Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 06-12 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JUNE 12, 1989 (following adjournment of the EDA meeting) 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum 5. Oath of Office 6. 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. 7. Approval of Minutes: a. May 22, 1989 - Regular Session 8. Mayoral Appointment: a. Planning Commission 9. Resolutions: a. Accepting Petitions, Commencing Proceedings on Improvement, Receiving Report and Calling Hearing on Improvement Project No. 1989 -08 b. Accepting Petitions, Commencing Proceedings on Improvement, Receiving Report and Calling Hearing on Improvement Project No. 1989 -15 C. Accepting Petitions, Commencing Proceedings on Improvement, Receiving Report and Calling Hearing on Improvement Project No. 1989 -16 d. Accepting Petitions, Commencing Proceedings on Improvement, Receiving Report and Calling Hearing on Improvement Project No. 1989 -17 *e. Amending the 1989 General Fund Budget and Accepting Proposal for Emergency Repairs of Air Conditioning System for Civic Center *f. 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) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- June 12, 1989 *g. Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Shade Trees (Order No. DST 6/12/89) *h. Accepting Bid and Authorizing Purchase of One (1) Tow Type Auger Paver -1989 Budget Item *i. Accepting Bids and Authorizing Purchase of One (1) Computerized Engine Analyzer -1989 Budget Item *j. Amending the 1989 General Fund Budget - Purchase one locker /safe for Police Department *k. Acknowledging Gift from the Brooklyn Center Lions Club *1. Authorizing the Purchase of Two Greens Covers, One Power Cart, Landscape Rock, and Installation of Blacktopping for Centerbrook Golf Course *m. Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Apply for a Grant *n. Accepting Proposal and Authorizing Purchase of Walk -in Cooler for Liquor Store #3 10. Ordinances: (7:30 p.m.) a. An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Easement in Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Shoppers Addition Hennepin County, Minnesota -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. b. 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 -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. C. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances 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 is offered this evening for a second reading. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- June 12, 1989 11. Private Kennel License - 5449 Emerson Avenue North (7:45 p.m.) 12. Planning Commission Items: (8 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 89013 submitted by Steve Fiterman /SuperAmerica 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 -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its May 25, 1989, meeting. b. Planning Commission Application No. 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 -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its May 25, 1989, meeting. C. Planning Commission Application No. 89015 submitted by Toys R Us requesting 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 -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its May 25, 1989, meeting. 13. Discussion Items: a. Appointment of Todd Paulson to LRT Board b. Appointment of Council Liaison to Housing Commission *14. Licenses 15. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MAY 22, 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, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Todd Paulson, and Jerry Pedlar. Also present were City Manager Gerald!, Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, HRG Administrator Tom Bublitz, and Administrative Aide Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Mayor Nyquist. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist recognized Gene Kasmar, 5559 Lyndale Avenue North, who stated he appeared two weeks ago at the Council meeting to speak against the invocation for the Council. He stated he was disappointed that an invocation is still being offered before the Council meeting. He stated he does not believe the invocation has a place in a secular function. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mike Kaulfuss, president of the Brooklyn Center Police Association. Mr. Kaulfuss stated he would like to request the Council consider allowing the police department to spend the money obtained through drug seizures for semi - automatic weapons. He added he would also like to request the Council's participation in the 1990 negotiations. Councilmember Scott inquired if there would be any training for use and cleaning of the semi - automatic weapons. Mr. Kaulfuss stated there would be an eight -hour training session. Councilmember Scott inquired if an officer would be allowed to continue using a revolver if they so wished. Mr. Kaulfuss stated he would prefer to see a total department conversion except for the investigative division. Mayor Nyquist inquired of the City Manager if it was appropriate for the Council to sit in on the bargaining unit negotiations. The City Manager stated he would prefer to use the process that has been used in the past. Councilmember Pedlar stated he was interested in obtaining more information regarding the process that is used for bargaining unit negotiations. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Paulson requested item 9a be removed and Councilmember Pedlar requested items 9e and 9f be removed. 5/22/89 _1_ APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 1 1989 - BOARD OF EQUALIZATION There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes of the May 1, 1989, Board of Equalization meeting. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL,OF MINUTES - MAY 1 1989 - SPECIAL SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes of the May 1, 1989, special session. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 3 1989 - SPECIAL SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes of the May 3, 1989, special session. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 8 1989 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes of the May 8, 1989, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 89 -92 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT, APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL, AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ON LAKEBREEZE AVENUE AND FRANCE AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1989 -14) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -93 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) COMPUTERIZED ENGINE ANALYZER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -94 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND NORTH HENNEPIN MEDIATION PROJECT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -95 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 5/22/89 -2- RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion . assed unanimously. Y RESOLUTION NO. 89 -96 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER ROTARY CLUB The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the following list of licenses: AMUSEMENT DEVICE - OPERATOR United Artists Theatre 5810 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR B & K Music & Sales 133 Spring Valley Circle COMMERCIAL KENNEL Childrens Palace 5900 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Leeann Chin, Inc. 6800 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Lioness Central Park Betsy Medley Earle Brown Days Parade PT Donuts Earle Brown Days Parade MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Construction Mechanical Systems 1307 Sylvan Street Dean's Heating & A/C Route 4, Box 372 Domestic Mechanical 6667 W. Old Shakopee Rd. Flare Heating & Air Cond., Inc. 664 Mendelssohn Ave. N. J. K. Heating Company 1286 Hudson Road Wencl Services, Inc. 5325 West 74th St. MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Brookdale Ford, Inc. 2500 Co. Rd. 10 Bob Ryan Oldsmobile 6700 Brooklyn Blvd. RENTAL DWELLING Initial. Gerald L. McGuire The Village at River West Patricia Doughty 5301 James Ave. N. 5/22/89 -3- Renewal: Norman Chazin Brookdale Manor Apts. Norman Chazin Four Courts Apts. Norman Chazin North Lyn Apts. Norman Chazin Northbrook Terrace Apts. Norman Chazin 6037 Brooklyn Blvd. Marcus Corporation 6415 James Circle North Jack and Nancy Wold 5907 -5909 June Ave. N. Norbert & Dolores Volbert 4207 Lakeside Ave. N., #122 Darrel Farr Development Corp. 4207 Lakeside Ave. N., #233 Keller Properties 5800 Logan Ave. N. Logan North Properties 5820 Logan Ave. N. Keller Properties 5830 Logan Ave. N. Gene & Barbara Roback 3501 47th Ave. N. T. W. Thorbus 4300 - 63rd Ave. N. Lawrence R. Florian 857 -861 70th Ave. N. Robert W. Rode 869 70th Ave. N. S. Richard Silverness 873 -877 70th Ave. N. James R. Hokanson 881 -885 70th Ave. N. SIGN HANGER Attracta Sign Company 7420 W. Lake Street Crosstown Sign Company 10166 Central Ave. NE Demars Signs 4040 Marshall Street NE SWIMMING POOL Bennie Rozman Brookdale Ten Apts. Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Gerald L. McGuire The Village at River West The motion passed unanimously. PRESENTATION - MINNESOTA WATER SKI ASSOCIATION Mayor Nyquist recognized Hank Longo, representing the Minnesota Water Ski Association. Mr. Longo stated he would like to thank the Mayor and City Council for allowing the water ski team to practice on Upper Twin Lake. PERFORMANCE BOND RELEASE - TARGET SHINGLE CREEK CENTER 6000-6100 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to release the performance bond for Target /Shingle Creek Center, 6000 -6100 Shingle Creek Parkway. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Directing Advertisement for Bids for 1989 Sealcoating Program (Improvement Project No. 1989 -08). Councilmember Paulson inquired if there was any alternative to the sealcoating process which is currently being used. He stated he has heard a number of complaints because of the problems this process raises with car owners. The City Manager stated there is really is no other economical way to extend the life of the roadway and keep it viable. The Director of 5/22/89 -4- e Public Works stated there are basically two alternatives to the process that the City of Brooklyn Center uses. He noted the first alternative would be to not do any type of resurfacing at all. He noted by not doing anything, the roadways would be expected to last approximately half as long as those that are sealcoated. He stated the other alternative would be to put a bituminous overlay on the roadways. He stated this process is five to ten times more expensive and eventually the entire roadway would have to be removed because of the build up which would occur over the years. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -97 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR 1989 SEALCOATING PROGRAM (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -08) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Authorizing a Capital Projects Fund Appropriation, Accepting a Proposal and Authorizing Execution of a Contract for Installation of a New Water Service Line to the Garden City Park Shelter Building (Improvement Project No. 1989 -11). The City Manager stated there has been two breaks in this water line over the last year and usually the breaks occur during the wintertime. He noted it is most expensive to repair these lines during the winter. He stated staff is requesting authorization for a capital projects appropriation so this project can be completed before winter. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -98 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND APPROPRIATION, ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF A NEW WATER SERVICE LINE TO THE GARDEN CITY PARK SHELTER BUILDING (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -11) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1989 -A (Rehabilitation of Well No. 8, Improvement Project 1988 -23). The Director of Public Works stated it appears the condition of this well has stabilized, and the expected cost is $17,072.50. He noted the well has been running for approximately three weeks and there is no evidence of breakdown. He stated there has been a two percent reduction in the total pumping capacity of the well. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -99 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1989-A (REHAfILITATION OF WELL NO. 8, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1988 -23) 5/22/89 -5- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Amending the 1989 General Fund Budget and Accepting Proposal to Repaint Overhead Doors and Trim on East and West Fire Stations. Councilmember Pedlar stated he is aware of the problem which has occurred over the years with the fire department. He noted he believes the City facilities and grounds should reflect how we would like all businesses and homes to look. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -100 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO REPAINT OVERHEAD DOORS AND TRIM ON EAST,ND WEST FIRE STATIONS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -101 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO REPAINT THE OVERHEAD DOORS AT THE MUNICIPAL GARAGE AND SALT STORAGE BUILDING The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCES The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land. He noted this ordinance relates to the City initiated planning application for rezoning from R5 to C1 in the southwest corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and I -694. He stated this item was first read on April 24, 1989, published in the City's official newspaper on May 4, 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 Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land 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 b Councilmember lmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to close the public hearing. he motion passed unanimous P ORDINANCE NO. 89 -09 Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND 5/22/89 -6- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Expansion of Single- Family Homes in the C1 Zoning District. He noted this item was first read on April 24, 1989, published in the City's official newspaper on May 4, 1989, and is offered this evening for a second reading. He noted staff opposes expansion of single- family homes within the C1 zone. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Expansion of Single- Family Homes in the C1 Zoning District and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak. Mayor Nyquist recognized Dave Paulat, 6521 Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Paulat stated he believes approval of this ordinance would provide the best of both worlds for the City and the residents in this area. The EDA Coordinator entered the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Paulat added without the exemption the present property owners would not be allowed to expand their homes. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to indefinitely postpone the second reading of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Expansion of Single- Family Homes in the Cl Zoning District. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Extending Interim Ordinance No. 87 -16 for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and the Health, Safety, and Welfare of the Residents of the Community, and Regulating and Restricting the Development of Adult Halfway Houses, Community Based Residential Facilities and Similar Uses in the City. He noted this item was first read on April 24, 1989, published in the City's official newspaper on May 4, 1989, and is offered this evening for a second reading. Councilmember Scott inquired when the report will be complete. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated staff is expecting the report by the end of June and Council will have time to review and discuss the report in July. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Extending Interim Ordinance No. 87 -16 for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and the Health, Safety, and Welfare of the Residents of the Community, and Regulating and Restricting the Development of Adult Halfway Houses, Community Based Residential Facilities and Similar Uses in the City 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 Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. 5/22/89 -7- ORDINANCE NO. 89 -10 Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 87 -16 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADULT HALFWAY HOUSES, COMMUNITY BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES AND SIMILAR USES IN THE CITY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of an Easement in Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Shoppers Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. He noted this easement crosses the SuperAmerica site at trunk highway 252 and 66th Avenue North and the vacant property west of the SuperAmerica site. He explained the vacation is requested by the property owners. He added this ordinance is offered this evening for a first reading. There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve for first reading An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of an Easement in Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Shoppers Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota and setting a public hearing date for June 12, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented 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. He noted this item was first read on April 24, 1989, published in the City's official newspaper on May 4, 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 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 and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak. No one requested to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 89 -11 Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: 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 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. 5/22/89 -8- PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 89009 SUBMITTED BY MILTON CARLSON AND HARRIET BERG REQUESTING REZONING FROM R2 TO R4 OF THE TWO FOUR PLEXES AT 610 AND 620 53RD AVENUE NORTH The City Manager noted the Planning Commission considered this application on March 16 1989, expanded , p d the rezoning consideration to include other nonconforming multiple - family buildings in the southeast neighborhood. He explained the application was referred to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group who reviewed the application and recommended approval of rezoning, including all of the nonconforming multiple- family buildings in the southeast neighborhood. HRG Administrator Tom Bublitz left the meeting at 7:50 p.m. The Director of Planning and Inspection on to briefly review the locations of the other buildings within the southeast neighborhood. He explained also included with this agenda item is a resolution regarding the disposition of the planning commission application and also an ordinance amending chapter 35 regarding the zoning classification pertaining to these properties. He noted there were six findings which should be considered for approval of the application. He went on to review the six findings for the Mayor and Council. Councilmember Paulson asked the Director of Planning and Inspection to address the issue of spot zoning and group homes. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated in 1966 the consultant recommended against rezoning because of the then current definition of spot zoning. He noted the current definition of spot zoning allows for the rezoning of these properties because spot zoning is approval of rezoning when the current zone is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The Director of Planning and Inspection noted these apartment buildings would be and are eligible for group home use. He stated this rezoning would not expand the type of uses allowed in the apartment buildings but, they could be used for group homes now under State law. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 89009 submitted by Milton Carlson and Harriet Berg and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak. No one requested to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 89009. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO 89 -102 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 89009 SUBMITTED BY MILTON CARLSON AND HARRIET BERG The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. 5/22/89 -9- There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson approving for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land Considered under Planning Commission Application No. 89009 and setting a public hearing date of June 12, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8 :10 p.m. and reconvened at 8:25 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS REPORT REGARDING COST ESTIMATE DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION AND PETITION PROCESS RELATING TO IMPROVEMENT OF FOUR UNIMPROVED ALLEYS The Director of Public Works stated on May 8, 1989, the City Council approved several changes in the City's policy regarding alley improvements. He noted based on those policy changes staff has developed and sent packets of information to all property owners abutting the four unimproved alleys. He explained the information sent included a cover letter, an updated summary of the established policies regarding alley improvements, cost and special assessment information, and individualized petitions which property owners may use to petition for or against the improvement of their alley and also to express their preference for bituminous surfacing or concrete paving. He stated they requested all property owners to return these petitions to the City offices by May 31, 1989. The Director of Public Works stated if the City decides that there is enough support to conduct a public hearing, the Council would then adopt a resolution accepting the petition calling for the public hearing to be held. He stated following the public hearing, the City Council would then vote whether or not to order the improvement. REPORT REGARDING CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER USE RESTRICTIONS The City Manager stated in 1987 and 1988 it was necessary to impose water use restrictions on the City of Brooklyn Center. He noted in 1987 the City chose the odd /even watering system but found it not to work as effectively as the system used in 1988. He explained in 1988 the restriction was from 3 p.m. to 9 p.m. each day, and staff found this system seemed to work most effectively and allowed the system to stay in balance. The Director of Public Works stated in the fall of 1988 the City Council requested City staff to conduct a survey of water use restrictions imposed by other cities, to recommend adjustments to the City's contingency plan based on the results of that survey, and to analyze the City's experience during the past two years. He noted a questionnaire was developed and sent to 33 cities in the metro area and 19 cities responded. The Director of Public Works stated staff believes quite strongly that the hourly restriction is much more effective than the odd /even system, and they would recommend this type of policy for water restrictions if necessary. He stated after detailed review of water supply and use records and a review of this data by consulting engineers, it indicates that the City's system should be able to bounce back adequately after a five -hour restriction. He noted this 0 5/22/89 -10- year staff is recommending the restriction be from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. daily. He went on to review the proposed contingency plan and the types of enforcement which will be used. Councilmember Pedlar inquired if it would be possible to impose the ban between noon and 6 p.m. daily. The City Manager stated the timing of the ban directly relates to the loss of water reserves. He noted the loss occurs around 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. Councilmember Scott stated she agrees with Councilmember Pedlar and she would like to have the idea of a noon to 6 p.m. water restriction investigated. She noted this would give those people who work more of a chance to water. The City Manager stated staff would look into this. STORAGE OF COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS The City Manager explained approximately two months ago Councilmember Pedlar raised the question as to whether or not the Council might want to reconsider the ordinance regulating the parking of commercial type vehicles in residential areas. He noted at that time staff prepared materials for Councilmembers Pedlar and Paulson to review which would give them background information on the Council's previous consideration of this matter. The City Manager stated it is staff's recommendation the City Council not modify the regulation of commercial vehicles in residential zones as it was the result of extensive consideration, and it has a basic rationale which encourages the separation of commercial activity from residential areas. He noted this type of regulation appears to also have community support based on the recent community survey results. Councilmember Pedlar stated as he reviewed the background materials which the staff prepared for him, there is no question the staff and Council spent a great deal of time and effort on consideration of the ordinance in the first place. He stated he feels there is definitely a need for an ordinance that addresses very large vehicles. He explained he feels the entire issue started as a noise problem and evolved into a size problem. He stated he believes the Council went too far in trying to address this issue. He stated he feels there are people within the City who have large vehicles that have not posed a problem to their neighbors. Councilmember Scott stated she agrees with Councilmember Pedlar that by restricting some of the smaller vehicles, the Council has created a hardship for the smaller businessman. Councilmember Pedlar pointed out the survey results show the residents in Brooklyn Center are in favor of this type of ordinance. He inquired if further investigation could be done into the area of allowing special use permits for these type of vehicles. Councilmember Scott inquired of the City Attorney if there is any type of permit that could be used for these vehicles. The City Attorney stated he has never seen a permit mechanism used for this type of situation, but he believed something could be worked out. He added Council may find that a truck that is accepted in one neighborhood will not be accepted in another. The City Manager stated if a permit is issued for each individual case, the Council will have problems being consistent. Councilmember Pedlar stated he still believes the main issue is the noise problem. The City Manager noted the entire issue arose because of the noise problem and objections from neighbors who live next to large vehicles. Councilmember Pedlar stated he feels it would be appropriate to delay implementation to allow for further investigation. The City Attorney stated if this is the route the Council wants to take, it could rescind the 5/22/89 -11- second reading of the ordinance and leave it as an ordinance which has had a first reading but not yet been adopted. The Director of Planning and Inspection pointed out the special use permit provision was addressed in a past memo. He stated noise problems are difficult to address because there are school buses and garbage trucks traveling through the neighborhood which are just as noisy as these other vehicles. The City Manager stated staff is frustrated because they cannot find a way to deal with what the Council is asking. He added he does not believe the Council wishes to put the City in a position of defending itself. Councilmember Pedlar stated he did not understand what the City would be accomplishing by going ahead with this ordinance. He stated he did not believe the City would be addressing the actual problem and inquired who the City is protecting by enforcement of this ordinance. Councilmember Paulson stated he still believes something could be worked out with regard to a special use permit. He noted the City Attorney stated he also felt some type of language could be worked out to address the issue. The City Manager stated he did not mean to imply it was impossible to implement a special use permit for these vehicles but rather staff did not recommend this process. He noted it would undoubtedly create problems down the road and open the Council to a wide variety of legal issues. Councilmember Pedlar stated he still has a number of questions which he needs answers to before he would be comfortable in allowing enforcement of this ordinance. The City Manager stated the ordinance is to become effective on June 1, 1989. He noted if the Council so wished, staff could start enforcement by sending notices to those people we have received complaints on and allow them "x" days in which to comply. He stated if anyone were to call inquiring why we are not starting stronger in enforcement, staff would have to explain that the Council may be reconsidering this issue and strict enforcement of the ordinance will not occur until the issue is reconsidered. He added he strongly encourages the Council to resolve this problem in some way. The City Attorney stated it is important the Council give staff some type of direction in this issue. He noted it is going to be difficult to draft an ordinance unless staff knows exactly what the Council does or does not want. SELECTION OF COUNCILMEMBER Mayor Nyquist stated because of the resignation of Councilmember Lhotka, the Council should appoint a person to fill the Council vacancy. He noted under the Charter the Council is allowed 30 days in which to appoint a person to fill the vacancy. He noted he has outlined a process which he is suggesting the Council use for appointment to the Council vacancy. He noted he would like to see a unanimous vote, although that restriction cannot be imposed because the City Charter states a majority vote. He briefly reviewed the process for selection and inquired if the Council had any questions or comments. Councilmember Scott stated she felt the process outlined by the Mayor was acceptable, and she would suggest ten ballots being the maximum ballots to be taken. Councilmember Pedlar concurred with Councilmember Scott's comments. Councilmember Paulson inquired if the application from Mark Ellis would be included with the other candidates. Mayor Nyquist stated he hesitated to add 5/22/89 -12- this application because it was received after the deadline, and there may have been other people who wanted to apply but did not because it was past the deadline. Councilmember Paulson stated Mr. Ellis contacted him on the day of the deadline, and he in turn tried to contact the Mayor and City Manager but was unable to reach either of them. Mayor Nyquist stated he recalled receiving a message that Councilmember Paulson had called for him that evening. There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Scott to include Mark Ellis as an applicant for the position of Councilmember. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to officially adopt the procedure as set forth in the memorandum dated May 22, 1989, from the Mayor and to place the maximum number of ballots at ten. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist stated he felt it was important to discuss the criteria the Council felt was necessary for the appointment of a person to the vacancy. He noted he felt experience is very important for filling this vacancy. He noted Phil Cohen is a former Mayor and Councilmember of the City of Brooklyn Center and is well suited to this position. He added he felt politics should be left out of the City Council proceedings. Councilmember Pedlar stated he felt the individual which is appointed to fill this vacancy should not run as an incumbent in the next election. Mayor Nyquist stated the Council cannot legally restrict the individual from running as an incumbent. Councilmember Paulson stated he felt the Council should look at the enthusiasm, knowledge, and strengths which each applicant can bring to the Council. Councilmember Scott stated she is pleased that the Council has four candidates to choose from. She noted although there is no way the Council can legally require them not to run as an incumbent in the next election, Phil Cohen has stated he would not run for re- election but would be most honored to fill the vacancy. Councilmember Pedlar stated on the basis that the Council cannot legally restrict this person from running for the next election, he would be in favor of a special election. He noted this would give the choice back to the voters. He added he felt by allowing this person to run as an incumbent in the next election, he would be getting a i ti g head start on g anyone else ' Council seat. y interested in the Mayor Nyquist stated the first step ep in the process would be to hold a y, unofficial roll call vote in which each member indicates their first and second choice. He noted the first choice would be allocated two points and the second choice one point. He stated the applicants with the fewest number of votes would be dropped pp from any further consideration. Mayor Nyquist asked each Councilmember to indicate their first and second choice. 5/22/89 -13- a c ` Councilmember Pedlar - Phil Cohen (2) Barb Jensen (1) Councilmember Scott - Phil Cohen (2) Barb Jensen (1) Mayor Nyquist - Phil Cohen (2) Barb Jensen (1) Councilmember Paulson - Barb Jensen (2) Phil Cohen (1) Mayor Nyquist stated Phil Cohen received seven points and Barb Jensen received five points. It was noted Mark Ellis and Bob Hock would be dropped from any further consideration. Mayor Nyquist stated the next step in the process would be for each member to indicate their first choice. He noted if there is a unanimous consensus the Council would then proceed with the resolution appointing a person to the Council vacancy. He noted if there is a majority vote a second ballot would be taken to give the dissenting vote the opportunity to change or abstain. Mayor Nyquist asked each member to indicate their first choice. Councilmember Paulson - Phil Cohen Mayor Nyquist - Phil Cohen Councilmember Scott - Phil Cohen Councilmember Pedlar - Phil Cohen Mayor Nyquist stated it appears Phil Cohen is to be appointed as Councilmember on the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -103 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO FILL THE VACANCY ON THE COUNCIL CREATED BY THE RESIGNATION OF COUNCILMEMBER GENE LHOTKA The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10:10 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 5/22/89 -14- APPLICATION OR OOKLYN CUIIER PLANNING AMSORY CQMNIISSION 1. Name James E. McCloskey 2. Address 7101 Kyle Ave N Phone 561 -0636 Home 542 -7092 Business 3. How long have you been a resident? 15 years 4. List special interests, qualifications, experience which you feel relate to this appointment: As a Iona time resident. I have seen many changes and want to be involved in the progress of buildi_na our cn mmity; Honeywell, Manager of Education and Training, Residential Division; Brooklet Park Ewanaelical Free church, Trustee, Sunday School Tear. her; Brooklyn Center Prayer Breakfast Committee; Extensive experience in origination origination docwnentatjM, implementation of policies and procedures Demonstrates ability to listen, understand, ask right-questipm and be consistent in decision making activities 5. Additional remarks concerning your ideas or observations on the role of the Commission: The commission has demonstrated a proactive and constnzctive achievement in the planning /land use Classification, fey have been honest, fair, and consistent in their activities 6. Are you familiar with the purpose, authority, and responsibility of the Commission as described in the Zoning Ordinance? Yes X Np 7. Are you aware of the importance of regular Commission meeting attendance (normally twice a month on the 2nd and 4th Thursday nights), and do you feel you have the time available to be an active participant? Yes X No Coirmients: It would be an honor to serve as an active participant on the Commission. Signature Date Submit to: Mayor City 'of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6 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: SY KN�4P DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: y No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes 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 Prpject 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 - Humboldt/ 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: • 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. • 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 Required Consideration of each of the attached resolutions. r 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 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. r 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 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 an time the he property owner desires. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 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 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 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 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 N0. 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. Engineer's Report Alley Improvement Project No. 1989 -08 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 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 = S 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 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 (these developing a good centerline grade. grades cannot be accomplished in this alley. o Has a short (10 -15 year) life expectancy. o Because grades are always critical, future overlay of a bituminous alley will cause new drainage problems. 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. 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. 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 16 241.15 74.20 17 225.07 69.25 18 209.00 64.31 19 192.92 59.36 20 176.73 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). 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 amzual 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. 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 Registration No. 6242 qL Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 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 . 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. 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. Engineer's Report Is 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 Application of this formula shows the following level of support for the 9 X 40 + 6 X 60 = 44% improvement: 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: Type of Paving 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 (these grades developing a good centerline grade. cannot be accomplished in this alley). o Has a short (10 -15 year) life expectancy. 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 Application of this formula shows the following level of support for the 9 X 40 + 6 X 60 = 44% improvement: 18 15 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 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: Type of Paving 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. o Has a short (10 -15 year) life expectancy. I Type of Paving Advantages Disadvantages o Because grades are always critical, future overlay of a bituminous alley will cause new drainage problems. 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. 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. ALLEY 2 GIRARD /HUMBOLDT FROM 54TH 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 ---- - - - - -- ---------------------- - - - - -- -------------------------- 1 $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 10 101.29 205.15 36.17 73.27 11 195.38 69.78 12 185.61 66.29 13 175.84 62.80 14 166.07 59.31 15 156.30 55.82 16 146.53 52.33 17 136.76 48.84 18 127.00 45.36 19 117.23 41.87 20 107.44 38.36 TOTAL $1,450.89 $4,055.07 $518.49 $1,448.87 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). ( f 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. 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 . Knapp Registration No. 6242 qe, Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 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 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. 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. 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 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 ormula has been developed to show g P 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 Application of this formula shows the following level of support for the 14 12 improvement: = 24 X 40 + 19 X 60 = 61g 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 g 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 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 (these grades developing a good centerline grade. cannot be accomplished in this alley). o Has a short (10 -15 year) life expectancy. is Type of Paving Advantages Disadvantages o Because grades are always critical, future overlay of a bituminous alley will cause new drainage problems. 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. 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. ALLEY 3 EMERSON /FREMONT FROM 53RD TO 54TH DIRECT ACCESS INDIRECT ACCESS PROPERTIES PROPERTIES Bituminous Concrete Bituminous Concrete 10 Yrs 20 Yrs 10 Yrs 20 Yrs ------ ----- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- Principle: le: 835.98 $1,176.84 $305.45 $430.00 Year ---- - - - - -- ---------------------- - - - - -- -------------------------- 1 $188.60 $206.95 $69.23 $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 13 105.92 38.70 14 100.03 36.55 15 94.15 34.40 16 88.26 32.25 17 82.38 30.10 18 76.49 27.95 19 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 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). J f 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 frill 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. 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 ,#. Knapp Registration No. 6242 , qd Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 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 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 NO. I i 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. 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 = 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 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) — g y Application of this formula shows the following level of support for the _ 11 improvement: X 40 + 5 X 60 = 31% Preference Re a� rding 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 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 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 (these grades developing a good centerline grade. can be accomplished in this alley). o Has a short (10 -15 year) life expectancy. Type of Paving Advantages Disadvantages o Because grades are always critical, future overlay of a bituminous alley will cause new drainage problems. 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. 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 Assessed $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. ALLEY 4 LAKEVIEW /TWIN LAKE AV FROM LAKEBREEZE TO LAKESIDE 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 17 280.00 70.00 18 260.00 65.00 19 240.00 60.00 20 220.00 55.00 TOTAL $3,990.42 $8,301.00 $997.92 $2,076.00 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). i 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. 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 - Knapp Registration No. 6242 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR ' COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR EMERGENCY REPAIRS OF AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM FOR CIVIC CENTER DEPT. APPROVAL: * * * * * * * * * * * * **laPP* DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC *WORKS * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: Y No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached No Explanation • Last week Compressor No. 2 (one of the two compressors which provides air conditioning to the Civic Center complex) was shutdown because of an unusual noise which had developed. An inspection of the compressor showed that it has several broken pistons and broken rods, and a scored crankshaft. An evaluation of the situation was conducted by City staff with the assistance of Cramer Building Services (the contractor who provides maintenance services on our HVAC ) equipment) and reviewed with OL&B ( g our mechanical engineers). . One special factor considered is that this unit, for the past 4 years, has been noted to have a partial blockage in the evaporator (the other half of the unit) which has placed additional stress on the compressor unit. This additional stress very probably contributed significantly to the failure of the compressor unit (which had been installed as a "factory- rebuilt" unit in 1984). No correction of the partial blockage of the evaporator is possible, and the cost of replacing it is estimated at $15,000. Analysis has shown that, because of recent improvements to the insulation systems within the complex, the buildings can be served by a smaller (50 -ton vs.` 60 -ton) compressor, and that this smaller compressor will be more compatible with the partially obstructed evaporator. Four options are available, i.e.: Estimated Option No. Description Costs • 1 Rebuild existing compressor in place $ 8,000 2 Replace 60 -ton compressor with a factory - rebuilt 50 -ton compressor 8,200 Estimated Option No. Description Costs • 3 Replace 60 -ton compressor with a new 50 -ton compressor ssor 12,000 4 Replace 60 -ton compressor and the partially obstructed evaporator with a new 50 -ton compressor and 25,000 to evaporator 30,000 We believe "Option 2" is the most cost - effective option and recommend proceeding on that basis. Accordingly, we have requested and received 3 proposals for Option 2 and we recommend acceptance of the lowest proposal as submitted by Cramer Building Services. Note Compressor No. l had a similar failure in 1988 but had less internal damage, and was rebuilt "in place" at a cost of $6,122.85. That compressor and its evaporator are working well. Council Action Required A resolution is attached for consideration by the City Council. 9&= Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR EMERGENCY REPAIRS OF AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM FOR CIVIC CENTER 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 Compressor No. 2 which provides for air conditioning of the Civic Center complex has experienced mechanical failure and immediate replacement of that unit is necessary to assure acceptable performance of the HVAC system which serves the complex; and WHEREAS the following proposals have been received to replace the existing compressor with a factory- rebuilt 50 -ton compressor: Contractor Amount of Proposal Cramer Building Services $ 8,200.00 Pride Mechanical Contractors 8,700.00 Palen /Kimbell Company 12,692.00 AND WHEREAS it appears that Cramer Building Services has submitted the lowest responsible proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The 1989 General Fund budget be amended as follows: Increase the Appropriations for the following line items Government Buildings - No. 19, Object No. 4520 $8,200.00 Decrease the Appropriations for the following, line items Unallocated Dept. Expense - No. 80, Object No. 4995 $8,200.00 2. The proposal submitted by Cramer Building Services is hereby accepted and approved. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute a contract with the firm in accordance with the proposal. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meetin Date 61/89 Agenda item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: 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) DEPT. APPROVAL: * * * * * * * * * * * ** Na ** * D *R * ** OR OF PUBLIC WOR ** * * ** * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation Within the block of property which lies between 55th Avenue North and Ericon Drive, west of Oliver Avenue north, there is a narrow strip of property (see attached map) which is 16.5 feet wide and extends 642.5 feet west of Oliver, at which point it widens to a total of 33 feet for a distance of 33 feet. This parcel was originally created under Auditor's Subdivision No. 218 and served as a cartway to the properties lying west of that point. As the properties on both sides developed, this cartway continued to be used. However, when the land westerly of that point was developed, the cartway was abandoned and became tax delinquent. It has been a "no- mans - land" ever since. While some of the adjoining owners maintain this property, others disregard it. The "ideal" resolution to this situation would be to have someone or some agency assume the responsibility for acquiring the entire parcel, subdividing it, and selling_it;to the adjoining owners. However, the costs for this would undoubtedly be far greater than the value of the property, making this solution unrealistic. Recently the owner of Lot 1, Block 1 of John Ryden Second Addition (2224 55th Avenue North) requested a building permit to construct a garage on his property and extending into the 16.5' x 33' corner of the tax - forfeited parcel in question. When the Planning and Inspection Department denied the permit, the owner contacted the Hennepin County Division of Tax Forfeited Properties. That office has advised our City Assessor's office that they are willing to deal with this matter on an incremental basis, using metes and bounds descriptions on a request basis. Accordingly, a resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council which would authorize the sale of the 16.5' x 33' parcel in question to an adjoining owner. Council Action Required Adoption of the resolution. �F Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 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) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center has received from Hennepin County a list of lands which became the property of the State of Minnesota for non - payment of real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, each parcel of land described in said list has heretofore been classified by the Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County, Minnesota as nonconservation land and the sale thereof has been authorized by said Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Inspections and the Director of Public Works have advised the City Council that the following parcel is not a buildable site due to its size and lack of access, and that this parcel would best be developed in conjunction with an adjoining property: Property Identification No. Description 02- 118 -21 -42 -0112 That part of Lot 25, Auditor's Subdivision No. 218, Hennepin County Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Southwest one - quarter of the Southeast one - quarter (SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4) of Section 2, Township 118, Range 21, thence Easterly along the North line of said Southwest one - quarter a distance of 33 feet, thence Southerly along the Easterly line of that portion of Lot 25 a distance of 16.5 feet, thence Westerly along the Southerly line of that portion of Lot 25 a distance of 33 feet, thence Northerly along the Westerly line of said Southwest one - quarter a distance of 16.5 feet to the point of beginning. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, acting pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 282: 1. That said classification as nonconservation land be and the same is hereby approved with respect to said parcel. 2. That said land is hereby approved for sale to an adjacent property in accordance with Minnesota Statutes relating to the sale of unbuildable parcels of land, provided that the purchaser be RESOLUTION NO. required to request the City Assessor, following conveyance, to combine the two parcels for tax purposes. Such combination may not be rescinded without City Council approval. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. . ad6. 5 I 0 y 56 .S8 / hereby eartify that in ac of 192 and ,n occor ° 2 o b A.Henry ., county,Minneso/0, /hove /o/ V 3 y° AnderJn. et o^ b N Hennep1n , and Slate of /"/i, vP� 34 Q L V I ascewtii�g Oakc% /e Adclifion fi 53 + a d e /inQafion of saLC/ 010111"g an /hat a// cll, tIO ices ar•c 7 _ 1 I 3t _. z o 17C J9 ^"d.. .r9 J46.o ieo dl ?d c.z 67o.s v ` 35 " y Enc Rydeq, b �° I r• o ° i 6 ; ` 7. ee m d Z8 6� ° Ia 481 .49 3o 54 Al R Erickson, County .4 (� ' # I fir,, • / ho.o notified the ownara v dew. ef�I, � Certifico/Fr to �o /ot the 50-4r aie.E R 0 ` � 9 N •o.o Oe acid notice, an Joie' (L 27 y, 36 noti ad request, notice and / hav °� 11 3 T .4 ' I �s`: a-? this sheet, Ond SOm¢ la b< I h " I °' � � o • M1 nnss0 10. i oY i [3± J9. t ZBO.6 Ls+. r ,n s Ootcd II / � A ,� J el-I old "Cartway ") �� a 26 Tax- Forfeited) �Z ( ^qs y Portion of Lot 25) o I �a 38 4e .a9 ....... 0 6 aeo 6 d/n o W y2 u OA ALE � 3�� ° /V 1 � N A tv /oN y 43 p Portion of Auditor s u Subdivision No. 218 3' a " 489.69 Showing Lot 25 er Hjs /✓iE, ao+ eeot 39 40 41 i o 4i 42 O Cfi Earl S'*0/77 e , Z/ 6 3 - l S„q r "wT a40 i_ d4o4 deOt 3.L co, Sic 1 J i • i ERICON DR. P � a \ 7s 7s ea (70) 7s M g a D�a SEC� ® QD 5 N 5 I° 1 2 M 3 4 N (67) (68) (69) (43) I g (63) (64) (65) - (66) C38} �' (39) (40) "- (41) n (42) ( 9 n (71) LL 1 g1, 15 (PART OF LOT 25 AID. Su9. N0. 218 H 77 75 73 7 73 71 71 71 8.8 42 75 75 75 75 75 sJ 1�G� MEN SE GAD Q DITY �] m B 5 4 3 2 i n 1 f„ 2 3 4 5 8 �- 7 •C' 8 A 9 (11) (10) (9} (8) (7) (6) ' o (66) - (67) (68) ( ,) - (70) _ (71) (72) _ (73) - (74) 75 71 7 71 71 74.58 75 7 75 T5 75 75 75 75 75 55TH AVE N 5 71 F i 1 35 + 33 00 BO 95 95 95 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council meeting Date 6/12/84 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF SHADE TREES DEPT. APPROVAL; SY KNAW D I RECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS' MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: I A V 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. • / 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 06/12/89) 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 CITY OF BC CABLE PARK 1 STATE OF MN EWING /FRANCE /67 10 STATE OF MN EWING /FRANCE /67 11 STATE OF MN EWING /FRANCE /67 12 STATE OF MN EWING /FRANCE /67 13 STATE OF MN EWING /FRANCE /67 14 MARILYN HEGYI 621 58TH AVE N 15 THOMAS /FRANCES SMITH 6224 REGENT AVE N 16 CITY OF BC ARBORETUM PARK 17 ALLAN & VICKI OLSON 7111 RIVERDALE RD 18 DAVID PEDERSON 3806 BURQUEST LA 19 CITY OF BC CABLE PARK 2 GENE & LINDA LOFTUS 6300 PERRY AVE N 20 FRANK & EVELYN DODY 3806 57TH AVE N 21 JOHN PEARMAN 3713 61ST AVE N 22 JOHN PEARMAN 3713 61ST AVE N 23 GERALD BIROSH 5331 CAMDEN AVE N 24 CITY OF BC BELLVIEW PARK 25 CITY OF BC BELLVIEW PARK 26 CITY OF BC BELLVIEW PARK 27 CITY OF BC BELLVIEW PARK 28 ALBERT HOZEMPA 5903 EMERSON AVE N 29 CITY OF BC CABLE PARK 3 DOUGLAS /PEGGY KOHNER 3712 VIOLET AVE 30 PAUL /PAMELA FRANZEN 3718 VIOLET AVE 31 ARLEN STREHLO 5809 PEARSON DR 32 MICHAEL STREITZ 5813 PEARSON DR 33 WILLIAM BRUNEAU 6325 UNITY AVE N 34 KEVIN /ALICE MCGUIRE 5345 FREMONT AVE N 35 ARNEVWELL BENIFIELD 5400 COLFAX AVE N 36 ARNEVWELL BENIFIELD 5400 COLFAX AVE N 37 ALFRED MAGNUSON 5907 COLFAX AVE N 38 RESOLUTION NO. PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS TREE NUMBER STEVE /KATHLEEN SMITH 5630 GIRARD AVE N 39 CITY OF BC CABLE PARK 4 PAMELA JOHNSON 5500 LOGAN AVE N 40 GEORGE /SANDRA NORRIS 2018 55TH AVE N 41 CITY OF BC NORTHPORT PARK 42 MICHAEL /JILL JOHNSON 6007 COLFAX AVE N 5 CHIPPEWA PARK INV 6417 CAMDEN AVE N 6 NANCY L BASS 821 73RD AVE N 7 STATE OF MN EWING /FRANCE /67 8 STATE OF MN EWING /FRANCE /67 9 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. 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 6/12/89 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) TOW TYPE AUGER /PAVER DEPT. APP VAL: ttc Po a Administrative Aide Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached On June 8, 1989, two bids were opened for a tow type auger /paver. I recommend accepting the low bid of $17,045.00 from Ruffridge- Johnson. This item was approved in the 1989 budget, department #42. Member introduced the following Is resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) TOW TYPE AUGER /PAVER WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1989 budget for the purchase of one (1) tow type auger /paver; and WHEREAS, two bids were received as follows: COMPANY BID Ruffridge- Johnson $17,045.00 Aspen Equipment Co. $21,759.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of one tow type auger /paver from Ruffridge- Johnson in the amount of $17,045.00 is 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 6/12/89 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) COMPUTERIZED ENGINE ANALYZER DEPT, AP OVAL: O n CIO Administrative Aide Signature -title *************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: f t ,4 No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached On June 8, 1989, bids were opened for a computerized engine analyzer. Three bids were received. It has been determined the bid submitted by BEAR does not meet the bid specifications and, therefore, should be rejected. The analyzer which BEAR proposed to furnish is not compatible with distributorless ignition systems. Staff Recommendation I recommend rejecting the bid from BEAR on the grounds it does not meet bid specs and accepting' the bid from Sun Electric Corp. 9` Member introduced the following . resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) COMPUTERIZED ENGINE ANALYZER WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1989 budget for the purchase of one (1) computerized engine analyzer; and WHEREAS, the bid received from BEAR does not meet the bid specifications and, therefore, is rejected; and WHEREAS, the approved appropriation is $24,000 for the purchase of one (1) computerized engine analyzer; and WHEREAS, two qualified bids were received as follows: COMPANY BID Sun Electric Corp. $22,108.90 Test Products Division $22,818.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the bid received from Sun Electric Corp. is hereby accepted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid received from BEAR is hereby rejected on the grounds it did not meet the bid specifications. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: June 6, 1989 SUBJECT: Purchase of Locker for Police Department Currently, valuables such as jewelry and cash seized for any reason are kept in a box in the vault in the finance department. The volume of items has reached the point where they have outgrown the space available. We would like to request the purchase of a safe/ locker to be kept in the police department to hold these types of items. This matter has been discussed with Finance Director Paul Holmlund and he concurs with this request. We request the purchase of locker WS -40 from Mobile Lock and Safe Company which has a purchase price of eight hundred fifty dollars ($850.00). The funds for this purchase would come from drug forfeiture monies and not the city budget. If you have any further questions, please contact me. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET WHEREAS, Section 609.5315 of the State Statutes of the State of Minnesota does allow the expenditure of drug forfeiture monies by the law enforcement agency; and WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter does provide for the increase of a budget appropriation by the City Council if the actual receipts exceed the estimate, but not to exceed the actual receipts; and WHEREAS the volume of ems it seized is so great that a need has arisen for a safe /locker to store these items in; and WHEREAS, the city manager has recommended the purchase of a safe /locker to store the valuable property in. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend the 1989 General Fund Budget as follows: Increase the appropriations for the following line item: Police department, 01- 4551 - 130 -31 $850 Increase the estimated revenues from the following line item: Forfeited Drug Money, 01- 3897 - 000 -00 $850 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 lv Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION (IGIFT Q) * * * * * * ** ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** • ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB DEPT. APPROVAL: U4-- Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _) The attached resolution acknowledges the receipt of a gift from the Brooklyn Center Lions Club and amends the 1989 budget to increase the appropiation for Entertainment in the Parks for the gift. A S similar gift was received from the Lions in 1988 but was designated for the 1989 Entertainment in the Parks program since the 1988 program was already fully funded. Last year's gift was acknowledged by Resolution No. 88 -73 but it didn't amend the 1989 budget since it had' not yet been adopted. So we are taking the opportunity of this resolution to also amend the budget for last year's gift. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB ----------------------------------- WHEREAS, THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB has presented the City a gift of one thousand dollars($1,000) and has designated that it be used for the "Entertainment in the Parks" program during the summer of 1989: and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of the gift and commends the Brooklyn Center Lions Club for its civic efforts; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Lions Club made a similar one thousand five hundred dollar ($1,500) gift during 1988 which was acknowledged by Resolution 88 -73 and held in the monetay deposits account for use this year: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The current year's gift of $1,000 be appropriated to the General Recreation Programs Professional Services Budget for the Entertainment in the Parks.! 2. The gift from last year of $1,500 be appropriated to the General Recreation Programs Professional Services Budget for the Entertainment in the Parks. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken theron, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY F BROOKLYN 0 OOK!_ N CENTER PARKS AND RECREATION 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Y at Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Telephone 561 -5448 MOO {LYO CCM TIA {11011{ MO 0 {CO ■OTIOO MEMO TO . Gerald G. Splinter FROM : Arnie Mavis DATE : May 24, 1989 SUBJECT: Centerbrook Golf Course I am asking for permission to spend $8,060 at the Centerbrook Golf Course. $12,100 had been budgeted to buy mats to cover the greens over the winter but we would rather buy only two mats at a cost of $2,200 and thus take the $8,060 out of what will be left from not buying the other nine mats. Here is a break down of how we would spend that money. First, we need another power cart. There are several reasons for this. One, we are getting more requests from golfers who need a power cart to get around the course. There have been several times recently where both power carts were being used by golfers at the same time. This leaves us with no transportation for our rangers or maintenance crew. We also have a problem when one of the power carts breaks down. This leaves us with only one vehicle and this puts us in a bind. The cost for a good used power cart would be $2,500. Second we would like to black top the road coming in to the Maintenance garage, and the area in front of the garage. One of the main reasons for doing this is that the gravel from the present road gets on to the fairways and this causes a problem when cutting them. There is also a problem when it rains as this causes ruts in the gravel. By black topping this area we could solve these problems. Black topping would also make it easier to wash the golf course maintenance equipment which is done in front of the Garage. Black topping would make this area look a lot cleaner and neater. The cost for doing this is $3,360. Along with this we would hope that the water department would black top the road going to the water tower. In the winter this road is plowed when it snows and quite a bit of the gravel is pushed out into the grass which causes a problem in the spring when all of this gravel has to be cleaned up. Black topping this road would also dress up the golf course. The cost of doing this road would be $2,600. The third item I would like you to consider is purchasing some stone to put around the edges of the ponds. The purpose for this is to stop the erosion that is taking place in the ponds. The pond in front of the fourth tee is really becoming bad in a couple of spots and if we don't do something soon we may have a major problem. The cost for doing this project is $2,200. I believe all three of the above projects are important to Centerbrook Golf Course. As you know Centerbrook is a first class operation and this would only add to that image. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF TWO GREENS COVERS, ONE POWER CART, LANDSCAPE ROCK, AND INSTALLATION OF BLACKTOPPING FOR CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE WHEREAS, staff had lanned on purchasing nine P P g greens g covers; and WHEREAS, staff has reviewed that plan and is now recommending purchasing two greens covers at a cost of $2,200; and WHEREAS, staff is further recommending the purchase of the following items: Power cart - one $2,500 Blacktopping of road leading to maintenance garage 3,360 Landscape rock around ponds 2,200 TOTAL $8,060 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of two greens covers, one power cart, landscape rock, and installation of blacktopping for Centerbrook Golf Course is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the blacktopping of the path leading to the water tower, at a cost of $2,600, is also approved; and funds for this blacktopping should be taken from the Public Utilities Department. 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 6/12/89 Agenda Item Number 9i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Apply for a Grant ******************************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: l"f / 14- /1 4 J Program Supervisor Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The 1990 Earle Brown Days will be dedicated to Celebrate Minnesota 1990. In honor of this statewide celebration, the committee wants to make Earle Brown Days more spectacular. The grant proposal is to sponsor the Minnesota Orchestra for Sunday In Central Park in 1990. The amount requested is $3,000. A few years ago, Roseville, a community of comparable size and population, successfully hosted the Minnesota Orchestra to approximately 4,000 people. The orchestra was chosen on the basis of their reputation and the musical content of the Symphony For The Cities program in which they perform showtunes, light classic, marches, and sing- alongs. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR A GRANT WHEREAS, in 1986 and 1987 grants were awarded to the City of Brooklyn Center by the Metropolitan Council Regional Arts Council for the 1987 and 1988 Entertainment in the Parks program; and WHEREAS, it is desirous that the City apply for this grant for the 1990 Sunday in Central Park event. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Mayor and City Manager are I hereby authorized to make application for said grant. 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 JUN b1:� 14: _i ' HH EWL1 1H. W. 'od rW-L quipment company 2212 MINN EHAHA AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55404 TELEPHONE (51 2) 721 -3383 June 9, 1989 The City of Brooklyn Center 1500 59th. Avenue North Brooklyn Center. MN 55430 Attn: Jerry Olson We are pleased to quote yocs on the following. 1 Only new 16' x 32' X 8' high walk -ill cooler without a floor. Stucco galvanized exterior, stL:cco aluminum interior, 3 -1/2" foamed in place insulation, 1 Opening for customers 42" wide swing style ,100r. 1 'I`hermorneter . Front fitted for 12 Anthony 28 -3/4" x 73" display doors- AS LISTED: S 6,995- This quotation does not include any electrical illstallatic'ns, labors or any interior walls or decor. Sincerely, AA EQUIPMENT COMPANY Richard A. McDowell SALES AND SERVICE RMiclt 9N Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF WALK -IN COOLER FOR LIQUOR STORE #3 WHEREAS, on May 8, 1989, the City Council approved new lease with Northbrook Partners for Liquor Store #3; and WHEREAS, part of the new lease provides for remodeling of the liquor store; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to purchase a new walk -in cooler in conjunction with this remodeling project; and WHEREAS, a proposal has been submitted by AA Equipment Company in the amount of $6,995 for furnishing said walk -in cooler. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the proposal from AA Equipment Company, in the amount of $6,995 is hereby accepted. 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 6/12/89 Agenda item Number all REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF AN EASEMENT IN LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, SHOPPERS ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: ,z 17�/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *P* D IRECTOR PUBLIC * WORKS * * * * * * * * ** wa. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: t f ... No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yps ) Explanation In 1961 the City acquired easements for sanitary sewer construction, operation and maintenance along the extension of the 5th Street North alignment, between 66th and 65th Avenues North. Subsequently, an 8" sanitary sewer was installed approximately 10 feet deep along the centerline of that easement. The area in the northerly portion of this block of property is now being redeveloped by SuperAmerica and Miles and Shirley Fiterman. Attached is a letter in which their attorney requests that the easement be reduced to a 30 -foot width by the vacation of the outer 15 feet on each side of the easement area (see sketch). City staff has reviewed this request and we find no reason to object to the request since we believe that the sanitary sewer can be maintained, repaired and replaced (if necessary) within the 30 -foot wide remaining easement area. The attached ordinance 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. City Council Action Required • conduct public hearing • adopt ordinance 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 Vacating a Portion of an Easement in Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Shoppers Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF AN EASEMENT IN LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1. SHOPPERS ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The following_ described portion of the easement for installation and maintenance of a sanitary sewer as described in Document No 3286379, Book 2297, Page 253 Register of Deeds Hennepin County, Minnesota is hereby vacated: The easterly 15 feet and the westerly 15 feet of the tract of land 60 feet in width the center line of which connects a point on the north line of Lot 18 Auditor's Subdivision No 310 422.63 feet west of the northeast corner and a point on the south line of said lot 423.37 feet west of the southeast corner (now lying within Lots 1 and 2 Block 1. Shoppers Addition Hennepin County Minnesota) Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date il ERRI.CK & NEWIA ATTORNEYS AT LAW Virgil C. Herrick May 9, 1989 James D. Hoeft Gregg V. Herrick Of Counsel David P. Newman Ronald Warren City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Gary Shallcross City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: Fiterman /Super America /66th Avenue North Gentlemen: I am writing to you on behalf of both Super America as well as Miles and Shirley Fiterman who are the owners of the adjacent property. As you are aware, the Fitermans and Super America are jointly developing the parcel of property on 66th Avenue North between Camden Avenue and State Highway No. 252. It is my understanding that an Application for Preliminary Plat will be submitted to the City on or before May 11, 1989 and that this Application will be considered by the Planning Commission at its May 25, 1989 meeting. My specific purpose in writing is to address the utility easement for the existing sanitary sewer line which runs approximately along the adjoining property line between the Fitermans and Super America. Currently, there is a 60 foot easement. The Preliminary Plat which will be submitted to the City will provide for a 30 foot easement. Consequently, on behalf of both Fitermans and Super America I am requesting that the City vacate the excess portion of this utility so that the final utility will be 30 feet in width and will conform to the location as shown on the Preliminary Plat application. If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, David P. Newman DPN:jeb cc: Steven Fiterman Bill Ferris Ron Krank Suite 205, 6401 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432, 612 -571 -3850 � � Q Q U � 1 67TH. AVE. N. Z , \1 � EASEMENT LOCATION �' a n Z SA N 65TH AVE N z z w w 4 > s Z w a EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP OF SUPERAMERICA EASEMENT VACATION I I I 66TH AVE N SUPER v AMERICA N - E --- EXISTING 60' EASEMENT O r---- REQUESTED VACATION (15' EACH SIDE) F--- REMAINING 30' EASEMENT C/L EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER b EXHIBIT B SUPERAMERICA EASEMENT VACATION CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6 -12 -89 Agenda Item Number Zlo�_ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: 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 North and North of I -694 Lying Betvi en Willow Lane and Highway 252. DEPARTMENT ROVAL: Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X On May 8, 1989 the City Council had a first reading on the above entitled ordinance which established June 12, 1989 as the date for a public hearing. The ordinance establishes a moratorium on the development or redevelopment of the property located within the area outlined on the attached map. All uses, other than the • development or redevelopment of service /office uses would be proohibited during the time of the moratorium. This proposal is the result of a recommendation made by the Planning Commission following review of a rezoning application (Application No. 89006) and comments and recommendations made by the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group. The rezoning request was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant, but the recommendation was still considered by the City Council. Attached are copies of the following which are offered to the City Council for additional background information: 1. A May 8, 1989 Request for Council Consideration relating to the recommended interim ordinance. 2. An April 24, 1989 Request for Council Consideration relating to Planning Commission Application No. 89006 which has additional information and rationale regarding the recommended moratorium. 3. A preliminary RFP which would be sent out to prospective consultants outlining the basis and scope of the proposed study. As the preliminary RFP and the other supporting data indicates, the purpose of the moratorium is to undertake a planning and land use study to determine the best land use of the property in the area given the competing interests of all the parties • concerned. The moratorium, if adopted, would be in effect for six months from the effective date of the ordinance in order for the studies to be accomplished. Said ordinance could be extended if necessary. Summary Explanation continued Page 2 June 12, 1989 If the City Council adopts the recommended ordinance, it should also approve the RFP and direct the staff to immediately seek the necessary consulting services. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt for second reading the interim ordinance, approve the RFP and direct the staff to seek the necessary consulting services for undertaking the planning study. • • I� o EMERSON m _ Z O T �' D U P N •� "" _ `` ^ _ __.-- Z o Z -4 G I_ m Rt `- E -u c: COLFAX I = n BRYAN T D C BR 1 1 l rrn m - ALDRICH -� S CAMDEN D - 3 N . CAMDEN DRS______ -._ Z Z z CAMDEN AVE. - ___ -- _ - - _ _- --- 5TH ST- N. ooso•so L _ - -- z </ C, WEST R IVER R C) A D goo oo,00�s ®•oo•soo••oo ® ®®A EBOU J qR TI L RI S - i o DURNAM ISLAND Z �� i A (CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK) CD CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5 -6 -89 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION A ITEM DESCRIPTION: Interim Ordinance for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and Health, Safety, and Welfare of the Residents of the City, and Regulating and Restricting Certai Development at the Property Located at 6626 West River Road and all Land South of 66th Avenue North and North of I -694 Lying Between Willow Lane and Highway 252. DEPARTMENT AP OVAL: Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached At the April 24, 1989 City Council meeting the Council directed the staff to prepare the necessary ordinance amendment to establish a moratorium restricting some development on certain property within the City. This was in relation to a proposed rezoning application submitted by E and H Properties (Application No. 89006). This application was withdrawn by the applicant, but the Planning Commission's recommendation for a moratorium and a land use study was considered by the City Council and the Planning Commission recommendation was accepted, thus the Council's direction to prepare the necessary ordinance language. The purpose of the moratorium and accompanying study would be to address concerns and questions which have been raised regarding the best use of land, for all parties concerned, of the property addressed as 6626 West River Road and all land lying south of 66th Avenue North and north of I -694 between Willow Lane and Highway 252. Currently the highway department owns the property addressed as 6626 West River Road which is currently zoned R5 and contains a nonconforming single - family home. One question which needs addressing in this situation is what is the best zoning classification for this land given the current roadway configurations. Regarding the property located south of 66th Avenue, the Northeast Advisory Group has recommended that all of this property be rezoned to C1. The property currently has a C2 zoning classification on the westerly portion and an R5 zoning classification on the easterly portion. Existing structures, such as the Atkins Mechanical Contractors office, the Brookdale Motel, and an 18 unit apartment building, as well as some vacant C2 zoned and R5 zoned land, are located in this area. South of 65th to I -694 is the Lyn River apartment complex on property zoned R5. Questions regarding the desirability of a continued R5 use of this land have also been raised. Questions regarding the best buffer for the single - family residentially zoned property lying easterly of Willow Lane have also been raised. Any land use study should address what would be the best use of land for all parties concerned which would provide a good buffer for the single - family residential property in the area. SUMMARY EXPLANATION CONTINUED We are in the process now of preparing a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) . We hope to have this draft available for resentation t P o the City Council on Monday evening. g The RFP would include various documents and information which would be provided to consultants, an outline of the scope p of the study and what the proposal content should be. In addition the RFP would also indicate how proposals will be evaluated and when a recommendation to the City Council for consulting services would be made. It is recommended that the City Council have a first reading on the interim ordinance. If the draft RFP is ready, we would also like comments from the City Council and direction to submit the RFP to various consultants for response. a} . CITY OF' BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of 1989 at .m. at the City Hall 6 O1 Shin , P Y , le Creek 3 g Parkway, to consider 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. 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. 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 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Background 1.01. In connection with the consideration of an application for rezoning of a portion of the property affected by this ordinance which application has been withdrawn by the applicant , City staff, consultants, Planning Commission, the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group, and the City Council have reviewed the existing and potential development in the area. As a result of that review process the Council has determined that the current land use controls do not adequately address various land use concerns in the area. Among these concerns are inadequate or ina' ppropriate bum tiring of nearby residentIa 1 uses, nonconforming uses, zoning ordinances which are not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Pin, insufficient or hazardous traffic circulation, changes in land use and roadways which have occurred since current zoning controls were adopted, and adjacent or nearby land uses or potential uses which are not compatible. 1.02. There is a need for further studies to be conducted so that the City can adopt appropriate amendments to its Comprehensive Plan and zoning code so as to ensure protection of the public health, safety and welfare The Council has directed that such studies be undertaken. T 1.03 There is a need for an interim ordinance to be adopted for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the hea - FE, saf and welfare of the citizens of the City and to ensure that the City and its citizens retain the benefits of, and protection sought to be afforded by, the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances until such stuaies have been completed and any modifications to the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning and land use regulations are accomplished. ORDINANCE NO. 1.04 All of the zoning classifications which are reasonably likely to Fe adopted for those parts of the area currently zoned R5 or 02 allow, either as permitted or spec aT — uses, ceFTain service /office uses. Therefore, an absolute prohibition on the development of such uses is not warranted. 1.05 Minnesota Statues, Section 462.355, Subd. 4 (Act) permits the adoption of interim zoning ordinances Curing the planning process. Section 2. Determination. 2.01 This interim ordinance shall apply to the property at 6626 'Nest River Road and all property south of 66th Avenue and north of I -694 between Willow Lane and Highway 252 (the subject area 2.02. During the period this interim ordinance is in effect, no property within the subject area may be developed, redeveloped, nor shall any site - `` T p�n approvals, rezonings, license other than renewals plattings or replattings, land divisions or consolidations,speci21 use permits or building permits be issued by the City for any uses other than those expressly allowed in paragraph 2.03 of th si ordinance. 2.03. The provisions of paragraph 2.02, shall not apply in C2 zones to permitted uses which are also permitted use in C1 zones of the City and shall not apply in R5 zones to special uses which are also permitted uses in C2 zones of the City. 2.04. This ordinance shall remain in effect for a period of six months after its effective date or such earlier date as may be adopted by the C ity Council, provided that if the study and planning process have not been completed within such period this ordinance may be extended for such additional periods as are deemed necessary by the City Council not to exceed an additional eighteen months as permitted by the Act Section 3. Applicability. 3.01. This ordinance applies to any application for site plan approvals, rezonings, licenses, plattings or replattings, land divisions or consolidations, special use permits or building permits that have not received preliminary approval by the City Council before the effective date of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. . 4.01. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. i ' ORDINANCE NO. Adopted this day of 1989• Mayor City Clerk Date of Publication: Effective Date: (Brackets indicate natter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date t � g Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application N0. 89006 - E and H Properties DEPARTM NT APPROVAL: tJ o Signature - title Director of PlarffiiIng and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Planning Commission Application No. 89006, submitted by E & H Properties, is a request to rezone a sliver of land lying easterly of 6550 West River Road from its current R-5 (Multiple Family Residence) to C-2 (Commerce District) . The purpose of the rezoning is to slightly expand the C -2 District to better accommodate a proposed as station /convenient /convenient store /car wash on the site of the existing Atkins Mechanical building and vacant land to the south. This application was first reviewed by the Planning Commission at its February 16, 1989 meeting at which time the Commission reviewed the requested rezoning and opened a public hearing on the matter for review and comment. As with all rezonings, the Planning Commission tabled the matter and referred it to the appropriate neighborhood advisory group, in this case the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for additional review and comment. A meeting of the neighborhood group was first scheduled for March 14, 1989 at the Brooklyn Center High School. Due to inclement weather no advisor group member showed Y g p s s o ed up but a number of neighbors (approximately 15 -20) did and discussion of the proposal took place. Notes from that meeting are attached for the City Council's review as well as other information. A subsequent meeting of the neighborhood advisory group was scheduled for March 21 , 1989 at the City Hall. Minutes of that meeting are attached. Following much discussion by the neighborhood advisory group and people who were in attendance, including the applicant, the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group unanimously advised against the proposed zoning to C -2. Instead, they recommended that the city initiate a rezoning of the entire block from 65th to 66th Avenues North and from Willow Lane to West River Road to C -1. The neighborhood group believed that a rezoning to C -1 would result in the best land use buffer between the residences along Willow Lane and Highway 252 to the west. They also believed that a development such as a service station was too intense and may well have an adverse impact including traffic flow, noise, litter, etc. on the neighboring single family residential property. Planning Commission Application No. 89006 - E & H Properties The Planning Commission met again on April 13, 1989 to continue their public hearing, take into consideration the Northeast Neigborhood Advisory Groups' recommendation and to deliberate and make a recommendation regarding the requested rezoning application. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the E & H rezoning proposal be set aside for the time being and that the City Council institute a moratorium for up to 6 months which would prohibit all construction on property containing a single family home at 6626 West River Road and all of the land south of 66th Avenue to Interstate 694 between Willow Lane and Highway 252. The reason for the moratorium would be to allow the City to undertake a land use study regarding the property in this area for the purpose of determining the best land use of the property for future development. Additional traffic analysis may also be warranted to indicate how traffic would access this area without adversely impacting the single family residential property along the east side of Willow Lane. The Planning Commission information sheet which was reviewed with the Planning Commission on April 13, 1989 indicates a number of issues which the staff believes need to be studied before a determination regarding the best land use classification for the property can be determined. Those issues relate to R -5 zoned property which contains a single family residential home which was acquired by the Highway Department for the construction of Highway 252. It is anticipated that within the relatively near future the Highway Department will choose to dispose of this property. The existing single family home is a nonconforming use due to the R -5 zoned property. This R -5 zoning provided a buffer between a gas station located on the northeast corner of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North and the single family residential property to the north and east of this site. The major question is what is the best land use for this property. Indications are strong that a single family residential use of the property maybe the best. Concerns and questions have also been raised regarding the best land use, for all parties concerned, of the property currently owned by Mr. Atkins and also the property immediately to the south (the Brookdale Motel and an 18 unit apartment complex) . Short, Elliot, Hendrickson has provided a brief traffic study regarding various possible uses of the property and the traffic impacts at 66th Avenue and Highway 252. Concerns again have been expressed regarding the desirability of a gas station /convenient store /car wash at this location. Recommendations from the neighborhood advisory group are that the property should be rezoned to C -1 only to allow service office development rather than the general commerce development allowed under the C -2 zone. The desirability of additional, or even existing, R -5 development has also been raised. Thus the recommendation to include the land now occupied by the Lyn River Apartment (zoned R -5) into the moratorium as well. We believe these questions to be signficant enough to warrant taking time out to study these issues and in the meantime limit development in this area. However, the staff does not recommend that all development of the property under consideration be prohibited during the time of moratorium. We believe that service office development which can be comprehended under existing C-2 or as a special use under the R -5 zoning should be allowed to be developed during the time of study. We do not believe that development of parcels as C -1 would have an adverse effect on the area or complicate the study. It should be noted that an attorney representing E & H Properties has submitted a letter to the City noting that the applicant wants to withdraw their rezoning application. They believe the rezoning is unnecessary for their purposed use of the land. -2- Planning Commission Application No. 89006 - E and H Properties It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge the applicants withdrawal of Planning Commission Application No. 89006. Discussion by the City Council and reaction to the Planning Commissions' recommendation for a moratorium and land use study should be undertaken by the City Council. Again, the staff would recommend the implementation of a moratorium, however, not to the same extent as the Planning Commission has recommended. If the City Council concurs, direction to the staff to prepare the necessary resolution and ordinance amendment to establish a moratorium would be in order. -3- DRAFT RFP PRELIMINAR Y The City of Brooklyn Center requests you to submit a concise proposal to provide consulting services for a planning and land use study for a specified area within the City of Brooklyn Center. Your submittal should be made in accordance with this Request for Proposal (RFP) . Five copies should be submitted to Mr. Ronald Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection, prior to 12:00 noon on Introduction The City Council has adopted an interim ordinance establishing a moratorium on the development of certain uses within the area outlined on an attached map pending the completion of this land use study and the possible adoption of any amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance and /or Comprehensive Plan. The moratorium is in effect until and may be extended by the City Council if necessary to complete the study and adopt any necessary regulations. Enclosed herewith are the following related documents for your review and consideration: -City of Brooklyn Center Ordinance No. adopting 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 North and north of I -694 lying between Willow Lane and Highway 252. This ordinance was adopted on -A map showing the area of study affected by the above interim ordinance. RFP Page 2 -A copy of a "Request for Council Consideration" dated 4 -24 -89 relating to Planning Commission Application No. 89006 involving a rezoning request related to certain properties. This report provides the history of a rezoning application which ultimately resulted in a Planning Commission recommendation that the City Council establish a moratorium for up to 6 months so that a Land Use Study could be undertaken for this area. -A copy of a "Request for Council Consideration" dated 5 -8 - 89 relating to the recommended interim ordinance. The City Council held a first reading on the ordinance on 5 -8 -89 establishing June 12, 1989 as the date for public hearing. The City Council has directed that proposals be accepted for the conduct of the Land Use Study based on the above information. Brooklyn Center Information Information which is available for purposes of the study includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following: -The current Comprehensive Plan for the City of Brooklyn Center. - Miscellaneous maps including basic City maps, zoning maps, etc. - Existing land use data and land use projections. RFP Page 3 -The current Zoning Ordinance for the City of Brooklyn Center. -A 4 -11 -89 Traffic Impact Study of 66th Avenue North at T. H. 252 done by Short - Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) projecting traffic impacts for five different development scenarios in the subject area. -Files and miscellaneous information relating to the City's current adoption of the moratorium ordinance authorizing this study including copies of Planning Commission minutes and information sheets, Northeast Neighborhood Group minutes, and City Council minutes relating to the consideration of a rezoning application in this area and the Council's decision to adopt the interim ordinance. -Any other information the consultant may feel necessary for the conduct of the study. Scope of Study In general, the study would be undertaken to determine the best land use of the property within the study area for future development. The study should include, but is not necessarily limited to, the following: 1. The proper land use classification and use of the property addressed as 6626 West River Road. Currently, the property is zoned R5 (Multiple Family Residence) and contains a nonconforming single- family home. This property was acquired RFP Page 4 by MN /DOT for the upgrading of T. H. 252 and the reconfiguration of West River Road. MN /DOT uses the home as a construction office for the T. H. 252 project and other highway projects in the immediate area. Based on City ordinances, the single- family residential use of the property cannot be re- established. It is anticipated that MN /DOT will wish to dispose of this property in the near future. The use of this property fQr multiple - family purposes is generally not favored by surrounding property owners. 2. The proper land use and classification of property owned by Mr. Howard Atkins which is located south of 66th Avenue North and north of the Brookdale Motel and an 18 unit apartment building. The westerly portion of this property is zoned C2 (Commerce) and contains the Atkins Mechanical Contracting business as well as vacant property to the south. The easterly portion of the Atkins property is zoned R5 (Multiple Family Residential) . Previously an office use of most of this property had been approved by the City. There is currently a proposal to develop a combined gas station /convenience store /car wash on the westerly portion of the property after demolition of the Atkins Mechanical building. This plan has met resistance in terms of traffic, litter, noise and an adverse effect on the single - family residential property to the east of Willow Lane. The Northeast Advisory Group has recommended that the City Council rezone this property, as well as all the properties south to 65th Avenue North, to C1 (Service /Office) which would provide an appropriate use of the property and a good buffer for the single- family residential property along Willow Lane from T. H. 252. RFP Page 5 • 3. The proper land use classification and use of the property south of the Atkins Mechanical property and north of 65th Avenue North which contains a motel on C2 zoned land to the west and an 18 unit apartment building on R5 zoned land to the east. Determination should be made regarding the best use of this land in the future in light of other land use concerns and recommendations and also the single- family residential property located to the east. 4. The proper land use classification and use of the property south of 65th Avenue to I -694 which is all currently zoned R5 and contains the 83 unit Lyn River apartment complex which is an old complex that, at times, has been poorly maintained. There has been some discussion of upgrading this property. Determination should be made regarding the best use of this land in light of other land use concerns and recommendations and the single - family residential property located to the east. 5. Possible additional traffic analysis based on the land use recommendations made, particularly how this area should be accessed and traffic generated by the uses handled so as to not adversely impact the single- family residential property in the area. 6. Upon completion of the study, these matters will be considered by the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation to the RFP Page 6 City Council. The final report should be presented in a form which would allow the City to use this study as a basis for making any necessary ordinance or Comprehensive Plan amendments. Proposal Contents The following will be considered to be minimum contents of the proposal: 1. A work plan detailing your proposed scope of services and time schedule. 2. An identification of the City's participation in the project and the responsibilities, if any, expected to be assumed by the City. 3. An outline of your background, personnel, experience and references; specifically as they apply to this proposed study. Also, please identify the key personnel who would be assigned to this project. Note: If your firm is selected for this study, we ask that no change in your key personnel assignments be made without the consent of the City Manager. 4. An estimate of labor hours and a cost estimate. Note: As a part of your cost estimate, please include the fee, on a "per meeting" basis for attending Planning Commission or City Council meetings. 5. A brief description of your ability to assist the City in proceeding with subsequent phases of the study (i.e. - revision of the Comprehensive Plan and /or Zoning Ordinance if necessary) . RFP: Page 7 6. Any other relevant information you feel is necessary for the City to make its determination. Proposal Evaluation Proposals will be evaluated by the City staff. In the even staff determines there is a need to clarify questions relating to=-your proposal, you will be contacted to set up a date to meet with us. Staff intends to select and recommend approval of one proposal to the City Council by It is anticipated that the selected consultant should proceed immediately to complete the project in a timely fashion in accordance with the guidelines established in the interim ordinance. Should you have any questions concerning this RFP, please contact me or Ronald Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection. Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager 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 02). 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 bed nging in the R 4 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 Rf zoning district. Section 35-1130. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R4). The following properties are hereby established as being within the 04) 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 1/2 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, Block 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.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council tweeting Date 6/12/89 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL` CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Private Kennel License — 5449 Emerson Avenue North DEPT. APP OVAL: Administrative Aide i - S gnature title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) A public hearing is scheduled this evening for a private kennel license at 5449 Emerson Avenue North. The owner, Roger Olson, has three dogs. In checking with the Police Department the following complaints have been received: 1985 -- 1 complaint - barking dog 1986 — 1 complaint - barking dog 1988 — 4 complaints - barking dog 1989 — 4 complaints - barking dog The Health Department inspected the home on June 5, 1989, and found the home and yard to be in satisfactory, sanitary condition. Their one concern is that portions of the fencing needs to be repaired. You may want to add this as a condition if you approve the kennel license. If approved, the license would be in effect until September 30, 1990, at which time the owner could renew the license through this same process. If the owner wished to renew the license, he would be allowed two renewals with a final expiration date of September 30, 1992. After September 30, 1992, the owner would have to be in compliance with the ordinance requirements. a, � F�• t �x i� P Q i r ate• }' c � A � � �y ,`� ,� ;� � 1h, � ", +fin t,! _ -J 1'; r y , �,i �,"- • � ;,•� �� ,' - � •w'' a •' '` x ��° ` -� y . �� ��. � / �• � 4i �� !fit ... � � l� s tt • 1 2 Al r! a r t f A J� r rt :.. ' s 1 � ' _� — .�(� k � �„ A► � K �•If' f �,• `•" .�px Ji� `f � . • t I t jr c x • �� d w x,. V. F �, .• ' 1• d �' tit f I .,......r t.. Y t s s f ° • .; i ' ' f i '•� • �r ; 1. � 1 � ` � t ' - �� '` O . 4 r• y" f A � .� 1 { � � {rte Y � i - / I � � '���° ; M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 6, 1989 TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manager FROM: Pamela Foster, Public Health Sanitarian SUBJECT: Private Kennel License Application by Roger Olson, 5449 Emerson Avenue North An inspection was made on June 5, 1989, at 5449 Emerson Avenue North in response to an application r P pp for a private kennel license. Mr. Olson has three dogs: male Karilean Bear Dog age 2 years 50 lbs. male Finnish Spitz age 9 years 30 lbs. female Finnish Spitz age 5 years 30 lbs. Rabies vaccinations and dog licenses are current for all three dogs. The owner stated that he puts them outside separately, and that they are confined to the interior most of the time. We noted that the animals did not bark during our approach or presence. The yard was clean and free of fecal material. During my first unannounced attempt for inspection, I had also noted the yard was clean. Mr. Olson disposes of the feces properly; provides ample food, water and space throughout the dwelling for the animals. The interior was in satisfactory, sanitary condition. Our only concern, with respect to the animals, is that certain portions of the fencing around the yard are in need of repair. If this criteria for approval is stipulated, we are satisfied with the animals' living conditions. Please note the following: 1. Complaints received by the Police Department must be evaluated, per attached. 2. The dwelling is extremely deteriorated, however, this should not directly affect the animals. The Housing Inspector, Dave Fischer, compiled a list of code violations during the inspection. PAF:jt cc: Patti Page, Administrative Aide MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION CITY HALL MAY 25, 1989 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Mike Nelson at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson, Ellamae Sander and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Nelson noted that Commissioner Bernards was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MAY 11, 1989 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the May 11, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89012 (Fina Oil and Chemical Company) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a gas station /convenience store and car wash at the southeast corner of 66th Avenue North and Highway 252. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89012 attached) . The Secretary also presented to the Commission a letter that he had received that afternoon from Mr. L. T. Merrigan, an attorney representing Howard Atkins, the property owner. He noted that Mr. Merrigan took exception with the letter from the Planning Commission Secretary to Mr. Sam McGee regarding the appropriateness of the site and building plan submittal. He noted that the letter asked for action on the application at this evening's meeting. The Secretary added that he would still recommend tabling of the application to allow the City Council to consider instituting a moratorium on the property in question as well as other land in the same general area, noting that the City Council has established June 12, 1989 as the date for the public hearing on that matter. The Planner then reviewed with the Commission some changes to the plans which had been received after the report was written. He noted that the accent band around the top of the building still was not carried along the south and east sides and, if considered a building treatment, should probably be continued along those sides. He noted that the new drainage plan does propose catch basins in the three driveway entrances, but that the Director of Public Works needs drainage calculations submitted on the adequacy of the existing storm sewer in Willow Lane. He noted that hydrants still had not been shown on the plan and that the addition of coniferous and decorative trees had not been conveyed to Mr. McGee of Fina Oil last week. He pointed out that the plans do not indicate any fencing along the east property line as requested and that no information on the light fixtures had yet been submitted either. Commissioner Johnson asked regarding access onto West River Road. He asked whether there was not an island between the two accesses at present. The Secretary pointed out that there would be no access onto Highway 252 itself, only onto the frontage road where the current building has its access. Commissioner Sander asked whether it was appropriate to ask for modification of the plans if the Commission is awaiting action on a moratorium which might ultimately prohibit the project. The Secretary stated that he recommended tabling of the application. He pointed out that if the City Council does not impose_a moratorium, that the proposed plans could go forward. He recommended changes in those plans if, indeed, they were to go forward to the City Council. He stated that if the Planning Commission approves the plans, it should be subject to certain conditions. He pointed out that the Planning Commission has 60 days to make a recommendation on the plans and that it may well take the full 60 days to make its recomendation. Commissioner Sander stated that 66th Avenue North is a major access to Highway 252 for the neighborhood to the north and east, and that the proposed service station would have a definite impact on the functioning of 66th Avenue North. She stated she would make a motion to table the application. The Secretary raised a point of order, noting that a public hearing has been called on the application and recommended that the Commission hold that public hearing before taking action on the application. Commissioner Sander withdrew her motion for tabling for the time being. Chairman Nelson then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Sam McGee, of Fina Oil and Chemical, stated that he would like to see the case reviewed on its own merits, independent of the action on the moratorium. He stated that he felt Fina could comply with the conditions recommended in the staff report. He stated that he would work with staff on the question of the building exterior; that he would provide drainage calculations for the site for the Director of Public Works; that they could apply for a rezoning of the land to the east from R5 to C1 in order to have a conforming joint access at 66th Avenue North; that he had no problem revising the landscape plan as recommended; that platting of the property would be accomplished; that lighting measurements would also be indicated on a subsequent plan; and finally, that he would have no problem with providing a 6' high opaque screen fence. Mr. McGee stated that he felt the moratorium issue should be separate from the proposal for the service station. He added that he felt there was adequate information submitted for the Commission to make a recommendation on the plans. He also recommended that the City Council be able to discuss both the proposed plans and the moratorium at the same meeting. The Secretary stated that he did not doubt that the plan revisions called for would be made by the applicant. He pointed out, however, that the application was not only a site and building plan application, but also a special use permit application. He questioned whether the Standards for a Special Use Permit could be met in this case. He noted that the moratorium that the Council is considering and the study that would be done would help to answer that question. He reminded the Commission that there was another moratorium established by the City in 1985 in the area of Shingle Creek Parkway and that a study was done of the area which showed that the proposal then before the Council, but held in abeyance due to the moratorium, would actually be beneficial. He pointed out that a study in this case might also show that this proposal is appropriate. The Secretary stated that an office building constructed in this area would not have as great an impact as a gas station or a convenience food restaurant, therefore, such development could continue. Mr. McGee asked whether a motion could be made to approve the application contingent upon denial of the moratorium. The Secretary pointed out that the Planning 5 -25 -89 -2- Commission has 60 days to act on the application and he added that the submission of the application was not in accordance with the City's policy for reviewing site and building plans. Commissioner Sander asked Mr. McGee whether he had tried to buy the land at the northwest corner of the intersection at 66th and Highway 252. The Secretary interjected that that land abutted R3 zoned land and would not be allowed for a gas station. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89012) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. L. T. Merrigan, an attorney representing the property owner Howard Atkins, explained his letter to Mr. Warren to the Planning Commission. He stated that the Planning Commission was well aware that a service station was proposed for the property that was the subject of the rezoning. He stated that he took umbrage that the Secretary stated that the plan was suddenly dropped on them. He pointed out that Mr. Atkins had met with City staff in September of 1988 and had told them of the proposal at that time. He went on to explain that the rezoning of land was proposed at the staff's suggestion. The rezoning ultimately went through numerous hearings and public meetings, he explained, and was eventually withdrawn. A site and building plan and special use permit were subsequently submitted. He concluded that the Planning Commission has been aware of the proposed use of the property for some time and should not have difficulty acting on the application. Chairman Nelson stated that he also took umbrage at some of the assumptions in Mr. Merrigan Is comments. He stated that there was a great deal of difference between a concept plan and a detailed site and building plan submittal which can be reviewed by staff and the Planning Commission. He stated that he did not think the basic issue in question was the proposed building, but rather the land use allowed by the existing zoning. He stated that the moratorium which is being considered by the City Council would take the question of the land use of the property into consideration in a study. Commissioner Malecki pointed out to Mr. Merrigan that the Planning Commission was taking its time to review plan revisions recommended by staff because the plans were not adequate as submitted. She stated that the Commission does not normally spend its time doing this task. She stated that the proper procedure was for plans to be ironed out between staff and a developer before a formal submittal was even made so that the Commission can review plans which generally meet ordinance requirements. Mr. Merrigan stated that he had responded to Mr. Warren's letter to Mr. McGee. The Secretary stated that he alS took some exception with Mr. Merrigan's comments. He stated that the rezoning wasonsidered by the Planning Commission. He agreed that the staff and the Planning Commission were certainly aware that a gas station was proposed. He pointed out that the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group recommended rezoning of the entire block to C1. He also pointed out that staff never had a full set of plans to review while the rezoning was in process, only a concept plan. He concluded by pointing out the applicant is back to looking at a rezoning question with the shared access with the property to the east which is zoned R5. He pointed out that such access is not permitted under City ordinance and that some rezoning would have to take place to allow for the access onto 66th in the location proposed. Mr. Merrigan stated that the emphasis of the rezoning review changed to a concern regarding the gas station use. The Secretary responded that the staff was 5 -25 -89 -3- concerned with general land use questions not simply the proposed gas station use. He invited Mr. Merrigan to review the record to see some of the comments made by staff in the reports and at the public meetings regarding the land use question involved in the rezoning. The Planner asked Mr. Merrigan why a site and building plan was not submitted with the rezoning. He pointed out that he had told Mr. McGee and Mr. Atkins in March that it would be appropriate to submit development plans with the rezoning so that the Planning Commission and the neighborhood could see what would result from the proposed rezoning. Mr. Howard Atkins, the owner of the property, stated that City staff had told him to submit the rezoning application first. The Secretary agreed that rezoning of property was the first priority item in providing access to 66th for the commercial property and still continues to be an issue since the rezoning was withdrawn. Mr. McGee explained that the rezoning was withdrawn because of the proposed moratorium. He asked whether the moratorium would be applied if Fina were not proposed at all. The Secretary stated that the land use issue presented by the rezoning would still have been studied. He pointed out that a previous development proposal for an office use in this area had received approval by the City and could still be allowed under the moratorium. Mr. Jim Neuberger of 6546 Willow Lane then briefly addressed the Commission. He stated that he represented the neighbors in the area and that nobody wanted to see a big gas station. He stated that it would increase the traffic count on local streets tremendously. He urged the Commission not to give Fina more land for a bigger gas station. He stated that if there is a moratorium to study land use in the area, it should address the traffic problems presently experienced on local streets. He concluded by stating that the station would add traffic onto 66th Avenue North and even onto Willow Lane. Chairman Nelson asked the Commission for its comments. Commissioner Ainas stated that he was not convinced that the proposal was in conformance with the Standards for Special Use Permits. He stated that he favored tabling of the application until the City Council could act one way or another on the moratorium. Commissioner Malecki stated that she agreed with Commissioner Ainas and also stated that she did not feel the plans were presently in order. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 89012 (Fina Oil and Chemical Company, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to table Application No. 89012 and continue the public hearing until the June 15, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, with direction to the applicant to revise the plans as recommended in the staff report. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. VAing against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS AND 89014 (Steve Fiterman /Superamerica) The Secretary then introduced the next two items of business, a request for site and building plans 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 a request for preliminary plat approval to resubdivide the same land. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports regarding these two applications (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 89013 and 89014 attached). The Secretary added that he did not believe that the impact of the proposed service station would be greater than the impact of the existing station. 5 -25 -89 -4- Chairman Nelson asked whether the parking of delivery trucks behind the shopping center would be acceptable. The Secretary explained that the Fire Department is not concerned with parking of trucks in a fire lane as long as the driver is available. He stated that the parking of trucks overnight would not be acceptable and is not expected. Commissioner Sander inquired as to the location of the existing Superamerica station. The Secretary pointed out on the transparency that the existing station is located somewhat north and east of the proposed building location. Commissioner Sander pointed out that people from the Superamerica could exit onto Camden Avenue North. The Secretary acknowledged that this was possible, but that it would probably not be used very often. There followed a brief discussion regarding exiting from the Superamerica site. Chairman Nelson asked the applicants whether they had anything to add. Mr. Ron Krank, the architect for the shopping center, briefly reviewed the history of the project with the Planning Commission. He stated that he had been hired in 1986 by the owner, Mr. Fiterman, to design the project. He stated that he had met with staff designing preliminary layouts of the site and that during the process found it would be advantageous to work with Superamerica on a combined site and building plan. He noted that there had been numerous meetings with people from Superamerica and with City staff. He stated that the lighting recommended along the wall behind the building would be provided with shields to direct the light downward. Chairman Nelson asked whether there was any problem with the recommendation on the landscaping. Mr. Krank responded in the negative. He stated that, if the trees are far enough apart to not hide the building, there should be no problem with providing shade trees along 66th. Commissioner Maleeki asked when the old Superamerica would be demolished and the new Superamerica built. Mr. Krank responded that he was not sure what the timing would be on the demolition of the existing Superamerica building. The Secretary stated that the site may have to be shut down for some time during the staging of the project. Mr. Bud Kaupp, of Superamerica, stated that it would be necessary to shut the station down temporarily during construction. The Secretary pointed out that there was some question as to a possible convenience food restaurant to be located in the shopping center. He pointed out that such a restaurant could not abut R3 zoned property across a street. He explained that the restaurants were primarily carry out restaurants and that the applicants may look at an appeal and /or an ordinance amendment to allow the restaurants within the building. The Secretary then requested representatives of Superamerica to address the concerns of noise and litter which had been expressed at previous public hearings. Mr. Bud Kaupp, of Superamerica, acknowledged that the problems had been brought to their attention. He pointed out that everything on the existing site would be demolished, including the canopy and the speakers. He stated that Superamerica now uses smaller speakers than were installed in the existing station. The new speakers are down at eye level and are much smaller, he explained. He stated that the speakers were mandated by law at all self - service stations and are used to warn those who are smoking not to smoke while filling up their gas tank. He added that it also establishes a contact between the consumer and Superamerica employees and helps to prevent people from driving away without paying. Regarding litter, Mr. Kaupp said that the problem would be addressed by the management of the new station and that, if necessary, employees would be sent to pick up litter that blows across the highway. The Secretary asked if there was someone that the neighbors could contact regarding problems with the Superamerica operation. Mr. Kaupp answered 5 -25 -89 -5- that complaints would go directly to top management and then be assigned to an area manager. He stated that the area manager for this station was Dave Brost. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 89013 and 89014) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 89013 (a special use permit for Superamerica) and concurrently Application No. 89014 (the preliminary plat for both sites). He asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the applications. Mr. Jim Neuberger of 6546 Willow Lane asked whether the rag papers would be eliminated when the new station is in operation. Mr. Kaupp stated that there was no intention of doing away with those paper window wipers, but that the management of the station will address the problem if paper is blowing across the highway. Mr. Dave Brost, the area manager covering the store, stated that someone would be sent over to pick up any trash that blows away from the Superamerica station. Mr. Neuberger responded that he was satisfied with assurances of the Superamerica management. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Johnson asked whether there was a fence along the highway side of the property. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Johnson stated that he was concerned with the appearance of the main drags within the City. He pointed out that paper often blows against fences lining these roadways. The Secretary stated that maintenance of grounds on the private side of these fences belongs to the property owner. He added, however, that maintenance of the right - of -way area, such as cutting the weeds, is a responsibility of MN /DOT. Commissioner Sander inquired as to the ordinance on storage of merchandise on the sidewalks in front of the building. The Secretary responded that there are two provisions governing such storage in the C2 zoning district. He stated that the ordinance prohibits outside storage or display except behind opaque fences or walls at least 6' high, but that storage in front of a building on a private pedestrian walkway can be allowed during business hours. He added that, for gas stations, there was a special provision to allow display within 4' of the building and at pump islands. He added that he felt the storage of merchandise was getting out of hand. Commissioner Sander stated that she felt it was an aesthetic annoyance to have such merchandise stacked outside of the building and often it was impossible to walk on the sidewalk in front of these buildings. The Secretary also pointed out that service station are allowed three 30 day administrative land use permits for promotional sales and sales by itinerant vendors. Commissioner Johnson stated that sidewalks in front of convenience stores are used used for storage, not for walking. The Secretary responded that such outdoor storage and display is allowed under City ordinance. Commissioner Johnson asked whether the only recourse might be to note that such storage would be limited or prohibited on the site plan. Chairman Nelson stated that the only recourse was really an ordinance amendment. The Secretary stated that he did not feel the City could prohibit as a condition of approval something that is otherwise allowed by City ordinance. Commissioner Johnson also commented that he did not want to see the problems with the video store that are experienced downtown. The Secretary stated that Superamerica 5 -25 -89 -6- would have to abide by the pornography regulations regarding display of materials contained in City ordinance. In response to another question from Commissioner Johnson regarding the zoning of such uses, the Secretary pointed out that the City has video stores in other locations in the community. He noted that the City has regulations governing massage parlors and similar uses, but that video stores have not been considered a problem use at this point. Commissioner Malecki asked the representatives of Superameriea what their policy would be regarding the video store and pornographic movies. Mr. Bud Kaupp of Superameriea stated that Superameriea was the first company to remove Playboy and other similar magazines from its racks. He stated that no pornographic videos would be rented at Superameriea. ACTION RECOMME APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 89013 (Steve Fiterman /Superameriea Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 89013 subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is issued to Superameriea 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 gurantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manger for each of the two sites) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 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. 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. 5 -25 -89 -7- 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 consideration by the City Council to indicate: 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 bulding 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. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 89014 (Steve Fiterman /Superamerica Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 89014, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City ordinances. 5 -25 -89 -8- 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. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89015 (Toys R Us) The Secretary-then introduced the next item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to combine into a single parcel the land on which the present C.O.M.B. and old Marc's Big Boy restaurant are located. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89015 attached). Following the Secretary's report, Chairman Nelson asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Wasyl Hnatiw, representing Toys R Us, stated he had nothing to add to the report. Commissioner Sander asked whether the present buildings would be torn down. Mr. Hnatiw responded in the affirmative that both buildings would be demolished. Chairman Nelson asked when the demolition would take place. Mr. Hnatiw responded that it would be as soon as a contractor could be selected. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89015) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 89015. He noted that there was no one else present to speak on the application and called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION 89015 (Toys R Us) Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend approval of Application No. 89015, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 5 of the J P P 3 City ordinances. 5 -25 -89 -9- 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. P Said subdivision agreement shall be executed prior to final plat approval. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS The Secretary informed the Commission that there would be no review of the tax increment district boundary at this evening's meeting, but that it would be considered at the June 15, 1989 meeting. a) PUD ORDINANCE I The Secretary asked the Commission whether they had any comments on the proposed PUD Ordinance. Commissioner Ainas suggested that a dollar value threshold be established for buildings constructed in PUD districts. The Secretary acknowledged that this suggestion had been made before and apologized for having no draft language. Commissioner Ainas suggested that such a threshold would deny a use such as public storage from being considered as a Planned Unit Development. The Planner stated that he had discussed the dollar value threshold with Brad Hoffman, the City's Economic Development Authority Coordinator, and that Mr. Hoffman had expressed concern that it might reduce flexibility in dealing with potential developers. Commissioner Ainas pointed out that Bloomington set a 1980 dollar value threshold in its PUD Ordinance. The Planner asked whether a building -to -land ratio of value would be more flexible, requiring the value of construction to go up as the value of the land went up. Commissioner Ainas expressed concern about the Lynbrook Bowl site. He stated that someone could propose a two- storey office building there which he considered a waste of a good location. The Secretary stated that a PUD Ordinance would allow a form of contract zoning. He stated that a PUD district would allow uses not normally allowed in the underlying zoning district. He gave an example of residential and commercial mixed uses such as a nightclub and an apartment building in a single development. He stated that each development would be negotiated and that a development agreement would be hammered out on a case -by -case basis. In response to a question from Commissioner Ainas, the Secretary stated that the City is trying to get quality development, but that sometimes it is limited by its own regulations. A PUD Ordinance, he went on, would allow greater flexibility. Commissioner Ainas also suggested the possibility of mandating a minimum square footage for PUD parcels. He stated that such a mechanism might force high -rise development and avoid underutilization. The Secretary stated that the City is seeking flexibility with the ordinance, especially for redevelopment. Commissioner Ainas again stated that a low -rise development on the Lynbrook site would be a waste. The Secretary stated that he would bring back some revisions in the PUD Ordinance in the future. He also stated that the group home study would be coming back. 5 -25 -89 -10- - There was a brief discussion of the trucks parked at the service station at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary explained the conditions applying to those trucks. Chairman Nelson noted that this was his last meeting with the Planning Commission. He expressed to the Commission and the staff that it has been a pleasure working with them and wished them luck in the future. The Secretary expressed his thanks to Chairman Nelson for serving on the Commission and for being Chairman. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:08 p.m. Chairman 5-25-89 _ B-� -11 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89012 Applicant: Fina Oil and Chemical Company Location: Southeast corner of 66th Avenue North and Highway 252 Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Permit Location /Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 3,112 sq. ft. convenience store /car wash /and gas station at the southeast corner of 66th Avenue North and Highway 252. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue North, on the east by vacant R5- zoned property, on the south by Brookdale Motel, and on the west by the frontage road adjacent to Highway 252 (West River Road). The service station and car wash are special uses in the C2 zoning district. Access /Parking he plan calls for two 30' wide access drives off West River Road and a 34' wide access drive off 66th Avenue North which would be shared with the R5 land to the east. Shared access between residential and commercial property has not been allowed as a rule. The R5 district permitted uses in Section 35 -314 prohibits commercial or industrial uses as accessory uses in the R5 zone. The driveway also exceeds the ordinance maximum width of 30' . To line up effectively with the median opening in 66th it appears that some shift in the property line and /or some rezoning (either of the R5 land to C1 or of some additional land to C2) is necessary. The property owner's proposed rezoning has been withdrawn and the situation that is left is not appropriate under City ordinance. As to parking, we have applied the retail parking formula to the entire structure, including the 612 sq. ft. car wash. There is no parking formula in the Zoning Ordinance for car washes. However, in this case, we believe there is at least a possibility that this space may eventually be converted to retail space. The plan provides for 28 parking spaces, including four at the outer pump islands where bypass is possible. The 28 spaces meets the total requirement for the building. The plan also shows stacking space for 6 cars leading to the car wash. Landscaping The landscape plan calls for sodding in all perimeter green areas and underground irrigation as required by ordinance. Plantings are to include 5 Marshall Ash and 3 Profusion Crab trees. The plan calls for 120 landscape points. Of this total, 65.5 points or approximately 55% are shrubs (48 Mugo Pine shrubs, 20 Goldflame Spirea, and 25 Technes Arborvitae and others) . This exceeds the guideline maximum of 25% for shrubs contained in the landscape point system. The shrubs are to be located mainly by the various entrance drives and in the green area east of and north and south of the car wash (see plan). No coniferous trees are proposed. We would recommend less emphasis on shrubs and the addition of some coniferous and decorative trees. The 120 points does exceed the minimum for this site (1.02 acres requires 82 points) , but we would recommend the addition of plantings at such a sensitive site. No fence is proposed along the east property line. None is required adjacent to R5 zoned land, but we would certainly recommend a minimum 6' high, opaque fence to shield the residential neighborhood to the east and any possible residential development on the R5 land. This should be a condition of any approval. 5 -25 -89 -1- Application No. 89012 continued Grading, Drainage, Utilities The grading plan places the building on the southern portion of the site on the high ground as is normal. The plan, however, calls for runoff to drain, at a fairly steep slope, into 66th Avenue North. This is unacceptable and have informed the applicant that a revised plan providing for all drainage to be contained on site must be submitted prior to any action by the Planning Commission. Mr. Sam McGee of Fina has promised to have revised plans ready for the Commission to consider at its Thursday meeting. All staff can say at this writing is that the grading plan is unacceptable. The plans call for a 1 112" domestic water service into the west side of the building from a 3" main which traverses Highway 252. The building will have to be fire - sprinklered in accordance with City ordinance and a larger, separate water line will be required for the sprinkler system. The Fire Chief has indicated he will require the relocation of one hydrant and the addition of a hydrant in the green area between the two accesses off the frontage road. An 8 water main exists in the frontage road right -of -way, installed by MN /DOT with the construction of Highway 252. That main can serve the hydrants at this site. A 6 sanitary sewer service is to exit the south side of the building and travel eastward to connect with an existing service stub in Willow Lane. Building The building is to be square, 50' x 50' , located at the south end of the site. The exterior treatment is to be stucco with a 4' wide striped accent band on the north and west elevations and a small part of the east and south elevations. Generally, such an accent band would be carried consistently around the building as part of the building treatment. In this case, the band is used for signery and it may not be desirable to have what amounts to an attention attracting device on walls facing interior property lines. The Commission may wish to discuss this question when the plans are before it Thursday evening. Entrance to the building would be at the northwest corner. Black anodized aluminum windows would flank the entrance along part of the west and north elevations. A canopy with approximately 17 112' clearance is to be located over the pump islands, immedi atel y north of the building. The plans indicate striping and the word "Final' on the west, north and east elevations. Although signery is generally not part of the site plan review, it should be pointed out that this signery is in excess of what is allowed under the Sign Ordinance. Each canopy face with a sign is counted as a separate freestanding sign. A freestanding sign is also proposed in the westerly greenstrip. The Sign Ordinance allows only one freestanding sign for this site; so some or all of the canopy signery will have to go. The applicant has been informed of this. The Commission may also wish to discuss whether the striping itself is also signery (as an "attention attracting device "). If so, this would also be prohibited. Lighting /Trash The plan proposes ten 16' high light poles at entrances, in the northerly parking lot, and just south of the car wash in the southeast portion of the site. A trash enclosure is indicated just southwest of the building, adjacent to the drive -up lane for the car wash. 5-25 -89 -2- Application No. 89012 continued Special Use Standards The proposed service station and car wash is subject to the special use standards contained in Section 35 -220.2 (attached) . During the public hearings on the previous rezoning application to expand the site, the residents along Willow Lane alleged that their property would be damaged by the proposed service station and car wash. The principal concerns were noise, litter, and traffic. It may be difficult to establish at this time that a dimunution of property values will take place. We certainly recommend that fencing be installed along the east property line to partially address these concerns should the station be built. Traffic flow, as projected by the traffic analysis by Short - Elliott - Hendrickson, will be significant, but will probably not cause a breakdown in the function of 66th Aveneu North or its intersection with Highway 252. The basic zoning concern with this use in this location is whether adding such an intense use east of Highway 252 will undermine the residential neighborhood to the east. We know it will not enhance the area. Whether it will be a detriment and whether other uses should be considered for this area are the kinds of things that a planning study of this area should address. The Planning Commission has recommended and the City Council has had a first reading on an ordinance to declare a moratorium on development in this area in order for such a study to be conducted and for its conclusions to guide future development. We do not believe it is appropriate to act favorably or unfavorably on this application until the Council had definitely decided whether or not to institute the moratorium. The Couoncil will hold a public hearing on the moratorium ordinance June 12, 1989. We, therefore, recommend that the matter be tabled until at least the June 15, 1989 meeting. It should also be noted that a set of plans and various fees were submitted to the Planning and Inspection Department office on May 7, 1989. The normal procedure, prior to filing an application for Planning Commission review, is to submit preliminary drawings for staff review and comment and a staff meeting with the developers to discuss how the proposal complies with City Ordinances and development policies. Such a preliminary review was never undertaken by the developer. Attached is a copy of a May 12, 1989 letter sent to the applicant noting this fact and indicating that the filing of the application was not consistent with the procedures outlined for filing such an application. At the applicant's insistence this item has been placed on the Commission's agenda. We have noted the lack of time for proper review and have pointed out that the Commission may take up to 60 days for review purposes before making a recommendation to the City Council. A tabling of this application certainly seems in order at this time. In the meantime, the applicant should receive some direction on the modification of the plans pertaining to the following aspects: 1. Consistent building exterior treatment. 2. A drainage plan that contains all site runoff on the site and conveys it to the City storm sewer system. 5 -15 -89 -3- Application No. 89012 continued 3. Rezoning of R5 land to the east to Cl would allow for joint access. As is, the proposed joint access violates City policy and ordinance. 4. The relocation of an existing hydrant and the addition of a hydrant between the accesses on West River Road. 5. The addition of coniferous and /or decorative trees in the greenstrips adjacent to streets and the addition of a minimum 6' high opaque fence along the east property line. 6. The property will have to be replatted into a single parcel prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. Further information must be provided on the type of light fixtures proposed on the light poles around the site. City Policy is for these fixtures to be focused downward so as to minimize "light pollution" onto adjacent sites. 8. Consideration should be given to providing 6' high opaque screening along the east property line to provide screening to the residential property to the east. 5 -25 -89 -4- I Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89013 Applicant: Superamerica /Steve Fiterman Location: 66th Avenue North between Camden and Highway 252 Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Location /Use Application No. 89013 is submitted jointly by Superamerica and by Steve Fiterman for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 5,748 sq. ft. convenience site /gas station (Superamerica) and a 15,060 sq. ft. strip shopping center on the south side of 66th Avenue North between Camden Avenue North and Highway 252. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue North, on the east by Highway 252, on the south by Beacon Bowl, vacant C2 land, and a single - family residence, and on the west by Camden Avenue North. The proposed shopping center is a permitted use in the C2 zoning district. The proposed service station, which would replace the existing station (and a small shopping center to the west which has been demolished), is a special use in the C2 zoning district. Access /Parking Although the two proposed buildings will each be on their own parcels, there will be an agreement, filed with the plat, allowing for cross access and cross parking between the two parcels. They will not be separated by a greenstrip. In fact, circulation around the Superamerica building will cross over onto an arm of land owned by the Fitermans. There will be two accesses off 66th Avenue North, one serving Superamerica and one serving the shopping center. The Superamerica access will be 18' in and 30' wide out divided by a 10' median. Another access is to be located off Camden. The driveway from that access will run behind the shopping center and ultimately behind the Superamerica as well. The parking requirement for the 5,748 sq. ft. Superamerica is 49 spaces. The plan provides for 49 spaces on the Superamerica site, including 4 spaces credited at the outer pump islands. (The City does not accept parking spaces at pump islands unless there is a 24' drive lane for cars to move through. This is only feasible at outer pump islands.) The 15,060 sq. ft. shopping center requires 124 spaces. The plan provides for 100 spaces to be installed and an additional 24 spaces as proof -of- parking on the arm of land that runs to the south of the Superamerica site. The property lines will be shifted somewhat so that required stalls will be located on the property to which they are dedicated and so that minimum building setbacks are achieved. Landscaping The landscape plan breaks down plantings by parcel. The plan calls for 183.5 landscape points on the Superamerica site (113.4 are required) and 238 landscape points on the shopping center site (166 are required) . There are 24 Spring Snow Crab decorative trees proposed in the greenstrip adjacent to 66th Avenue North. These will certainly be attractive trees, especially in the Spring, but the placement of seven Sugar Maple shade trees south of the driveway running behind Superamerica strikes us somewhat as hiding these trees. We would suggest that at least a couple of these larger trees be added to the 66th Avenue greenstrip and perhaps a couple more behind the shopping center building. The Planning Commission may wish to comment. The landscape plan does call for a couple Marshall's Ash, four Vanguard Crab trees and numerous A. W. Spirea shrubs in the large parking lot island in front of the shopping center. The plan calls for shrubbery on the Superamerica site around the foundation of the building, on either side of the access drive, and 5 -25 -89 -1- Application No. 89013 continued around the proposed freestanding sign in the northeast corner of the site. Pin Oaks and Amur Maples are proposed in the small green areas east and west of the Superamerica building. Sod is indicated in all green areas and underground irrigation is noted as required. A screen fence of unspecified height is indicated along the south property line adjacent to the existing single- family residence. (Although the residence is nonconforming, we feel it is appropriate to provide 6' high screening of the commercial site inasmuchas the house may remain indefinitely.) Grading, Drainage, Utilities The grading plan calls for drainage to be contained, for the most part, on private property. A catch basin is proposed just south of the Superamerica entrance which will be connected directly to a storm sewer line located in the right -turn lane of 66th Avenue North. The grade in this area will be lowered significantly and will rise at about a 2% slope toward the building. The grading for the shopping center will lead to two catch basins in the front parking lot, connected to an existing storm sewer line in 66th Avenue North. The driving lane behind the buildings will drain into a catch basin at the southeast corner of the Superamerica site and another just southeast of the shopping center building. These will be connected to a 36 storm sewer line in Highway 252. The grade breaks at about the midpoint of the shopping center building and west of that is proposed to drain into Camden Avenue North. This should be revised to break at the property line and drain entirely on site. Modest berms are proposed in the greenstrip adjacent to 66th Avenue North. Both sites are to be served by utilities contained within a large 60' wide utility easement which straddles the existing common property line. The applicants have petitioned to vacate part of the easement so that it would be 30' wide. Utility services will enter the Superamerica building on the west side. No services have yet been proposed for the shopping center, but will, we assume come from the utility lines in the easement rather than from Camden Avenue North. The plan calls for four hydrants to serve the two sites: one in the right -of -way northeast of the Superamerica site, one to be relocated into a parking lot island near the common property line, one to be relocated west of the shopping center entrance and one just north of the access off Camden Avenue North. Fire Department siamese connections will be to the rear of both buildings. Buildings The Superamerica building is proposed to have a brick exterior with a hip roof and insulated glass windows on the north side. The building is to be composed of a convenience store (approximately 4,200 sq. ft.) and a video annex (approximately 1,344 sq. ft.), attached to the east. The exterior treatment is consistent around the building. The shopping center building is to have a painted rock face block exterior with a stucco trim, to be used for a sign band. The roof is to be flat. Most tenant spaces will face north; however, at least one tenant space at the east end of the building will face east. Canvas awnings are proposed over the fronts of tenant spaces. An 8 wide sidewalk is to be provided in front of the shopping center. Lighting, Trash Trash for Superamerica is to be placed in an enclosure southwest of the building with access from the driving lane running behind the buildings. Trash for the shopping center is to be stored inside a room in the middle of the back of the building. Tenants will have to bring their trash to this central location. 5 -25 -89 -2- Application No. 89013 continued Site lighting will be provided by approximately 17 light poles, 16' in height with 8' arms. The light fixtures will utilize 400 wattmetal halide luminaires directed downward. No lighting has been indicated in the area behind the shopping center. Because of the abutting single- family home to the south, freestanding lights are probably inappropriate and might well violate the ordinance limitation of 3 foot candles if the property were zoned residential. However, we would recommend that the applicant (Mr. Fiterman) consider wall lights focused downward over the tenant service doors for security purposes. Special Use Standards The Superamerica service station is a special use in the C2 zoning district. As such, it is subject to the standards set forth in Section 35 -220.2 (attached). A special use permit was approved for a remodeling and addition by Superamerica under Application No. 77017. Before that, the site was owned by Shell Oil. During a recent public hearing on a proposed rezoning on the east side of Highway 252, residents along Willow Lane stated that there were problems associated with the existing Superamerica station. These problems included litter blowing across the highway and noise from the loudspeakers at the pump islands. We have transmitted these concerns to Superamerica personnel and they will be prepared to address these issues at Thursday's meeting. Superamerica has been a 24 hour operation since 1977 and feels that it provides a service to the public by maintaining these hours. We do not recommend limiting the hours, but there may be steps which Superamerica can take to mitigate the effect on neighboring property. As to impact on the movement of traffic in 66th Avenue North, we believe the proposed access drive providing one lane in and two lanes out is the best that can be done for this property. Obviously, no access can be allowed onto Highway 252. Even the access on 66th is west of the current Superamerica site. MNDOT has indicated that the median in 66th should not be extended since doing that might actually lead to a back -up in 66th affecting indirectly the intersection with Highway 252. While Superamerica has and will have some impact on 66th, we believe the public street will continue to function. The traffic difficulties will really be on -site, where many cars will have to circumnavigate the building to find their way out. Superamerica believes the site is workable and it is not the City's role to protect them from a bad judgment in case they are wrong. As long as adequate driving lanes and parking are provided, the City's interest is met. It is in this case. Altogether, the plans are generally in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least 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 -25 -89 -3- Application No. 89013 continued 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 permits. I P 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. 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 consideration by the City Council to indicate: 5 -25 -89 -4- Application No. 89013 continued 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. 5 -25 -89 -5- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89014 Applicant: Superamerica /Steve Fiterman Location: 66th Avenue North between Camden and Highway 252 Request: Preliminary Plat The applicants jointly seek preliminary plat approval to resubdivide the land on the south side of 66th Avenue North between Camden Avenue and Highway 252. The property is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue North, on the east by Highway 252, on the south by Beacon Bowl, vacant C2 land, and a single- family residence, and on the west by Camden Avenue North. This is the land on which the Superamerica store and the strip shopping center proposed under Application No. 89013 are to be built. The land involved is presently composed of three parcels: the existing Superamerica site, a now vacant parcel to the west which was formerly the site of a small commercial building, and a vacant site owned by the Fitermans which is predominantly west of the two former parcels, but which also has a panhandle to the south of those parcels. The replatting will create one parcel (Lot 1) for a new enlarged Superamerica store and another parcel (Lot 2) for a strip shopping center. For the most part, the Superamerica parcel and the parcel immediately west will be combined and the Fiterman parcel will be expanded eastward and the panhandle narrowed by about 10 The land transfer will allow both proposed buildings to meet setbacks and for required parking to be located totally on the respective sites without need for off -site accessory parking. Nevertheless, there will be a cross - access and cross - parking agreement over both parcels to allow for a free flow of traffic. The lot areas are 61,731 sq. ft. (1.4172 acres) for Lot 1 (Superamerica) and 91, 222 sq. ft. (2.0942 acres) for Lot 2 (shopping center). The plat calls for the dedication of two small triangles of land north of Lot 1 for right -of -way for 66th Avenue North. The sidewalk on the south side of 66th Avenue North will be widened to 12 north of the Superamerica site. There is a large, existing utility easement (60' wide) running north -south along the existing common property line. The property owners wish to narrow the easement to 30' and have petitioned the City to do so. The existing easement was once right -of- way for an unconstructed street. The City vacated the right -of -way, but retained the utility easement since utilities were in. Staff have no objection to a narrowing of the easement to 30'. It should be adequate for servicing utilities should the need arise. Altogether, the plat appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City ordinances. 3. 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. 5 -25 -39 -1- i Application No. 89014 continued w 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. 5 -25 -89 -2- I Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No.89015 Applicant: Toys R Us Location: Xerxes Avenue North and Highway 100 Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to combine into a single lot the site of the existing COMB store and the old Marc's Big Boy restaurant. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by 55th Avenue North and the Firestone automotive center; on the east by Xerxes Aven, North; on the southeast by Highway 100; and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard. Sites under common ownership and common use must be combined into a single parcel by plat or registered land survey in accordance with Section 35 - 540 of the Zoning Ordinance. The land in question is to be the site of a Toys R Us store approved under Application No. 88009. The proposed plat calls for a single lot described as Lot 1 Block 1, Toys R Us Addition. The plat also contains areas for right -of -way for Xerxes Avenue North, Highway 100, and a small section of Brooklyn Boulevard. A new right-of -way dedication is made along 55th Avenue North - a 10' wide strip for the addition of a trailway. This was required as part of the site plan approval. The plat documents the existence of a number of easements: -An NSP easement, 10' wide along Xerxes Avenue North and and along Brooklyn Boulevard, and 45' wide along Highway 100. -A 20' wide watermain easement mostly within the Highway 100 right -of- way and extending over the southeast corner of the Toys R Us property. -A 30' wide storm and sanitary sewer easement running through the southerly portion of the property from Brooklyn Boulevard to the southeast corner of the site. -A 20' wide roadway easement extending from 55th Avenue North 247' southward. This easement covers the west half of the private roadway serving this site and the Firestone site to the east. No topography or site improvements have been shown on the preliminary plat. This is acceptable in this case inasmuchas a survey of the property was submitted with Application No. 88009 and a proposed grading plan has been approved with that application. In general, the plat appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final la p t 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. 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 5 -25 -89 prior to final plat approval. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 6 -I2 -89 t Agenda Item Number tai V-b REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application Nos. 89013 and 89014 submitted by Steve Fiterman /Superamerica. DEPARTMENT OVAL: Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X i Planning Commission Application No. 89013 is a request for site and building plan /special use permit approval to construct a gasoline station /convenience store and strip shopping center on the south side of 66th Avenue North between Camden Avenue North and Highway 252. This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its May 25, 1989 meeting and approval was recommended subject to the 17 conditions listed on pages 7 and 8 of the minutes attached. Planning Commission Application No. 89014 is a request for preliminary plat approval to resubdivide the same land mentioned above. This application was also reviewed by the Planning Commission at its May 25, 1989 meeting and approval was recommended subject to the 6 conditions listed on pages 8 and 9 of the minutes attached. concerned with general land use questions not simply the proposed gas station use. He invited Mr. Merrigan to review the record to see some of the comments made by staff in the reports and at the public meetings regarding the land use question involved in the rezoning. The Planner asked Mr. Merrigan why a site and building plan was not submitted with the rezoning. He pointed out that he had told Mr. McGee and Mr. Atkins in March that it would be appropriate to submit development plans with the rezoning so that the Planning Commission and the neighborhood could see what would result from the proposed rezoning. Mr. Howard Atkins, the owner of the property, stated that City staff had told him to submit the rezoning application first. The Secretary agreed that rezoning of property was the first priority item in providing access to 66th for the commercial property and still continues to be an issue since the rezoning was withdrawn. Mr. McGee explained that the rezoning was withdrawn because of the proposed moratorium. He asked whether the moratorium would be applied if Fina were not proposed at all. The Secretary stated that the land use issue presented by the rezoning would still have been studied. He pointed out that a previous development proposal for an office use in this area had received approval by the City and could still be allowed under the moratorium. Mr. Jim Neuberger of 6546 Willow Lane then briefly addressed the Commission. He stated that he represented the neighbors in the area and that nobody wanted to see a big gas station. He stated that it would increase the traffic count on local streets tremendously. He urged the Commission not to give Fina more land for a bigger gas station. He stated that if there is a moratorium to study land use in the area, it should address the traffic problems presently experienced on local streets. He concluded by stating that the station would add traffic onto 66th Avenue North and even onto Willow Lane. Chairman Nelson asked the Commission for its comments. Commissioner Ainas stated that he was not convinced that the proposal was in conformance with the Standards for Special Use Permits. He stated that he favored tabling of the application until the City Council could act one way or another on the moratorium. Commissioner Malecki stated that she agreed with Commissioner Ainas and also stated that she did not feel the plans were presently in order. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 89012 (Fins Oil and Chemical Company, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to table Application No. 89012 and continue the public hearing until the June 15, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, with direction to the applicant to revise the plans as recommended in the staff report. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS AND 89014 (Steve Fiterman /Superamerica) The Secretary then introduced the next two items of business, a request for site and building plans 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 a request for preliminary plat approval to resubdivide the same land. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports regarding these two applications (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 89013 and 89014 attached). The Secretary added that he did not believe that the impact of the proposed service station would be greater than the impact of the existing station. 5-25-89 - 5 9 - 4 Chairman Nelson asked whether the parking of delivery trucks behind the shopping center would be acceptable. The Secretary explained that the Fire Department is not concerned with parking of trucks in a fire lane as long as the driver is available. He stated that the parking of trucks overnight would not be acceptable and is not expected. Commissioner Sander inquired as to the location of the existing Superamerica station. The Secretary pointed out on the transparency that the existing station is located somewhat north and east of the proposed building location. Commissioner Sander pointed out that people from the Superamerica could exit onto Camden Avenue North. The Secretary acknowledged that this was possible, but that it would probably not be used very often. There followed a brief discussion regarding exiting from the Superamerica site. Chairman Nelson asked the applicants whether they had anything to add. Mr. Ron Krank, the architect for the shopping center, briefly reviewed the history of the project with the Planning Commission. He stated that he had been hired in 1986 by the owner, Mr. Fiterman, to design the project. He stated that he had met with staff designing preliminary layouts of the site and that during the process found it would be advantageous to work with Superamerica on a combined site and building plan. He noted that there had been numerous meetings with people from Superamerica and with City staff. He stated that the lighting recommended along the wall behind the building would be provided with shields to direct the light downward. Chairman Nelson asked whether there was any problem with the recommendation on the landscaping. Mr. Krank responded in the negative. He stated that, if the trees are far enough apart to not hide the building, there should be no problem with providing shade trees along 66th. Commissioner Malecki asked when the old Superamerica would be demolished and the new Superamerica built. Mr. Krank responded that he was not sure what the timing would be on the demolition of the existing Superamerica building. The Secretary stated that the site may have to be shut down for some time during the staging of the project. Mr. Bud Kaupp, of Superamerica, stated that it would be necessary to shut the station down temporarily during construction. The Secretary pointed out that there was some question as to a possible convenience food restaurant to be located in the shopping center. He pointed out that such a restaurant could not abut R3 zoned property across a street. He explained that the restaurants were primarily carry out restaurants and that the applicants may look at an appeal and /or an ordinance amendment to allow the restaurants within the building. The Secretary then requested representatives of Superamerica to address the concerns of noise and litter which had been expressed at previous public hearings. Mr. Bud Kaupp, of Superamerica, acknowledged that the problems had been brought to their attention. He pointed out that everything on the existing site would be demolished, including the canopy and the speakers. He stated that Superamerica now uses smaller speakers than were installed in the existing station. The new speakers are down at eye level and are much smaller, he explained. He stated that the speakers were mandated by law at all self - service stations and are used to warn those who are smoking not to smoke while filling up their gas tank. He added that it also establishes a contact between the consumer and Superamerica employees and helps to prevent people from driving away without paying. Regarding litter, Mr. Kaupp said that the problem would be addressed by the management of the new station and that, if necessary, employees would be sent to pick up litter that blows across the highway. The Secretary asked if there was someone that the neighbors could contact regarding problems with the Superamerica operation. Mr. Kaupp answered 5 -25 -89 -5- that complaints would go directly to top management and then be assigned to an area manager. He stated that the area manager for this station was Dave Brost. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 89013 and 89014) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 89013 (a special use permit for Superamerica) and concurrently Application No. 89014 (the preliminary plat for both sites). He asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the applications. Mr. Jim Neuberger of 6546 Willow Lane asked whether the rag papers would be eliminated when the new station is in operation. Mr. Kaupp stated that there was no intention of doing away with those paper window wipers, but that the management of the station will address the problem if paper is blowing across the highway. Mr. Dave Brost, the area manager covering the store, stated that someone would be sent over to pick up any trash that blows away from the Superamerica station. Mr. Neuberger responded that he was satisfied with assurances of the Superamerica management. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Johnson asked whether there was a fence along the highway side of the property. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Johnson stated that he was concerned with the appearance of the main drags within the City. He pointed out that paper often blows against fences lining these roadways. The Secretary stated that maintenance of grounds on the private side of these fences belongs to the property owner. He added, however, that maintenance of the right - of -way area, such as cutting the weeds, is a responsibility of MN /DOT. Commissioner Sander inquired as to the ordinance on storage of merchandise on the sidewalks in front of the building. The Secretary responded that there are two provisions governing such storage in the C2 zoning district. He stated that the ordinance prohibits outside storage or display except behind opaque fences or walls at least 6' high, but that storage in front of a building on a private pedestrian walkway can be allowed during business hours. He added that, for gas stations, there was a special provision to allow display within 4' of the building and at pump islands. He added that he felt the storage of merchandise was getting out of hand. Commissioner Sander stated that she felt it was an aesthetic annoyance to have such merchandise stacked outside of the building and often it was impossible to walk on the sidewalk in front of these buildings. The Secretary also pointed out that service station are allowed three 30 day administrative land use permits for promotional sales and sales by itinerant vendors. Commissioner Johnson stated that sidewalks in front of convenience stores are used used for storage, not for walking. The Secretary responded that such outdoor storage and display is allowed under City ordinance. Commissioner Johnson asked whether the only recourse might be to note that such storage would be limited or prohibited on the site plan. Chairman Nelson stated that the only recourse was really an ordinance amendment. The Secretary stated that he did not feel the City could prohibit as a condition of approval something that is otherwise allowed by City ordinance. Commissioner Johnson also commented that he did not want to see the problems with the video store that are experienced downtown. The Secretary stated that Superamerica 5 -25 -89 -6- would have to abide by the pornography regulations regarding display of materials contained in City ordinance. In response to another question from Commissioner Johnson regarding the zoning of such uses, the Secretary pointed out that the City has video stores in other locations in the community. He noted that the City has regulations governing massage parlors and similar uses but that video stores have not been considered a problem use at this point. Commissioner Malecki asked the representatives of Superamerica what their policy would be regarding the video store and pornographic movies. Mr. Bud Kaupp of Superamerica stated that Superamerica was the first company to remove Playboy and other similar magazines from its racks. He stated that no pornographic videos would be rented at Superamerica. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 89013 (Steve Fiterman /Superamerica Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 89013 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 gurantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manger for each of the two sites) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 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. 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. 5 -25 -89 -7- 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 consideration by the City Council to indicate: 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 bulding 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. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 89014 (Steve Fiterman /Superamerica Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 89014, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City ordinances. 5 -25 -89 -8- 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. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89015 (Toys R Us) The ecretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to combine into a single parcel the land on which the present C.O.M.B. and old Marc's Big Boy restaurant are located. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89015 attached). Following the Secretary's report, Chairman Nelson asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Wasyl Hnatiw, representing Toys R Us, stated he had nothing to add to the report. Commissioner Sander asked whether the present buildings would be torn down. Mr. Hnatiw responded in the affirmative that both buildings would be demolished. Chairman Nelson asked when the demolition would take place. Mr. Hnatiw responded that it would be as soon as a contractor could be selected. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89015) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 89015. He noted that there was no one else present to speak on the application and called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION 89015 (Toys R Us) Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend approval of Application No. 89015, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 35 of the City ordinances. 5 -25 -89 -9- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89013 Applicant: Superamerica /Steve Fiterman Location: 66th Avenue North between Camden and Highway 252 Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Location /Use Application No. 89013 is submitted jointly by Superamerica and by Steve Fiterman for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 5,748 sq. ft. convenience site /gas station (Superamerica) and a 15,060 sq. ft. strip shopping center on the south side of 66th Avenue North between Camden Avenue North and Highway 252. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue North, on the east by Highway 252, on the south by Beacon Bowl, vacant C2 land, and a single- family residence, and on the west by Camden Avenue North. The proposed shopping center is a permitted use in the C2 zoning district. The proposed service station, which would replace the existing station (and a small shopping center to the west which has been demolished), is a special use in the C2 zoning district. Access /Parking Although the two proposed buildings will each be on their own parcels, there will be an agreement, filed with the plat, allowing for cross access and cross parking between the two parcels. They will not be separated by a greenstrip. In fact, circulation around the Superamerica building will cross over onto an arm of land owned by the Fitermans. There will be two accesses off 66th Avenue North, one serving Superamerica and one serving the shopping center. The Superamerica access will be 18' in and 30' wide out divided by a 10' median. Another access is to be located off Camden. The driveway from that access will run behind the shopping center and ultimately behind the Superamerica as well. The parking requirement for the 5,748 sq. ft. Superamerica is 49 spaces. The plan provides for 49 spaces on the Superamerica site, including 4 spaces credited at the outer pump islands. (The City does not accept parking spaces at pump islands unless there is a 24' drive lane for cars to move through. This is only feasible at outer pump islands.) The 15,060 sq. ft. shopping center requires 124 spaces. The plan provides for 100 spaces to be installed and an additional 24 spaces as proof -of- parking on the arm of land that runs to the south of the Superamerica site. The property lines will be shifted somewhat so that required stalls will be located on the property to which they are dedicated and so that minimum building setbacks are achieved. Landscaping The landscape plan breaks down plantings by parcel. The plan calls for 183.5 landscape points on the Superamerica site (113.4 are required) and 238 landscape points on the shopping center site (166 are required). There are 24 Spring Snow Crab decorative trees proposed in the greenstrip adjacent to 66th Avenue North. These will certainly be attractive trees, especially in the Spring, but the placement of seven Sugar Maple shade trees south of the driveway running behind Superamerica strikes us somewhat as hiding these trees. We would suggest that at least a couple of these larger trees be added to the 66th Avenue greenstrip and perhaps a couple more behind the shopping center building. The Planning Commission may wish to comment. The landscape plan does call for a couple Marshall's Ash, four Vanguard Crab trees and numerous A. W. Spirea shrubs in the large parking lot island in front of the shopping center. The plan calls for shrubbery on the Superamerica site around the foundation of the building, on either side of the access drive, and 5 -25 -89 -1- Application No. 89013 continued around the proposed freestanding sign in the northeast corner of the site. Pin Oaks and Amur Maples are proposed in the small green areas east and west of the Superamerica building. Sod is indicated in all green areas and underground irrigation is noted as required. A screen fence of unspecified height is indicated along the south property line adjacent to the existing single - family residence. (Although the residence is nonconforming, we feel it is appropriate to provide 6' high screening of the commercial site inasmuchas the house may remain indefinitely.) Grading, Drainage, Utilities The grading plan calls for drainage to be contained, for the most part, on private property. A catch basin is proposed just south of the Superamerica entrance which will be connected directly to a storm sewer line located in the right -turn lane of 66th Avenue North. The grade in this area will be lowered significantly and will rise at about a 2% slope toward the building. The grading for the shopping center will lead to two catch basins in the front parking lot, connected to an existing storm sewer line in 66th Avenue North. The driving lane behind the buildings will drain into a catch basin at the southeast corner of the Superamerica site and another just southeast of the shopping center building. These will be connected to a 36" storm sewer line in Highway 252. The grade breaks at about the midpoint of the shopping center building and west of that is proposed to drain into Camden Avenue North. This should be revised to break at the property line and drain entirely on site. Modest berms are proposed in the greenstrip adjacent to 66th Avenue North. Both sites are to be served by utilities contained within a large 60' wide utility easement which straddles the existing common property line. The applicants have petitioned to vacate part of the easement so that it would be 30' wide. Utility services will enter the Superamerica building on the west side. No services have yet been proposed for the shopping center, but will, we assume come from the utility lines in the easement rather than from Camden Avenue North. The plan calls for four hydrants to serve the two sites: one in the right -of -way northeast of the Superamerica site, one to be relocated into a parking lot island near the common property line, one to be relocated west of the shopping center entrance and one just north of the access off Camden Avenue North. Fire Department siamese connections will be to the rear of both buildings. Buildings The Superamerica building is proposed to have a brick exterior with a hip roof and insulated glass windows on the north side. The building is to be composed of a convenience store (approximately 4,200 sq. ft.) and a video annex (approximately 1,344 sq. ft.) , attached to the east. The exterior treatment is consistent around the building. The shopping center building is to have a painted rock face block exterior with a stucco trim, to be used for a sign band. The roof is to be flat. Most tenant spaces will face north; however, at least one tenant space at the east end of the building will face east. Canvas awnings are proposed over the fronts of tenant spaces. An 8' wide sidewalk is to be provided in front of the shopping center. Lighting, Trash Trash for Superamerica is to be placed in an enclosure southwest of the building with access from the driving lane running behind the buildings. Trash for the shopping center is to be stored inside a room in the middle of the back of the building. Tenants will have to bring their trash to this central location. 5 -25 -89 -2- Application No. 89013 continued Site lighting will be provided by approximately 17 light poles, 16' in height with 8' arms. The light fixtures will utilize 400 wattmetal halide luminaires directed downward. No lighting has been indicated in the area behind the shopping center. Because of the abutting single - family home to the south, freestanding lights are probably inappropriate and might well violate the ordinance limitation of 3 foot candles if the property were zoned residential. However, we would recommend that the applicant (Mr. Fiterman) consider wall lights focused downward over the tenant service doors for security purposes. Special Use Standards The Superamerica service station is a special use in the C2 zoning district. As such, it is subject to the standards set forth in Section 35 -220.2 (attached) . A special use permit was approved for a remodeling and addition by Superamerica under Application No. 77017. Before that, the site was owned by Shell Oil. During a recent public hearing on a proposed rezoning on the east side of Highway 252, residents along Willow Lane stated that there were problems associated with the existing Superamerica station. These problems included litter blowing across the highway and noise from the loudspeakers at the pump islands. We have transmitted these concerns to Superamerica personnel and they will be prepared to address these issues at Thursday's meeting. Superamerica has been a 24 hour operation since 1977 and feels that it provides a service to the public by maintaining these hours. We do not recommend limiting the hours, but there may be steps which Superamerica can take to mitigate the effect on neighboring property. As to impact on the movement of traffic in 66th Avenue North, we believe the proposed access drive providing one lane in and two lanes out is the best that can be done for this property. Obviously, no access can be allowed onto Highway 252. Even the access on 66th is west of the current Superamerica site. MNDOT has indicated that the median in 66th should not be extended since doing that might actually lead to a back -up in 66th affecting indirectly the intersection with Highway 252. While Superamerica has and will have some impact on 66th, we believe the public street will continue to function. The traffic difficulties will really be on -site, where many cars will have to circumnavigate the building to find their way out. Superamerica believes the site is workable and it is not the City's role to protect them from a bad judgment in case they are wrong. As long as adequate driving lanes and parking are provided, the City's interest is met. It is in this case. Altogether, the plans are generally in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least 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 -25 -89 -3- Application No. 89013 continued 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 permits. 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. 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 consideration by the City Council to indicate: 5 - 25 -89 -4- Application No. 89013 continued a) At least two additional shade trees in the greenstrip ad ,aeent 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. 5 -25 -89 -5- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89014 Applicant: Superamerica /Steve Fiterman Location: 66th Avenue North between Camden and Highway 252 Request: Preliminary Plat The applicants jointly seek preliminary plat approval to resubdivide the land on the south side of 66th Avenue North between Camden Avenue and Highway 252. The property is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue North, on the east by Highway 252, on the south by Beacon Bowl, vacant C2 land, and a single - family residence, and on the west by Camden Avenue North. This is the land on which the Superamerica store and the strip shopping center proposed under Application No. 89013 are to be built. The land involved is presently composed of three parcels: the existing Superamerica site, a now vacant parcel to the west which was formerly the site of a small commercial building, and a vacant site owned by the Fitermans which is predominantly west of the two former parcels, but which also has a panhandle to the south of those parcels. The replatting will create one parcel (Lot 1) for a new enlarged Superamerica store and another parcel (Lot 2) for a strip shopping center. For the most part, the Superamerica parcel and the parcel immediately west will be combined and the Fiterman parcel will be expanded eastward and the panhandle narrowed by about 10'. The land transfer will allow both proposed buildings to meet setbacks and for required parking to be located totally on the respective sites without need for off -site accessory parking. Nevertheless, there will be a cross - access and cross- parking agreement over both parcels to allow for a free flow of traffic. The lot areas are 61,731 sq . ft. (1.4172 acres) for Lot 1 ( Superamerica) and 91, 222 sq. ft. (2.0942 acres) for Lot 2 (shopping center). The plat calls for the dedication of two small triangles of land north of Lot 1 for right -of -way for 66th Avenue North. The sidewalk on the south side of 66th Avenue North will be widened to 12 north of the Superamerica site. There is a large, existing utility easement (60' wide) running north -south along the existing common property line. The property owners wish to narrow the easement to 30' and have petitioned the City to do so. The existing easement was once right -of- way for an unconstructed street. The City vacated the right -of -way, but retained the utility easement since utilities were in. Staff have no objection to a narrowing of the easement to 30'. It should be adequate for servicing utilities should the need arise. Altogether, the plat appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City ordinances. 3. 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. 5 -25 -89 -1- Application No. 89014 continued 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. 5 -25 -89 -2- m ., m LL-i Z r DUPONT �� - -- Din im �',� m \ w COLFA X -a Z z RO / x \� o k ° D x r --r �C cv� D [ rnX > I-H I b Cn — < �l Z I x MX __...1 BRYANT\�C N- \ 00 > ALDRICH r' { 6' ( r- 11 W Uj CAMDEN_- - CAMDEN AVE. N. aMEN o� R Z u • 2 '.� N .- — - 5TH S T. _— �, • + WEST RIVER RO AD _ oo ® ®doo ms.r►a�o�o�rr�sr< ®o�n ►noo�roaiv sootao�r�m�► oud•••� :J R — •.� :,••• a�� _ ass � �UALLAS .. � c' OR TI L RI A E Bd S _ -- OW LA. W ^w ;� ` ow DURNAM ISLAND (CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK) "'~"'� — 0 c�0 0 C APPLICATION N0. 89013 n•.e�. w.e�c +.s....w taw. w '�'""� EVERGREEN 8 DECIDIOUS TREE VLAN71N0 DETAR �ik� _ 000 0 o of - - -- - -- • 1 I I I I 1 ` -- -- -� I I I I 1 1r -- . y�+vur sw- es -_..sw.o ..�.na�vs. ✓,.,".• c(ae cw.. Ta - :;,, (—. _ -- .. . . - 'h(K Af Yo A�^�20 +'N0 CNC. � '.. .. u• ..i+ lbeor<3 w� �"w6V• im .a ara�•.oa r . s....w o.c.�,. z•,.,., a e ..., oe _,,..�,ev EVERGREEN & DECIDJOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL w = a�'•.... ..., -� ems. w,...o rar,.): ' - :o <i'y^ n M^ . �� ,...�..... ». <.� -- -- •,� I �.` _ �- •• _ � / i : _ T .,..��_ .'fie. I � � ; � � I I �• � '�. i -' r�Q' � ' I .. N w tr w, y `c p ^„ �+o •' -- w SUPERA M ERICA STATIONISTORE m - - -._ I 0.'.0• . EO' 0' l I. NT DINS .I NA-1 PE T, VID1. I RE�E P I ----------------- - - - - -- •_xy.r 1 z, U• �� SNOP CEN iER — - -- I A ....<... w.. -- eaa.an CD Q1 co CD N Z Z V J a c APPLICATION NO. 89014 r LOCATION MAP � ,r nvewu TNrAVE N. �y 5. _. ��?l_ _ '�• o.,• ,� '` � \ ,:� �: __ .411 I'.�. i R' ,L 10, cre I � 1.41724aet. . { \ ___ / � %� I 1l -TE!�I 1 > _ "°° t. ITI_l��i i / -_ � ,�I +y• Z SNO°H'NG •�� GENTEN 1 1 � ` I. _ - z �� =.,.. > ..�. �\ > BBB•a•a8•. ��•. I. \, auwB ruT � - -___ -_ -___- __ -...n. d� f '4N�sB uE.<B. _ __ r i � � U � J 66 TH- " AV F— M t4 " u LOCATION MAP EXCEP.ITION 1 76 2 4 ew, + 166 E §posto 15 . IBM .' o 1,131 q.ft. L 1 0; K, t HsTORr 72acres\ L I. T ZL 1 p; �j Z) > A T PROP03ED SHOPPING L 0 T--.. :S, 9 1,222s q ft 0942 Cr (o cuRs . .... . .. . ... I- 965.01'34 "W 632.111 PLAT "631.65 MEAS. zt O CD tr L) co CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meetin Date 6 -12 -8 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 89015 submitted by Toys R Us. *:**,.**#**** *,► * * * * * # * # *. # * * * * * * * * * * *t * * * ** *mot * *� ,►****t:****t****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. *� * * * * * * * * * ** DEPARTMENT A VAL: -' f_ nc , Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X ) Planning Commission Application No. 89015 is a request for preliminary plat approval to combine into a single parcel the land on which the present C.O.M.B. and old Marc's Big Boy restaurant are located. This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its May 25, 1989 meeting and approval was recommended subject to the 4 conditions listed on pages 9 and 10 of the minutes attached. f F 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. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICAT NO. 89015 (Toys R Us) The ecretary then ntroduced the next item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to combine into a single parcel the land on which the present C.O.M.B. and old Marc's Big Boy restaurant are located. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89015 attached). Following the Secretary's report, Chairman Nelson asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Wasyl Hnatiw, representing Toys R Us, stated he had nothing to add to the report. Commissioner Sander asked whether the present buildings would be torn down. Mr. Hnatiw responded in the affirmative that both buildings would be demolished. Chairman Nelson asked when the demolition would take place. Mr. Hnatiw responded that it would be as soon as a contractor could be selected. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89015) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 89015. He noted that there was no one else present to speak on the application and called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION 89015 (Toys R Us) Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend approval of Application No. 89015, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 35 of the City ordinances. 5 -25 -89 -9- s 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. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No.89015 Applicant: Toys R Us Location: Xerxes Avenue North and Highway 100 Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to combine into a single lot the site of the existing COMB store and the old Marc's Big Boy restaurant. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by 55th Avenue North and the Firestone automotive center; on the east by Xerxes Aven, North; on the southeast by Highway 100; and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard. Sites under common ownership and common use must be combined into a single parcel by plat or registered land survey in accordance with Section 35 -540 of the Zoning Ordinance. The land in question is to be the site of a Toys R Us store approved under Application No. 88009. The proposed plat calls for a single lot described as Lot 1, Block 1, Toys R Us Addition. The plat also contains areas for right -of -way for Xerxes Avenue North, Highway 100, and a small section of Brooklyn Boulevard. A new right -of -way dedication is made along 55th Avenue North - a 10' wide strip for the addition of a trailway. This was required as part of the site plan approval. The plat documents the existence of a number of easements: -An NSP easement, 10' wide along Xerxes Avenue North and and along Brooklyn Boulevard_and45' wide along Highway 100. -A 20' wide watermain easement mostly within the Highway 100 right -of- way and extending over the southeast corner of the Toys R Us property. -A 30' wide storm and sanitary sewer easement running through the southerly portion of the property from Brooklyn Boulevard to the southeast corner of the site. -A 20' wide roadway easement extending from 55th Avenue North 247' southward. This easement covers the west half of the private roadway serving this site and the Firestone site to the east. No topography or site improvements have been shown on the preliminary plat. This is acceptable in this case inasmuchas a survey of the property was submitted with Application No. 88009 and a proposed grading plan has been approved with that application. In general, the plat appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City ordinances. 3. 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 5 -25 -89 prior to final plat approval. e � x mom K NO 0 -Jl l rna 8B ?g_BH2" �poa _ m_ O � ` m O CJo - D ^ + a- .'•.may °p�9VV �° N s 0 - 83.41 oe W\ y 00 589 °3437 "E s: N' 4.30 /o, 979 s4 �, �\ 11D Y „ RD. N0. 152 oa`, p HIGHWAY EASEMENT AS SHOWN I N j DOC.ND. T33294,FILESOFTHE t.\ REGISTRAR OF TITLES o 1 _ ^ \ 37 "W - V1 o ' - 150.00 -N89 °34' \ �7 0 i _ e � N \- - 506.13- N8 9 °3 037"W -NO RTHLINEOFTHESOOTHi50FT.OF LOT 57 - - ' �, — -- _ _ t _ ° STORM954NITARY SEWER EASEMENTIBOON 21370E DEEDS,PAGE 539) ° i� —�— ° IS0.0O- 589 ° "E - \\ / °,.' / V ? / � •(��'l �� .te ' � \ ° 9 q / / O C a' b Y n ?o Licenses to be approved by the City Council on June 12, 1989: 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. Grief of Police �c- AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR American Amusement Arcades 850 Decatur Avenue `Q Carousel International Corporation P. 0. -:Box 307 ) 4 1t CB�i of Police 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.� /n New Horizon Nursery School 1200 69th Ave. N. Sanitarian 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 Sanitarian 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 Building Official TAXICAB Airport Cab 3010 Minnehaha Ave. 1i4e of Police" n / GENERAL APPROVAL. D. K. Weeks, City Clerk