered at various times over the past several years. However, each time it has been considered, numerous questions and objections have been raised by the affected property owners. Because it was apparent that many of the questions and objections which related to the City's policies regarding special assessments for this type of improvement were valid, the City Council recently approved four substantive changes to the previously - established policies. These changes are summarized as follows: 1. Previously, special assessments for alley improvement costs were made on the basis of linear feet of abutting lot. Owners with larger lots were assessed a larger proportion of the costs than owners of smaller lots, even though they received no additional benefit. The Council approved a change in policy to provide the assessment of costs on a per buildable lot basis. Owners of single lots of varying sizes will be assessed equal shares of the costs. Where a lot could be legally subdivided, additional "units" will be assessed. 2. Previously, owners of all lots abutting an alley were assessed for alley improvements at an equal rate, whether or not they used the alley for access. The Council approved a new two - tiered assessment policy. Under the new policy, forty percent of the assessable cost of improving the alley will be assessed equally to all owners of lots abutting the alley, while the remaining sixty percent will be assessed equally to all owners of lots utilizing the alley for access. We believe this two tiered system will result in assessments that more equitably reflect the benefit received, between owners who rely on the alley for access and those who do not. C C . UL.MUM.M May 19, 1989 Page 2 3. Previously, alleys were to be constructed only of bituminous material. The Council has approved the use of concrete in some cases. While concrete is more durable (i.e., it has a life expectancy of 25 to 30 years.vs. the 10 to 15 year life expectancy for a bituminous alley), it is more expensive. Where conditions warrant, bituminous will continue to be used. Note: Regarding the alley in your block, City staff strongly recommends the use of concrete because the grades in this alley are very flat. With the use of concrete, we will be able to much more accurately control the grade of the pavement, thereby assuring a much more positive drainage pattern, and a much better ability to match the grade of the alley to the levels of your garage, driveway, and /or yard. However, the City Council does wish to receive your opinion regarding the use of concrete paving vs. bituminous paving. 4. Previously, property owners were assessed the cost of any storm sewer improvements required. The Council has approved a change in policy to provide that, where storm sewers are required, the costs for installing the storm sewer will be paid by City funds. Note: Regarding the alley in your block, a storm sewer is needed to provide positive drainage. If the alley is improved, the estimated $20,400 cost for that storm sewer will not be assessed, but will be paid for from other City funding sources. Enclosed is a copy of the City's complete current policy for alley improvements, including the new revisions noted above. Also enclosed is a petition form which rovides you with an opportunity P unit Y PP Y to request that the alley in youz,block be improved this year or to oppose such an improvement. In addition, the form provides an opportunity for you to express your preference for concrete paving vs. bituminous paving. We ask that you reply to bo P y th arts so that even n if you oppose the improvement, the City Council will 1 know your preference regarding type of surface if a decision is made g g YP to improve the alley. Y Please review the enclosed materials and return your petition form by Wednesday May 31, 1989. In accordance with the established policy, if 30% or more of the property owners in your block petition the Council to improve the alley, the Council would then conduct a public hearing on the proposal (probably in late June). Notices of the hearing would be sent to each of you and, of course, the City Council would welcome your attendance and your comments and questions at that hearing. Following the public hearing, the City Council would then decide whether or not to proceed with the improvement. If that decision is made in late June, bids for construction would be requested in accordance with established State laws regarding public contracts, and a contract could be awarded in late July, with completion specified for late September, 1989. 1 May 19, 1989 Page 3 Again, we ask that you complete, sign, and return the enclosed petition to this office by May 31, 1989. If you have any questions about this information, or about the improvement process, please contact me. Sinccereell , J Sy Knapp Director of Public Works Enclosures SK: jn ALLEY IMPROVEMENT PETITION CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA RE: Alley Between Girard and Humboldt Avenues From 54th to 55th Avenues TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER: 1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 I (we) the undersigned, owners of real property abutting on the above - described alley, hereby petition (or oppose) that such alley be improved in accordance with the City's currently - established policy for such improvements (check one): I (we) petition for this improvement I (we) petition in opposition to this improvement 2. Whether I (we) support this improvement, or oppose it, if the improvement is ordered by the City Council after formal proceedings and public hearing, I (we) prefer the following tpe of alley surfacing (check one): Bituminous Surface Concrete Pavement Name(s): (please print) Signature: Address (or legal description) of property abutting this i4rovement: Mailing Address (if different than the address of the property): Date: NOTE Please return this petition by May 31, 1989 to City of Brooklyn Center Engineering Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 1 Engineer's Report Alley Improvement Project No. 1989 -15 PROJECT LOCATION: Alley between Girard Avenue and Humboldt Avenue from 54th Avenue to 55th Avenue PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Alley Improvement Project No. 1989 -15 Grading, Base, Bituminous or Concrete Paving and Landscape Restoration DISCUSSION: The City has received petitions both supporting and opposing the improvement of this alley. In addition, the petitions expressed their preference regarding the type of surfacing to be installed if the improvement is ordered by the City Council. Following is a summary of the petitions received through today (June 7, 1989): Total number of property owners — 18 Number Property owners who petitioned in support of improvement. 9 50 Property owners who petitioned in opposition to improvement. 5 28 Property owners who did not submit petition either supporting or opposing improvement. 4 22 Totals 18 100% Alternate Petition Analysis Because the currently adopted policy (copy attached) relating to alley improvements provides that forty percent of the improvement costs (not including storm sewer installation costs which are not to be specially assessed) shall be assessed equally to all owners of lots abutting the alley, and that the remaining sixty percent shall be assessed equally to all owners of lots utilizing the alley for access, the following formula has been developed to show the petition responses on the basis of financial interest (i.e. - total dollars of assessments to be levied): if A — total number of petitioners who support the improvement and B — total number of petitioners who use the alley for access who support the improvement and X — total number of property owners abutting the alley and Y — total number of property owners who use the alley for access then: • the percentage of support for the improvement, on the basis of financial interest (i.e. total dollars of special A X 40 + B X 60 assessments to be levied) X Y Engineer's Report Project 1989 -15 Page 2 Application of this formula shows the following level of support for the 9 X 40 + 6 improvement: X 60 44$ = 18 15 Preference Re arding Type of Resurfacing Of those who submitted petitions, the following preferences were expressed regarding the type of surfacing to be installed if the improvement is ordered by the City Council: Number % Prefer Bituminous Surfacing = 7 54 Prefer Concrete Paving = 6 46 Totals 13 100% Evaluation of Existing Conditions and Proposed Improvement This is a 1 -block alley which abuts 19 lots. Of these, 15 have garages with access to the alley while 4 do not use the alley for access at this time. While the alley does not have a low point, the grades are so flat that installation of a storm sewer is required to assure proper drainage. Even with a storm sewer, control of grades is critical in matching grades to existing driveways and garages. Regarding the type of paving to be used if this alley is to be improved, the following comments are offered: tt tt Type of Paving Advantages Disadvantages Bituminous Less Expensive - works • It is not possible to well when centerline accurately control grades so grades of 1.0% or as to meet existing driveways greater can be and garages while also developed (these grades developing a good centerline grade. cannot be accomplished in this alley). • Has a short (10 -15 year) life expectancy. • Because grades are always critical, future overlay of a bituminous alley will cause new drainage problems. Engineer's Report Project 1989 -15 Page 3 Type of Paving Advantages Disadvantages Concrete • Provides maximum • Substantially more expensive. ability to control grades, so as to • Does not comply to existing match existing driveways policy. and garages, and to assure positive drainage. • Has a 25 -30 year life expectancy. Financial Considerations Following is a summary of estimated project costs for this improvement, showing costs for both surfacing alternates: Bituminous Concrete Surfacing Paving Construction contract costs $24,060* $35,600- Contingency (15 %) 3,000 5,340 Subtotal 27,060 40,940 Engineering Costs (8 %) 1,800 2,960 Administrative Costs (1 %) 270 400 Legal Costs (1%) 270 400 Capitalized Interest Costs (10 %) 2,600 4,000 Total Project Costs 32,100* 48,700' Less Storm Sewer Costs , (including all additive costs) 17,300* 17,300* Net Project Costs to be Assessed $14,800 $31,400 *Note: These cost estimates are based on the ability to obtain an easement across private property in mid - block, so as to allow the storm sewer to be connected. If no easement is obtained, the City's costs for the storm sewer would increase by $3,100. This would not affect the amounts to be assessed. Estimated Special Assessments Based on the above cost estimates and the current assessment policies, the following tabulation shows the total assessments to be levied against "direct access" and "indirect access" properties, based on the alternate types of surfacing, and it shows the annual installments for each option. Engineer's Report ' Project 1989 -15 Page 4 GIRARD/HUMBOLDT LLEY TO 55TH DIRECT ACCESS INDIRECT ACCESS PROPERTIES PROPERTIES Bituminous Concrete Bituminous Concrete - - -` 10 Yrs 20 Yrs 10 Yrs 20 Yrs Principle: $920.89 - - - -- $1,953.78- ----- $328.89 - - - - -- $697.78 Year - - - - -- ---------------------------- -------------------------- $207.70 $342.91 $74.50 $123.11 2 174.97 283.30 62.49 101.18 3 165.76 273.53 59.20 97.69 4 156.55 263.76 55.91 94.20 5 147.34 253.99 52.62 90.71 6 138.13 244.22 49.33 87.22 7 128.92 234.45 46.04 83.73 8 119.72 224.68 42.76 80.24 9 110.51 214.92 39.47 76.76 11 101.29 205.15 36.17 73.27 12 195.38 69.78 13 185.61 66.29 175.84 62.80 4 166.07 59.31 15 156.30 55.82 17 146.53 52.33 18 136.76 48.84 19 127.00 45.36 20 117.23 41.87 107.44 38.36 TOTAL $1,450.89 $4,055.07 $518.49 $1,448.87 t NOTES: The costs and payment schedule shown here are estimates and for tors example, these only alley is being cost. For improved. If more than one alley project is approved, the actual cost may be less because of economies of scale. Each payment includes one tenth (or twentieth) of the principle, plus interest on the remaining principle. The first years' payment includes fifteen months' interest (starting from when the levy is is assessed in October) and a Hennepin County lump -sum service charge of $.05 year (a total of $.50 for bituminous and $1.00 for concrete). Subsequent payments include twelve months' interest. Assessments may be paid in full at any time. Senior citizens and persons with a total and permanent disability may be eligible for a Hardship Deferment (see statement on the back of this page). 19-May-89 dfs SPASSESS :alley2 r Engineer's Report Project 1989 -15 Page 5 DEFERRED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 435.193 to 435.195, the City Council may, at its discretion, defer the payment of a special assessment for any homestead Property owned by a person 65 years of age or older, or by a person retired due to a permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make a payment. The City Council has established the following qualifying conditions for applicants for deferred payment of special assessments: 1. Applicant must be 65 years of age or older, or retired due to permanent and total disability. 2. The applicant's annual income shall not exceed $16,900. 3. The aggregate total of previous special assessment installments plus the first year installment of the current levy must exceed two (2) percent of the applicant's annual income. The applicant will be required to pay up to two (2) percent of his or her annual income toward the special assessment; any excess can be deferred. 4. Special assessments levied due to an applicant failure to pay charges for City services or failure to comply with City codes are not eligible for deferment and will not be included in calculating the aggregate total of annual special assessment installments. :Li tit When deferment of a "special assessment terminates, for any reason provided in the law, all amounts of accumulated plus applicable interest become due. Further information regarding deferred assessments and application forms are available at the City Clerk's office. Engineer's Report " Project 1989 -15 Page 6 Summary This project is feasible under the conditions referenced and at the costs. estimated. Some "quantity savings" should be realized if more than one of the i alleys currently nder consideration are improved under the same Y p contract. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. Sylvester Knapp Registration No. 6242 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 89 -114 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITIONS, COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS ON IMPROVEMENT, RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -15 WHEREAS petitions have been submitted in support of, and in opposition to proposed surfacing improvements in the following described alley; Between Girard Avenue and Humboldt Avenue From 54th Avenue to 55th Avenue .s AND WHEREAS the Director of Public Works /City Engineer has submitted a report to the City Council as to the feasibility of the proposed improvement; and WHEREAS the City Council wishes to give further consideration to the proposed improvement, to conduct a hearing on the proposed improvement, and to assess the benefited properties for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 if the improvement is ordered constructed after such further consideration. ( NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. It is hereby proposed to construct a surfacing improvement in the following described alley: Between Girard Avenue and Humboldt Avenue From 54th Avenue to 55th Avenue 2. The petitions both supporting and opposing the proposed improvement are hereby accepted. 3. The proposed project will be designated as Project No. 1989 -15. 4. The report prepared and submitted by the Director of Public Works /City Engineer is hereby accepted. 5. The Council will consider the improvement in accordance with the report and the assessment of benefited property as detailed in the report for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $32,100 for bituminous and $48,700 for concrete. 6. A public hearing shall be held on the proposed improvement on the 26th day of June, 1989, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 8 :00 p.m. local time, and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -114 i _ June 12, 1989 , Date ayo ATTEST: _ Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoipg resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Todd Paulson, and Philip Cohen; and the following voted g against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF I BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE C ENTER 911 June 13, 1989 Dear Property Owner: At 8 :00 P.M. on Monday, June 26, 1989, the Brooklyn Center City Council will conduct a public hearing on the proposed improvement of the alley in your block. Enclosed is a copy of the official "Notice of Public Hearing Also attached are copies of the following items: • the resolution adopted by the City Council on June 12, 1989 • the Engineer's Report regarding this project • the "Uniform Alley Improvement Policy" dated May, 1989. Please note that both surfacing alternates, bituminous and concrete, will be considered and discussed at the hearing. Following the hearing, the City Council will decide (1) whether or not to proceed with the improvement, and (2) if the decision is made to proceed, which type of surfacing will be used. The hearing is an opportunity for you to express an opinion on the proposed improvement, if you desire to do so. We wish to emphasize that no decision has been made on whether or not to "proceed with this project. The City Council will consider your comments and input before making that decision. You are encouraged to call the City Engineering Department at 561 -5440, if you need additional information or have a question which could be resolved in advance of the meeting. Yours very truly � Sy Knapp Director of Public Works Enclosures SK: jn z NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Brooklyn Center will meet in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway at 8 :00 p.m. on June 26, 1989 to consider the making of surfacing improvements in the following described alley: Between Girard Avenue and Humboldt Avenue From 54th Avenue to 55th Avenue Improvement Project No. 1989 -15 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapters 429.011 to 429.111. The area proposed to be assessed for such improvement is the property abutting such alley. The estimated cost of such improvement is $32,100 if bituminous surfacing is selected and is $48,700 if concrete paving is selected. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvement will be heard at this meeting. D. K. Weeks City Clerk Published in the Brooklyn Center Post on June 14 and 21, 1989 CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE C ENTER 911 May 19, 1989 RE: Alley Between Fremont and Emerson Avenues From 53rd to 54th Avenues Dear Property Owner: The alley in your block is one of four remaining unpaved alleys in Brooklyn Center. Improvements to that alley have been considered at various times over the past several years. However, each time it has been considered, numerous questions and objections have been raised by the affected property owners. Because it was apparent that many of the questions and objections which related to the City's policies regarding special assessments for this type of improvement were valid, the City Council recently approved four substantive changes to the previously - established policies. These changes are summarized as follows: 1. Previously, special assessments for alley improvement costs were made on the basis of linear feet of abutting lot. Owners with larger lots were assessed a larger proportion of the costs than owners of smaller lots, even though they received no additional benefit. The Council approved a change in policy to provide the assessment of costs on a per buildable lot basis. Owners of single lots of varying sizes will be assessed equal shares of the costs. Where a lot could be legally subdivided, additional "units" will be assessed. 2. Previously, owners of all lots abutting an alley were assessed for alley improvements at an equal rate, whether or not they used the alley for access. The Council approved a new two - tiered assessment policy. Under the new policy, forty percent of the assessable cost of improving the alley will be assessed equally to all owners of lots abutting the alley, while the remaining sixty percent will be assessed equally to all owners of lots utilizing the alley for access. We believe this two tiered system will result in assessments that more equitably reflect the benefit received, between owners who rely on the alley for access and those who do not. May 19, 1989 Page 2 3. Previously, alleys were to be constructed only of bituminous material. The Council has approved the use of concrete in some cases. While concrete is more durable (i.e., it has a life expectancy of 25 to 30 years vs. the 10 to 15 year life expectancy for a bituminous alley), it is more expensive. Where conditions warrant, bituminous will continue to be used. Note: Regarding the alley in your block, City staff strongly recommends the use of concrete because the grades in this alley are very flat. With the use of concrete, we will be able to much more accurately control the grade of the pavement, thereby assuring a much more positive drainage pattern, and a much better ability to match the grade of the alley to the levels of your garage, driveway, and /or yard. However, the City Council does wish to receive your opinion regarding the use of concrete paving vs. bituminous paving. 4. Previously, property owners were assessed the cost of any storm sewer improvements required. The Council has approved a change in policy to provide that, where storm sewers are required, the costs for installing the storm sewer will be paid by City funds. Note: Regarding the alley in your block, a storm sewer is needed to provide positive drainage. If the alley is improved, the estimated $16,300 cost for that storm sewer will not be assessed, but will be paid for from other City funding sources. Enclosed is a copy of the City's complete current policy for alley improvements, including the new revisions noted above. Also enclosed is a petition form which provides you with an opportunity to request that the alley in your block be improved this year or to oppose such an improvement. In addition, the form provides an opportunity for you to express your preference for concrete paving vs. bituminous paving. We ask that you reply to both parts so that, even if you oppose the improvement, the City Council will know your preference regarding type of surface if a decision is made to improve the alley. Please review the enclosed materials and return your petition form by Wednesday May 31, 1989. In accordance with the established policy, if 30% or more of the property owners in your block petition the Council to improve the alley, the Council would then conduct a public hearing on the proposal (probably in late June). Notices of the hearing would be sent to each of you and, of course, the City Council would welcome your attendance and your comments and questions at that hearing. Following the public hearing, the City Council would then decide whether or not to proceed with the improvement. If that decision is made in late June, bids for construction would be requested in accordance with established State laws regarding public contracts, and a contract could be awarded in late July, with completion specified for late September, 1989. I May 19, 1989 Page 3 Again, we ask that you complete, sign, and return the enclosed petition to this office by May 31, 1989. If you have any questions about this information, or about the improvement process, please contact me. Sincerely, Sy Knapp Director of Public Works Enclosures SK: j .S:i ALLEY IMPROVEMENT PETITION CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA RE: Alley Between Fremont and Emerson Avenues From 53rd to 54th Avenues TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER: 1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 I (we) the undersigned, owners of real property abutting on the above - described alley, hereby petition (or oppose) that such alley be improved in accordance with the City's currently - established policy for such improvements (check one): I (we) petition for this improvement I (we) petition in opposition to this improvement 2. Whether I (we) support this improvement, or oppose it, if the improvement is ordered by the City Council after formal proceedings and public hearing, I (we) prefer the following tpe of alley surfacing (check one): ' Bituminous Surface Concrete Pavement Name(s): (please print) Signature: Address (or legal description) of property abutting this improvement: Mailing Address (if different than the address of the property): Date: NOTE Please return this petition by May 31, 1989 to: City of Brooklyn Center Engineering Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Engineer's Report Alley Improvement Project No. 1989 -16 PROJECT LOCATION: Alley between Emerson Avenue and Fremont Avenue from 53rd Avenue to 54th Avenue PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Alley Improvement Project No. 1989 -16 Grading, Base, Bituminous or Concrete Paving and Landscape Restoration DISCUSSION: The City has received petitions both supporting and opposing the improvement of this alley. In addition, the petitions expressed their preference regarding the type of surfacing to be installed if the improvement is ordered by the City Council. Following is a summary of the petitions received through today (June 7, 1989): Total number of property owners = 24 Number % Property owners who petitioned in support of improvement. 14 58 Property owners who petitioned in opposition to improvement. 3 13 Property owners who did not submit petition either supporting or opposing improvement. 7 29 Totals 24 100% Alternate Petition Analvsis Because the currently adopted policy (copy attached) relating to alley improvements provides that forgy percent of the improvement costs (not including storm sewer installation costs which are not to be specially assessed) shall be assessed equally to all owners of lots abutting the alley, and that the remaining sixty percent shall be assessed equally to all owners of lots utilizing the alley for access, the following formula has been developed to show the petition responses on the basis of financial interest (i.e. - total dollars of assessments to be levied): if A — total number of petitioners who support the improvement and B — total number of petitioners who use the alley for access who support the improvement and X — total number of property owners abutting the alley and Y — total number of property owners who use the alley for access then: the percentage of support for the improvement, on the basis of financial interest (i.e. total dollars of special A B assessments to be levied) X X 40 + Y X 60 Engineer's Report Project 1989 -16 Page 2 Application of this formula shows the following level of support for the 14 12 improvement: a 24 X 40 + 19 X 60 61$ Preference Regarding Type of Resurfacing Of those who submitted petitions, the following preferences were expressed regarding the type of surfacing to be installed if the improvement is ordered by the City Council: Number % Prefer Bituminous Surfacing 7 47 Prefer Concrete Paving = 8 53 Totals 15 100% Evaluation of Existing Conditions and Proposed Improvement This is a 1 -block alley which abuts 23 lots. Of these, 19 have garages which access the alley while 4 to do not use the alley for access at this time. This alley also does not have a low point, but the grades are so flat that installation of a storm sewer is required to assure proper drainage. Even with a storm sewer, control of grades is critical in matching grades to existing driveways and garages. Regarding the type of paving to be used if this alley is to be improved, the following comments are offered: Type of Paving Advantages Disadvantages Bituminous • Less Expensive - works • It is not possible to well when centerline accurately control grades so grades of 1.0% or as to meet existing driveways greater can be and garages while also developed (these grades developing a good centerline grade. cannot be accomplished in this alley). • Has a short (10 -15 year) life expectancy. • Because grades are always critical, future overlay of a bituminous alley will cause new drainage problems. i 7 Engineer's Report Project 1989 -16 Page 3 Type of Paving Advantages Disadvantages Concrete • Provides maximum • Substantially more expensive. ability to control grades, so as to • Does not comply to existing match existing driveways policy. and garages, and to assure positive drainage. • Has a 25 -30 year life expectancy. Financial Considerations Following is a summary of estimated project costs for this improvement, showing costs for both surfacing alternates: Bituminous Concrete Surfacing Paving Construction contract costs $12,100 $17,100 Contingency (15 %) 1.800 2.550 Subtotal 13,900 19,650 Engineering Costs (8%) 1,220 1,600 Administrative Costs (1%) 140 200 Legal Costs (1 %) 140 200 Capitalized Interest Costs (10 %) 1.400 2.000 Total Project Costs 33,100 39,950 Less Storm Sewer Costs (including all additive costs) 16,300 16,300 Net Project Costs to be Assessed $16,800 $23,650 Estimated Special Assessments Based on the above cost estimates and the current assessment policies, the following tabulation shows the total assessments to be levied against "direct access" and "indirect access" properties, based on the alternate types of surfacing, and it shows the annual installments for each option. Engineer's Report ' Project 1989 -16 Page 4 ALLEY 3 FREMONT /EMERSON FROM 53RD TO 54TH DIRECT ACCESS INDIRECT ACCESS PROPERTIES PROPERTIES Bituminous Concrete Bituminous Concrete 10 Yrs 20 Yrs 10 Yrs 20 Yrs Principle: $835.98 $1,176.84 $305.45 $430.00 Year -- - - - -- ---------------------------- --- - - - $ 69 ---- _ - - 1 $188 60 $206.95 23 $76.25 2 158.84 170.64 58.04 62.35 3 150.48 164.76 54.98 60.20 4 142.12 158.87 51.93 58.05 5 133.76 152.99 48.87 55.90 6 125.40 147.11 45.82 53.75 7 117.04 141.22 42.76 51.60 8 108.68 135.34 39.71 49.45 9 100.32 129.45 36.65 47.30 10 91.94 123.57 33.55 45.15 11 117.68 43.00 12 111.80 40.85 105.92 38.70 14 100.03 36.55 16 94.15 34.40 88.26 32.25 17 18 82.38 30.10 19 76.49 27.95 70.61 25.80 20 64.57 23.65 TOTAL $1,317.15 $2,442.78 $481.53 $893.25 NOTES: The costs and payment schedule shown here are estimates and for illustration only. Many factors may affect the final cost. For example, these costs assume that only one alley is being improved. If more than one alley project is approved, the actual cost may be less because of economies of scale. Each payment includes one tenth (or twentieth) of the principle, plus interest on the remaining principle. The first years' payment includes fifteen months' interest (starting from when the levy is is assessed in October) and a Henneppin County lump -sum service charge of $.05 /year (a total of $.50 for bituminous and $1.00 for concrete). Subsequent payments include twelve months' interest. Assessments may be paid in full at any time. Senior citizens and persons with a total and permanent disability may be eligible for a Hardship Deferment (see statement on the back of this page). 19- May-89 dfs SPASSESS:alley3 Engineer's Report Project 1989 -16 Page 5 DEFERRED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 435.193 to 435.195, the City Council may, at its discretion, defer the payment of a special assessment for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older, or by a person retired due to a permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make a payment. The City Council has established the following qualifying conditions for applicants for deferred payment of special assessments: 1. Applicant must be 65 years of age or older, or retired due to permanent and total disability. 2. The applicant's annual income shall not exceed $16,900. 3. The aggregate total of previous special assessment installments plus the first year installment of the current levy must exceed two (2) percent of the applicant's annual income. The applicant will be required to pay up to two (2) percent of his or her annual income toward the special assessment; any excess can be deferred. 4. Special assessments levied due to an applicant failure to pay charges for City services or failure to comply with City codes are not eligible for deferment and will not be included in calculating the aggregate total of annual special assessment installments. When deferment of a special assessment terminates, for any reason provided in the law, all amounts of accumulated plus applicable interest become due. Further information regarding deferred assessments and application forms are available at the City Clerk's office. Engineer's Report ' Project 1989 -16 Page 6 ' Summary This project is feasible under the conditions referenced and at the costs estimated. Some "quantity savings" should be realized if more than one of the alleys currently under consideration are improved under the same contract. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I" am a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. Sylvestef /P. Knapp Registra i.on No. 6242 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 89 -115 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITIONS, COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS ON IMPROVEMENT, RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -16 WHEREAS petitions have been submitted in support of, and in opposition to proposed surfacing improvements in the following described alley; Between Emerson Avenue and Fremont Avenue From 53rd Avenue to 54th Avenue AND WHEREAS the Director of Public Works /City Engineer has submitted a report to the City Council as to the feasibility of the proposed improvement; and WHEREAS the City Council wishes to give further consideration to the proposed improvement, to conduct a hearing on the proposed improvement, and to assess the benefited properties for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 if the improvement is ordered constructed after such further consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. It is hereby proposed to construct a surfacing improvement in the following described alley: Between Emerson Avenue and Fremont Avenue From 53rd Avenue to 54th Avenue z 2. The petitions both supporting and opposing the proposed improvement are hereby accepted. 3. The proposed project will be designated as Project No. 1989 -16. 4. The report prepared and submitted by the Director of Public Works /City Engineer is hereby accepted. 5. The Council will consider the improvement in accordance with the report and the assessment of benefited property as detailed in the report for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $33,100 for bituminous and $39,950 for concrete. 6. A public hearing shall be held on the proposed improvement on the 26th day of June, 1989, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 8:00 p.m. local time, and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -115 June 12 1989 Date Ma r ATTEST: / / - Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Todd Paulson, and Philip Cohen; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. :S i CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 r TELEPHONE 561 -5440 1 ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE -,FIRE 911 June 13, 1989 Dear Property Owner: At 8 :00 P.M. on Monday, June 26, 1989, the Brooklyn Center City Council will conduct a public hearing on the proposed improvement of the alley in your block. Enclosed is a copy of the official "Notice of Public Hearing ". Also attached are copies of the following items: • the resolution adopted by the City Council on June 12, 1989 • the Engineer's Report regarding this project • the "Uniform Alley Improvement Policy" dated May, 1989. Please note that both surfacing alternates, bituminous and concrete, will be considered and discussed at the hearing. Following the hearing, the City Council will decide (1) whether or not to proceed with the improvement, and (2) if the decision is made to proceed, which type of surfacing will be used. The hearing is an opportunity for you to express an opinion on the proposed improvement, if you desire to do so. We wish to emphasize that no decision has been made on whether or not to proceed with this project. The City Council will consider your comments and input before making that decision. You are encouraged to call the City Engineering Department at 561 -5440, if you need additional information or have a question which could be resolved in advance of the meeting. Yours very ruly - Sy K;iapp Director of Public Works Enclosures SK: jn CO.' CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF 9 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 BROOKLYN TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY - POLICE -.FIRE C ENTE 911 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEADING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Brooklyn Center will meet in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway at 8:00 p.m. on June 26, 1989 to consider the making of surfacing improvements in the following described alley: Between Emerson Avenue and Fremont Avenue From 53rd Avenue to 54th Avenue Improvement Project No. 1989 -16 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapters 429.011 to 429.111. The area proposed to be assessed for such improvement is the property abutting such alley. The estimated cost of such improvement is $33,100 if bituminous surfacing is selected and is $39,950 if concrete paving is selected. Such persons as desire to be "heard with reference to the proposed improvement, - will be heard at this meeting. D. K. Weeks City Clerk Published in the Brooklyn Center Post on June 14 and 21, 1989 C- roe.ui- uunurnr =•� CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF I:BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE C ENTER 911 May 19, 1989 RE: Alley Between Lakeview and Twin Lake Avenues From Lakeside to Lakebreeze Avenues Dear Property Owner: The alley in your block is one of four remaining unpaved alleys in Brooklyn Center. Improvements to that alley have been considered at various times over the past several years. However, each time it has been considered, numerous questions and objections have been raised by the affected property owners. Because it was apparent that many of the questions and objections which related to the City's policies regarding special assessments for this type of improvement were valid, the City Council recently approved four substantive changes to the previously - established policies. These changes are summarized as follows: 1. Previously, special assessments for alley improvement costs were made on the basis of linear feet of abutting lot. Owners with larger lots were assessed a larger proportion of the costs than owners of smaller lots, even though they received no additional benefit. The Council approved a change in policy to provide the assessment of costs on a per buildable lot basis. Owners of single lots of varying sizes will be assessed equal shares of the costs. Where a lot could be legally subdivided, additional "units" will be assessed. 2. Previously, owners of all lots abutting an alley were assessed for alley improvements at an equal rate, whether or not they used the alley for access. The Council approved a new two - tiered assessment policy. Under the new policy, forty percent of the assessable cost of improving the alley will be assessed equally to all owners of lots abutting the alley, while the remaining sixty percent will be assessed equally to all owners of lots utilizing the alley for access. We believe this two tiered system will result in assessments that more equitably reflect the benefit received, between owners who rely on the alley for access and those who do not. room- uunc,an ��t ` e May 19 1989 Page 2 3. Previously, alleys were to be constructed only of bituminous material. The Council has approved the use of concrete in some cases. While concrete is more durable (i.e., it has a life expectancy of 25 to 30 years vs. the 10 to 15 year life expectancy for a bituminous alley), it is more expensive. Where conditions warrant, bituminous will continue to be used. Note: Regarding the alley in your block, topographic conditions would allow this alley to be successfully improved with bituminous pavement. However, the City Council does wish to receive your opinion regarding the use of concrete paving vs. bituminous paving. 4. Previously, property owners were assessed the cost of any storm sewer improvements required. The Council has approved a change in policy to provide that, where storm sewers are required, the costs for installing the storm sewer will be paid by City funds. Note: Regarding the alley in your block, no storm sewer installation is required. Accordingly, this change of policy does not affect your property. Enclosed is a copy of the City's complete current policy for alley improvements, including the new revisions noted above. Also enclosed is a petition form which provides you with an opportunity to request that the alley in your block be improved this year or to oppose such an improvement. In addition, the form provides an opportunity for you to express your preference for concrete paving vs. bituminous paving. We ask that you reply to both parts so that, even if you oppose the improvement, the City Council will know your preference regarding type of surface if a decision is made to improve the alley. Please review the enclosed materials and return our petition form h- Wednesdav, May 31, 1989. In accordance with the established policy, if 30% or more of the property owners in your block petition the Council to improve the alley, the Council would then conduct a public hearing on the proposal (probably in late June). Notices of the hearing would be sent to each of you and, of course, the City Council would welcome your attendance and your comments and questions at that hearing. Following the public hearing, the City Council would then decide whether or not to proceed with the improvement. If that decision is made in late June, bids for construction would be requested in accordance with established State laws regarding public contracts, and a contract could be awarded in late July, with completion specified for late September, 1989. x May 19, 1989 Page 3 Again, we ask that you complete, sign, and return the enclosed petition to this office by May 31, 1989. If you have any questions about this information, or about the improvement process, please contact me. Sincerely, Sy Knapp Director of Public Works Enclosures SK: jn :t F ALLEY IMPROVEMENT PETITION CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA RE: Alley Between Lakeview and Twin Lake Avenues From Lakeside to Lakebreeze Avenues TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER: 1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 I (we) the undersigned owners I of real property abutting on the above - described alley, petition y� Y or P ( oppose) that such alley e improved in accordance w" y P with the City's currently - established policy for such improvements (check one): I (we) petition for this improvement I (we) petition in opposition to this improvement 2. Whether I (we) support this improvement, or oppose it, if the improvement is ordered by the City Council after formal proceedings and public hearing, I (we) prefer the following tpe of alley surfacing (check one): Bituminous Surface Concrete Pavement Name(s): i (please print) Signature: Address (or legal description) of property abutting this improvement: Mailing Address (if different than the address of the property): Date: NOTE Please return this petition by May 31, 1989 to: City of Brooklyn Center Engineering Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Engineer's Report Alley Improvement Project No. 1989 -17 PROJECT LOCATION: Alley between Lakeview Avenue and Twin Lake Avenue from Lakebreeze Avenue to Lakeside Avenue PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Alley Improvement Project No. 1989 -17 Grading, Base, Bituminous or Concrete Paving and Landscape Restoration DISCUSSION: The City has received petitions both supporting and opposing the improvement of this alley. In addition, the petitions expressed their preference regarding the type of surfacing to be installed if the improvement is ordered by the City Council. Following is a summary of the petitions received through today (June 7, 1989): Total number of property owners s 11 Number % Property owners who petitioned in support of improvement. 2 18 Property owners who petitioned in opposition to improvement. 5 46 Property owners who did not submit petition either supporting or opposing improvement. 4 36 Totals 11 100% Alternate Petition Anal sis Because the currently adopted policy (copy attached) relating to alley improvements provides that forty percent of the improvement costs (not including storm sewer installation costs which are not to be specially assessed) shall be assessed equally to all owners of lots abutting the alley, and that the remaining sixty percent shall be assessed equally to all owners of lots utilizing the alley for access, the following formula has been developed to show the petition responses on the basis of financial interest (i.e. - total dollars of assessments to be levied): if A — total number of petitioners who support the improvement and B — total number of petitioners who use the alley for access who support the improvement and X — total number of property owners abutting the alley and Y — total number of property owners who use the alley for access then: the erce p ntage of support for the improvement, on the basis of financial interest (i.e. total dollars of special A B assessments to be levied) — X X 40 + Y X 60 Engineer's Report ` Project 1989 -17 Page 2 Application of this formula shows the following level of support for the 11 X 40 + 5 improvement: X 60 = 31% _ Preference Regarding Type of Resurfacing Of those who submitted petitions, the following preferences were expressed regarding the type of surfacing to be installed if the improvement is ordered by the City Council: Number % Prefer Bituminous Surfacing — 6 100 Prefer Concrete Paving 0 0 Totals 6 100% Evaluation of Existing Conditions and Proposed Improvement This is a dead -end alley which extends south approximately 400 feet from Lakebreeze Avenue. There are 14 lots which abut the alley. Of these, 7 have garages which access the alley while 7 do not use the alley for access at this time. About the southerly one -third of this alley is undeveloped and unused at this time. If the entire alley is to be improved, it will require substantial 0 grading so that grades can be developed in a way which makes the alley accessible to all properties. Regarding the type of paving to be used if this alley is to be improved, the following comments are offered: Type of Paving- Advantages Disadvantages Bituminous • Less Expensive - works • It is not possible to well when centerline accurately control grades so grades of 1.0% or as to meet existing driveways greater can be and garages while also developed (these grades developing a good,centerline grade. can be accomplished in this alley). • Has a short (10 -15 year) life expectancy. • Because grades are always critical, future overlay of a bituminous alley will cause new drainage problems. ` Engineer's Report Project 1989 -17 Page 3 Type of Paving_ Advantag_es Disadvantages Concrete • Provides maximum • Substantially more expensive. ability to control grades, so as to • Does not comply to existing match existing driveways policy. and garages, and to assure positive drainage. • Has a 25 -30 year life expectancy. Financial Considerations Following is a summary of estimated project costs for this improvement, showing costs for both surfacing alternates: Bituminous Concrete Surfacing_ Paving_ Construction contract costs $13,800 $21,600 Contingency (15 %) 2.000 3.250 Subtotal 15,800 24,850 Engineering Costs (8 %) 1,300 2,125 Administrative Costs (1 %) 150 250 Legal Costs (1%) 150 250 Capitalized Interest Costs (10 %) 1.600 2.525 Total Project Costs 19,000 30,000 Net Project Costs to be Assess $19,000 $30,000 Estimated Special Assessments Based on the above cost estimates and the current assessment policies, the following tabulation shows the total assessments to be levied against "direct access" and "indirect access" properties, based on the alternate types of surfacing, and it shows the annual installments for each option. i Engineer's Report Project 1989 -17 Page 4 ALLEY 4 LAKEV IEW /TWIN LAKE AV FROM LAKESIDE TO LAKEBREE ZE DIRECT ACCESS INDIRECT ACCESS PROPERTIES PROPERTIES Bituminous Concrete Bituminous Concrete 10 Yrs 20 Yrs 10 Yrs 20 Yrs Principle: $2,533.33 $4,000.00 $633.33 $1,000.00 Year --- - - - - -- ---------------- ------------ -------------------------- 1 $570.50 $701.00 $143.00 $176.00 2 481.33 580.00 120.33 145.00 3 456.00 560.00 114.00 140.00 4 430.67 540.00 107.67 135.00 5 405.33 520.00 101.33 130.00 6 380.00 500.00 95.00 125.00 7 354.67 480.00 88.67 120.00 8 329.33 460.00 82.33 115.00 9 304.00 440.00 76.00 110.00 10 278.60 420.00 69.60 105.00 11 400.00 100.00 12 380.00 95.00 13 360.00 90.00 14 340.00 85.00 15 320.00 80.00 • 16 300.00 75.00 18 280.00 70.00 19 260.00 65.00 240.00 60.00 20 220.00 55.00 TOTAL $3,990.42 $8,301.00 $997.92 $2 NOTES: The costs and payment schedule shown here are estimates and for illustration only. Many factors may affect the final cost. For example, these costs assume that only one alley is being improved. If more than one alley project is approved, the actual cost may be less because of economies of scale. Each payment includes one tenth or twentieth) of the principle, plus interest on the remaining principle. The first years' payment includes fifteen months' interest (starting from when the levy is is assessed in October) and a Henneppin County lump -sum service charge of $.05 year (a total of $.50 for bituminous and $1.00 for concrete). Subsequent payments include twelve months' interest. Assessments may be paid in full at any time. Senior citizens and persons with a total and permanent disability may be eligible for a Hardship Deferment (see statement on the back of this page). 19-May-89 dfs SPASSESS :alley4 Engineer's Report Project 1989 -17 Page 5 DEFERRED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 435.193 to 435.195, the City Council may, at its discretion, defer the payment of a special assessment for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older, or by a person retired due to a permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make a payment. The City Council has established the following qualifying conditions for applicants for deferred payment of special assessments: 1. Applicant must be 65 years of age or older, or retired due to permanent and total disability. 2. The applicant's annual income shall not exceed $16,900. 3. The aggregate total of previous special assessment installments plus the first year installment of the current levy must exceed two (2) percent of the applicant's annual income. The applicant will be required to pay up to two (2) percent of his or her annual income toward the special assessment; any excess can be deferred. 4. Special assessments levied due to an applicant failure to pay charges for City services or failure to comply with City codes are not eligible for deferment and will not be included in calculating the aggregate total of annual special assessment installments. When deferment of.a special assessment terminates, for any reason provided in the law, all amounts of accumulated plus applicable interest become due. Further information regarding deferred assessments and application forms are available at the City Clerk's office. Engineer's Re ort P Project 1989 -17 Page 6 Summary This project is feasible under the conditions referenced and at the costs.. estimated. Some uantit savings" should be realized more of t Q y g if r than one he alleys currently under consideration are improved under the same contract. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. Sylves&W P. pp Registration No. 6242 ii a ' Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 89 -116 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITIONS, COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS ON IMPROVEMENT, RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -17 WHEREAS petitions have been submitted in support of, and in opposition to proposed surfacing improvements in the following described alley; Between Lakeview Avenue and Twin Lake Avenue From Lakebreeze Avenue to Lakeside Avenue AND WHEREAS the Director of Public Works /City Engineer has submitted a report to the City Council as to the feasibility of the proposed improvement; and WHEREAS the City Council wishes to give further consideration to the proposed improvement, to conduct a hearing on the proposed improvement, and to assess the benefited properties for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 if the improvement is ordered constructed after such further consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of �E Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. It is hereby proposed to construct a surfacing improvement in the following described alley: Between Lakeview Avenue and Twin Lake Avenue From Lakebreeze Avenue to Lakeside Avenue 2. The petitions both supporting and opposing the proposed improvement are hereby accepted. 3. The proposed project will be designated as Project No. 1989 -17. 4. The report prepared and submitted by the Director of Public Works /City Engineer is hereby accepted. - 5. The Council will consider the improvement in accordance with the report and the assessment of benefited property as detailed in the report for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $19,000 for bituminous and $30,000 for concrete. 6. A public hearing shall be held on the proposed improvement on the 26th day of June, 1989, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 8:00 p.m, local time, and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. RESOLUTION N0, g9_1th , June 12, 1989 Date Mayo ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip C ohen , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Todd Paulson, and Philip Cohen; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. :4 1 r • CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 BROOKLYN TELEPHONE 561 -5440 CENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - 911 June 13, 1989 Dear Property Owner: At 8 :00 P.M. on Monday, June 26, 1989, the Brooklyn Center City Council will conduct a public hearing on the proposed improvement of the alley in your block. Enclosed is a copy of the official "Notice of Public Hearing ". Also attached are copies of the following items: • the resolution adopted by the City Council on June 12, 1989 • the Engineer's Report regarding this project • the "Uniform Alley Improvement Policy" dated May, 1989. Please note that both surfacing alternates, bituminous and concrete, will be considered and discussed at the hearing. Following the hearing, the City Council will decide (1) whether or not to proceed with the improvement, and (2) if the decision is made to proceed, which type of surfacing will be used. The hearing is an opportunity for you to express an opinion on the proposed improvement, if you desire to do so. We wish to emphasize that no decision has been made on whether or not to proceed with this project. The City Council will consider your comments and input before making that decision. You are encouraged to call the City Engineering Department at 561 -5440, if you need additional information or have a question which could be resolved in advance of the meeting. Yours very truly, Sy napp Director of Public Works Enclosures SK: jn C.' r CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF I:BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 5543 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY - POLICE -.FIRE C ENTER 911 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Brooklyn Center will meet in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway at 8:00 p.m. on June 26, 1989 to consider the making of surfacing improvements in the following described alley: Between Lakeview Avenue and Twin Lake Avenue From Lakebreeze Avenue to Lakeside Avenue Improvement Project No. 1989 -17 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapters 429.011 to 429.111. The area proposed to be assessed for such improvement is the property abutting such alley. The estimated cost of such improvement is $19,000 if bituminous surfacing is selected and is $30,000 if concrete paving is selected. ii Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvement will be heard at this meeting. a rte/ tq JCL D. K. Weeks City Clerk Published in the Brooklyn Center Post on June 14 and 21, 1989 MULUAMMM f D � JUN 19 M CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6 /26/89 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT PPROVAL: Personnel Coordinator Sig ature - title ************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Please see the attached memorandum to the mayor and city council from the Brooklyn Center human rights and resources commission. The commission is asking the council for further direction on the issue of transportation. MEMORANDUM TO: Brooklyn Center Mayor and City Council FROM: Brooklyn Center Human Rights and Resources Commission DATE: May 24, 1989 SUBJECT: Brooklyn Center Transportation At the direction of the city council, the human rights and resources commission has been researching the transportation issue as it affects the Brooklyn Center community. The commission has reached the point in which it requests further direction from the council before proceeding ahead on this project. The commission spent time assessing the Five Cities Senior Transportation Project, of which Brooklyn Center is a participant, and a number of other transit programs currently operating in the metropolitan area. It also examined the need for transportation in the local community. The commission found the Senior Transportation Project is definitely an asset to those who use it, but it serves a limited population and ignores the needs of those who need transportation on a more flexible basis. Ridership statistics are attached for January 1988 through April 1989. The commission researched transit ro rams operating in Hopkins, P g P g P Shakopee, P Columbia Heights, and Plymouth. A representative from the Regional Transit Board (RTB) met with the commission to discuss these programs, and the availability of funding for transportation programs. Aspects of the Hopkins Hop -A -Ride transit program are most appealing to the commission because of the grant money, the flexibility and broad scope of the program, and the low cost to the City. Attached are informational materials summarizing various aspects of this program. (Please note attachments are not included with the memo dated March 31, 1988.) The human rights and resources commission has recessed for the summer months and will reconvene on September 13, 1989. The commission is interested in receiving direction from the city council on where to proceed from here. Options include: 1. Status quo. Continue participating in the Five Cities Senior Transportation Program (1989 City budget: $9,502) and do not add any new programs. 2. Eliminate participation by the City in funding any transportation programs. 3. Continue participating in the Senior Transportation Program and investigate participation in an additional program such as the Hopkins Hop -A -Ride program. 4. Eliminate participation in the Senior Transportation Program, but investigate participation in another program. 5. Pursue other avenues different from those stated above. Please forward your desired approach to the human rights and resources commission for its consideration. Brooklyn Center - 5 Cities Transportation Rider Statistics Year Month Individuals Served One Way Rides Number of Trips Cost to City 1988 January 24 126 9 662 February 31 156 11 662 March 29 214 13 662 April 26 136 12 662 May 18 60 6 662 June 34 114 7 662 July 21 68 7 662 August 20 86 9 662 Sept. 15 68 8 662 October 31 152 11 662 November 23 144 12 662 December 24 138 10 662 Total: 7941 1989 January 2 150 10 792 February 38 226 10 792 March 43 250 12 792 April 35 242 11 792 Total to Date: 3167 1988 - $5.43* average per one -way ride 1989 - $3.64* average per one -way ride *Figures do not include the rider donations HOPKINS HOP -A -RIDE PARATRANSIT SYSTEM WHAT IS HOP -A -RIDE? Hop -A -Ride is an advance - reservation, shared -ride door -to -door transportation service for anyone who needs transportation within the Hopkins, City limits. There are three additional destination outside the City limits. They are: 1. Methodist Hospital 2. Opportunity Workshop in Opus II; and 3. Shady Oak Beach. WHEN DOES HOP -A -RIDE OPERATE? Hop -A -Ride operated Monday t -rough Saturday from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Anyone who desires this service MUST make a reservation by 4:00 p.m. the day BEFORE they need the service. To place a reservation, call 935 -8003. WHO PROVIDES THIS SERVICE? The City of Hopkins contracts with a private taxi operator, Town Taxi Co., to provide this service. Town Taxi provides the vehicles and the drivers. HOW MUCH DOES HOP -A -RIDE COST? The City sells tickets at two different process. There are books of ten tickets available at the regular fare of $9.50. The City also sells tickets to those riders with qualifying incomes for $4.00 for a book of ten tickets. For those riders without tickets, there is a cash fare or $1.64 per ride. Tickets are available at Hopkins City Hall, Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. TICKETS MAY BE ORDERED BY MAIL FROM HOPKINS CITY HALL BY SENDING A CHECK WITH A SELF - ADDRESSED STAMPED ENVELOPE TO: HOPKINS CITY HALL 1010 FIRST STREET SOUTH HOPKINS, MN 55343 ALL ORDERS ARE PROCESSED THE SAME DAY THE ORDER IS RECEIVED. If you have any question about Hop -A -Ride, please call Nancy Anderson at 935 -8474. 3 -31 -88 HOPKINS HOP -A -RIDE PROGRAM Program Coordinator Nancy Anderson 935 -8474 Program Components 1. Funds requested from Regional Transit Board (RTB) (attachment 1). 2. Advertise for bids annually (per ride bid); bidders must be licensed to operate in Hopkins. 3. Contract signed by City of Hopkins and cab company (attachment 2). 4. Contract signed by City of Hopkins and RTB (attachment 3) . RTB reimburses the city for 60 percent of the program costs. 5. Monthly reports are filed by the city with RTB. 6. Books of tickets are sold at city hall. Low - income residents can complete a form and be eligible for lower - priced tickets (attachment 4). (A special card is issued to low- income riders.) 7. Riders call the cab company 24 hours in advance. They may pay cash (the per ride bid amount) if they do not have tickets. 8. The cab company designates two drivers specifically for this program. 9. The cab company turns in tickets to the city twice a month and is paid based on the number of tickets collected. Revenue Information 1986* 1987 1988 ** RTB (60 %) 34,200 30,000 48,000 Ticket revenues 14,000 13,000 20,000 City 8,800 7,000 12,000 Total 57,000 50,000 80,000 *operated one handicapped van, but discontinued in 1987 due to high cost of operation * *budgeted 1987 Ridership approximately 28,000 one -way trips MEMORANDUM TO: Chairperson Stoderl and Human Rights and Resources Commission Members FROM: Tom Bublitz, Recording Secretary DATE: April 14, 1989 SUBJECT: Administrative Information on Hopkins' Hop -A -Ride Program The figures we received from Hopkins regarding the cost of their Hop -A -Ride program ($48,000 for the RTB grant, $12,000 in City costs, and $20,000 in fares) are still a fairly accurate breakdown of the program costs. The fare revenue received by the Hop -A -Ride program in 1988 was $13,000. This amount is used to fund the City's 40% contribution. I spoke with the program administrator of the Hop -A -Ride program, and she informed me her administrative time averages one hour per day over the course of a year. This would translate into approximately 260 hours of administrative time annually. She explained the program requires relatively little administrative involvement. People call Town Taxi directly for rides and the City's involvement with customers involves answering questions and selling tickets. The sale of tickets is done by the City's receptionist. The program administrator responds to phone calls inquiring about the program and performs the administrative duties including preparation of the annual budget, annual management report, and reports to RTB. Total 1988 expenses for the Hop -A -Ride program were $51,000 of which $44,000 went to Town Taxi for providing the service. Printing of the tickets is approximately $800 for a years supply. The advertising budget is minimal. Advertising is done through the local paper and flyers on 8 1/2 X 11 sheets are done on the City's photo copier. The program administrator ;indicated no other major expenses other than the contract cost and printing cost for tickets. It should be noted, however, that the Hop -A -Ride program is a well - established program and the costs reflect a program that has been in place for some time. With a start -up program, some of the costs such as administration and advertising could be substantially higher. I am also enclosing a ridership information on the Five Cities Program for January and February 1989 along with October 1988 figures for comparison purposes. Cindy Mayer of the RTB will be at the April 19th meeting to provide additional input from the RTB perspective on transportation program development. Additional information in your packets includes information on single parent households and a transit needs assessment for the northwest suburban area. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6/26/89 Agenda Item Number / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: DISCUSSION OF DRAFT OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR STORING COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title ************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Commen s below /attached X The "summary explanation" below written by Ron Warren is the same explanation given the then City Council in September of 1988. Your staff has again reviewed the "special use" p ermit option and recommends p P p ends against its adoption. As mentioned below, this option does not represent an effective solution to the problems we have encountered with the storage of commercial vehicles in residential zones. If the Council believes the current regulations are too restrictive, it would be better to modify these regulations than to exercise the "special use" option (current ordinance is attached). Your staff still believes the current ordinance, when enforced, will address most all of the complaint problems, "noise" and "appearance," and strengthen the concept separating commercial uses from • residential areas. SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached At the City Council's direction, I have drafted a possible ordinance amendment which is an attempt at addressing the dilemma involving the parking of trucks on residentially zoned property. The direction given was to consider the parking of trucks as a special home occupation and to establish various conditions which must be complied with. An ordinance amendment is offered for City Council consideration on Monday, September 19, 1988. It would establish as an acknowledged special use a home occupation involving the parking on R1 and R2 zoned property of no more than one vehicle with a weight classification of G through T inclusive. These vehicles would otherwise be prohibited from being parked on any residential property by the provisions proposed by a recommended nuisance ordinance amendment. As a special home occupation, such a situation would require the submission of a special use application; the review of the application based on the Standards for Special Use Permits contained in the Zoning Ordinance; and a public hearing on the matter being conducted by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The suggested ordinance would authorize the granting of a Special Use Permit by the City Council to allow certain truck parking provided the following conditions are met: 1. The parking would be on improved (blacktop or concrete) space. 2. The vehicle is not parked in the front yard or a yard abutting a public street. 3. The vehicle must be completely screened by an opaque fence or wall. 4. No servicing or repair of the vehicle, including minor repair and oil changing, could be performed on the property. 5. The vehicle would not be allowed to idle for more than ten minutes. • 6. The City Council could establish other conditions that are reasonably related to the granting of the special use permit. I believe the City Council should give very careful consideration to the adoption of this ordinance and, in fact, 1 would not recommend the adoption of these regulations as a special home occupation. I do not believe this ordinance will solve the dilemma currently facing the City Council. It is true that the ordinance would permit the City Council to allow the parking of restricted vehicles on certain residential property under certain circumstances which would seem to meet the concerns expressed by the two truckers who park their semi - tractors at their homes in the Fremont /Emerson area where neighbors do not seem to object to the situation. These provisions, however, would not really address what I believe to be the basic objections of the residents on Quail Avenue who appeared at the last City Council Open Forum, that being that they believe the operation and parking of a truck in their neighborhood should be prohibited. If the ordinance provisions are adopted and the City Council finds the parking of trucks consistent with the Standards for Special Use Permits as in the case of the truckers in the Fremont /Emerson area, it will make it extremely difficult to deny a similar request in the Quail Avenue situation. The only difference 1 see between the two situations is that the neighbors in one area (Fremont /Emerson) apparently do not object to the truck parking, while the neighbors in the other area (Quail Avenue) do. This makes for some serious "equal protection" issues that the City might be faced with. The City cannot deny a special use permit solely on the basis that neighbors are opposed. It may also be difficult for the City to show that the Standards for a Special Use Permit are met in one case, but not the other. The Council may wish to seek further elaboration on this point from the City Attorney. I also do not see anything to be gained by forcing public hearing situations where neighbors may be • of the opinion that the City Council can deny these requests solely on the basis of neighborhood opposition. I believe the City Council is well aware of some of the problems these situations create such as with controversial special home occupations, group homes and kennel licenses. I don't believe it is possible to satisfy both of the opinions expressed so far regarding the parking of certain trucks on residential property. The Council's : options seem to be as follows: s 1. Totally prohibit the parkin of trucks with a weight 9° a ght classification of G through T as proposed by the nuisance ordinance amendment. 2, Allow truck parking in residential areas along the lines of the existing ordinance which allows trucks of 25' or less. 3. Adopt provisions that allow truck parking as a special use permit home occupation (not recommended as mentioned above). 4. Further amend the Nuisance Ordinance (not the Zoning Ordinance Home Occupations) to allow exceptions to the nuisance provisions where certain conditions such as screening, parking on improved space, restricted parking in certain yard areas, no servicing or repairing of vehicles, limited idling time, and /or other conditions which the Council might want to add to the ordinance. Again, none of the above options totally satisfies the two divergent opinions expressed thus far. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public: hearing will be held on the day of , 1983 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 35 regarding requirements for special home occupations involving the parking of certain vehicles. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING REQUIRSENTS, FOR SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATIONS INVOLVING THE PARKING OF CERTAIN VEHICLES Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -406. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATIONS: 10. A special home occupation fray include the parking of no more than one vehicle with a weight classification G through T inclusive, as specified in Minnesota Statutes 168.013 Subdivision 1 e, provided the following conditions are met: a) the vehicle shall be parked off - street on an improved parking surface of blacktop or concrete; b) the vehicle may not be parked in a front yard or a yard abutting a public street; c) the vehicle rust be screened from view by an opaque fence or wall of sufficient height so that the vehicle is not visible from the public street or abutting residential properties at ground level; d) the vehicle may only be parked on the property for which the City Council has granted a special use permit and no servicing or repairing (including minor repair and oil changing) of the vehicle may be done on the property; e) the vehicle may not be allowed to idle for more than 10 minutes; f) compliance with any other conditions imposed by the City Council. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. ORDI14ANCE NC. Adopted this day of 1988. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter). CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 8th day of Aumzst 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Mall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the parking of commercial vehicles. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at _least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. 88 -21 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE PARKING OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -700. OFF- STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Off- street parking and loading space shall be provided in all districts in accordance with the requirements of this ordinance. There shall be no off - street parking, storage of vehicles nor perimeter parking lot driveway within 15 feet of any street right -of- way and this 15 foot strip shall be planted and maintained as a green strip. In the case of C1 and C1A districts, there shall be no off - street parking nor perimeter parking lot driveway within 35 feet of any major thoroughfare right -of -way and this 35 foot strip shall be planted and maintained as a green strip. [Off- street parking in any residence district may include not more than one commercial vehicle of 25 feet or less in length per dwelling unit if used by the occupant of the premises for transportation to and from his job. It shall be parked off the street on a space adequate for its storage as set forth in this section.] Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective June 1, 1989 Adopted this day of December , 1988. gay ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication July 21, 1988 Effective Date June 1, 1989 (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter). R E V I S E D Licenses to be approved by the City Council on June 26, 1989: AMUSEMENT DEVICE - OPERATOR Brookdale East Cinema 5801 John Martin Drive Days Inn 1501 Freeway Boulevard Ground Round, Inc. 2545 County Road 10 Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Boulevard La Casita Restaurant 2101 Freeway Boulevard Snyder Brothers Drug #18 1296 Brookdale Center T. Wright's 5800 Shingle Creek Pkwy. C f of Police AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR D.V.M. Inc. d /b /a Dahlco 119 State Street Theisen Vending Co. 3804 Nicollet Ave. N. �(Z Ch' f of Police ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT St. Alphonsus Fun Fair 7025 Halifax Ave. N. Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Blaine Heating, Air Cond. & Electric 13562 Central Ave. NE Erickson Heating & A/C 8823 Zealand Ave. N. Midwest Equipment Co., Inc. 300 West University Preferred Mechanical Services, Inc. 712 W. 77 1/2 St. T. G. S. Mechanical Inc. 50 Choctaw Circle Building Official RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Vinh & Ha Ly 6007 Brooklyn Blvd. Kathleen Matt 5621 Camden Ave. N. Jim Johnson 4201 Lakeside Ave. #216 James L. Erland 4207 Lakeside Ave. #223 William & Nancy Dahlquist 4700 -04 Lakeview Ave. N. Neil & Susan Grindheim 801 Woodbine Lane Capital Property Management 3506 Woodbine Lane Renewal: Lang- Nelson Associates Chalet Court Apts. Sheehy Management Company Shingle Creek Tower Irvin & Ruth Schloff 4819 Azelia Ave. N. Howard & Harriet Oien 5809 Brooklyn Blvd. Douglas & Kathleen Williams 5107 Drew Ave. N. Carlin Shefveland 5308 Emerson Ave. N. B. F. Dabrowski 5001 Ewing Ave. N. Michael L. Goodwin 5134 Ewing Ave. N. James & Agatha Eckman 5350 Irving Ave. N. Randy Elam 4200 Lakebreeze Ave. N. James & Bobbie Simons 4210 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Michael & Jane Danielson 4216 Lakebreeze Ave. N. John & Elizabeth Hass 4201 Lakeside Ave. #306 Joseph A. McFadden 4201 Lakeside Ave. #316 Thomas W. Kotila 5430 Morgan Ave. N. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on June 26, 1989: AMUSEMENT DEVICE - OPERATOR Brookdale East Cinema 5801 John Martin Drive Days Inn 1501 Freeway Boulevard Ground Round, Inc. 2545 County Road 10 Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Boulevard La Casita Restaurant 2101 Freeway Boulevard Snyder Brothers Drug #18 1296 Brookdale Center (� T. Wright's 5800 Shingle Creek Pkwy. ief of Police fuk AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR D.V.M. Inc. d a Dahlco /b/ 119 State Street Theisen Vending Co. 3804 Nicollet Ave. N. ^r ief of Police 0 4 j� ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT St. Alphonsus Fun Fair 7025 Halifax Ave. N. J` .�1.�L2 jZU( Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Blaine Heating, Air Cond. & Electric 13562 Central Ave. NE Erickson Heating & A/C 8823 Zealand Ave. N. Midwest Equipment Co., Inc. 300 West University T. G. S. Mechanical Inc. 50 Choctaw Circle o 4 a Building Official RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Vinh & Ha Ly 6007 Brooklyn Blvd. Kathleen Matt 5621 Camden Ave. N. Jim Johnson 4201 Lakeside Ave. #216 James L. Erland 4207 Lakeside Ave. #223 William & Nancy Dahlquist 4700 -04 Lakeview Ave. N. Neil & Susan Grindheim 801 Woodbine Lane Capital Property Management 3506 Woodbine Lane Renewal: Lang - Nelson Associates Chalet Court Apts. Sheehy Management Company Shingle Creek Tower Irvin & Ruth Schloff 4819 Azelia Ave. N. Howard & Harriet Oien 5809 Brooklyn Blvd. Douglas & Kathleen Williams 5107 Drew Ave. N. Carlin Shefveland 5308 Emerson Ave. N. B. F. Dabrowski 5001 Ewing Ave. N. Michael L. Goodwin 5134 Ewing Ave. N. James & Agatha Eckman 5350 Irving Ave. N. Randy Elam 4200 Lakebreeze Ave. N. James & Bobbie Simons 4210 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Michael & Jane Danielson 4216 Lakebreeze Ave. N. John & Elizabeth Hass 4201 Lakeside Ave. #306 Joseph A. McFadden 4201 Lakeside Ave. #316 Thomas W. Kotila 5430 Morgan Ave. N. Tracy Rice 6907 Morgan Ave. N. Norwest Bank Minnesota 7002 Quail Circle W. Richard & Elfreda Ploof 5319 Queen Ave. N. Robert Baltuff 5930 Xerxes Ave. N. Agnes L. Janssen 1425 55th Ave. N. Bobby & Sally Robson 1107 57th Ave. N. Edward Doll 1201 57th Ave. N. Merle G. Biggs 3910 65th Ave. N. Joseph & Madeleine Roche 824 69th Ave. N. Dennis & Karen Peterson 4811 69th Ave. N. Myrna L. Hubert 5300 70th Circle N. (1.�f1iJ2 Director of Planning and Inspection GENERAL APPROVAL: 1 D. K. Weeks, City Clerk