Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 05-22 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MAY 22, 1989 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum 5. Approval of Consent Agenda -All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. 6. Presentation: a. Minnesota Water Ski Association 7. Approval of Minutes: *a. May 1, 1989 - Board of Equalization *b. May 1, 1989 - Special Session *c. May 3, 1989 - Special Session *d. May 8, 1989 - Regular Session 8. Performance Bond Release: a. Target /Shingle Creek Center, 6000 -6100 Shingle Creek Parkway 9. Resolutions: *a. Approving Plans and Specifications and Directing Advertisement for Bids for 1989 Sealcoating Program (Improvement Project No. 1989 -08) *b. Establishing Project, Appropriating Funds and Accepting Proposal and Authorizing Execution of a Contract for Landscape Improvements on Lakebreeze Avenue and France Avenue North (Improvement Project No. 1989 -14) C. 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) d. Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1989 -A (Rehabilitation of Well No. 8, Improvement Project 1988 -23) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- May 22, 1989 *e. Amending the 1989 General Fund Budget and Accepting Proposal to Repaint Overhead Doors and Trim on East and West Fire Stations *f. Amending the 1989 General Fund Budget and Accepting proposal to Repaint the Overhead Doors at the Municipal Garage and South Storage Building *g. Approving Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Delivery of One (1) Computerized Engine Analyzer -1989 Budget *h. Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into an Agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and North Hennepin Mediation Project *i. Acknowledging Gift from the Brooklyn Center Lions Club - $2,000 for Entertainment in the Park *j. Acknowledging Gift from the Brooklyn Center Rotary Club -$300 for Entertainment in the Park and $400 for flowers in Central Park 10. Ordinances: (7:30 p.m.) a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land -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. 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. b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Expansion of Single Family Homes in the Cl Zoning District -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. c. 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 -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. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- May 22, 1989 d. An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of an Easement in Lot 18, Auditor's Subdivision No. 310 -This easement crosses the SuperAmerica site at T.H. 252 and 66th Avenue North, and the vacant property west of the SuperAmerica site. The vacation is requested by the property owners. This ordinance is offered this evening for a first reading. e. 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 -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. 11. Planning Commission Item: (7:45 p.m.) a. 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 Planning Commission considered this application on March 16, 1989, and expanded the rezoning consideration to include other nonconforming multiple- family buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood. The i application was referred to the Southeast Neighborhood ! Advisory Group who reviewed the application and recommended approval of the rezoning, including all of the nonconforming multiple family buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood. 1. Resolution Regarding Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 89009 Submitted by Milton Carlson and Harriet Berg 2. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land Considered under Planning Commission Application No. 89009 -This item is offered this evening for a first reading. 12. Discussion Items: a. Report Regarding Cost Estimate, Distribution of Information and Petition Process Relating to Improvement of Four Unimproved Alleys b. Report Regarding Contingency Plan for Implementation of Water Use Restrictions C. Storage of Commercial and Recreational Vehicles in Residential Areas CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- May 22, 1989 13. Selection of Councilmember *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 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MAY 1, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met as the Board of Equalization 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, City Assessor Peter Koole, Property Appraiser Mark Parish, and Administrative Aide Patti Page. PURPOSE OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION The City Manager reviewed the purpose of the Board of Equalization meeting and pointed out the City Council was serving as the Board of Equalization to conduct a review of assessed valuation within the City and to allow time for public inquiry regarding local assessments after the City Assessor makes his report. The City Manager introduced Peter Koole, City Assessor, who pointed out there are various steps an individual may take when seeking adjustments in their valuations, and he explained the meeting tonight is the first step, after which the inquiries pass on to the County; and the County then passes it on to the State for its review. He noted if an individual prefers to bypass these steps he may go directly to tax court. He added the Board of Equalization reviews the City Assessor's work, and he explained the City appraisers are fully certified by the State of Minnesota. He stated the City Assessor's responsibility is to treat the value of similar properties in similar ways with regard to valuations. He also noted the City Assessor's office has asked that people call his office prior to the Board of Equalization to make an appointment with the staff to discuss the particular request, and also, if necessary, to register for an appearance at the Board of Equalization. He explained the people who preregistered would be handled first at this evening's meeting. THE CITY ASSESSOR'S REPORT The City Assessor next reviewed the sales ratio studies. He explained the sales ratio study was a substantive part of what is done by the Assessing Department. He briefly reviewed the 1989 sales ratio study; noting the aggregate ratio is 92.3; the median ratio is 92.1; and the coefficient of dispersion is 5.2. He then briefly discussed the definition of coefficient of dispersion. He stated the average sales price of a home in Brooklyn Center is $75,615, and the average market value is $69,808. The City Manager reminded the City Council and those present in the audience that the Board of Equalization is in session to review the property values not the taxes being paid on the property. 5/1/89 -1- PUBLIC INQUIRY REGARDING LOCAL ASSESSMENTS Mayor Nyquist recognized Akbar Sajady, 4207 Lakeside Avenue North, Units 131, 224, and 326. Mr. Sajady stated he purchased these three condominiums in 1985 and has been trying to sell them. He noted he is having problems selling these units and feels the market value is too high. Mayor Nyquist inquired if the market values are consistent with other units in the building. The City Assessor stated there have been ten market sales and eight foreclosures of similar units. He noted the eight foreclosures were not used for the sales ratio. He explained the market value of these units has significantly decreased over the years; however, this year staff is recommending the market values remain the same as 1988. Councilmember Pedlar inquired why the market values are decreasing at the Beach condominiums. The City Assessor stated this problem is not unique to the Beach condominiums, and the condominium market on a whole is somewhat depressed. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to affirm the City Assessor's 1989 valuation for the following PID numbers: 10- 118 -21 -32 -0102, 10- 118 -21 -32 -0136, and 10- 118 -21 -32 -0179. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist recognized Robert Van Moorlehem, 6261 Brooklyn Drive. Mr. Van Moorlehem stated this property is rental property, and he has been trying to sell it for approximately one year. He noted the highest offer he has received was $64,000 for the home. Mr. Van Moorlehem then submitted a letter which he would like included in the evening's record from the real estate agent that listed his home. The letter noted Mr. Van Moorlehem was unable to sell his home last year for the estimated market value on the home. Councilmember Paulson inquired if Mr. Van Moorlehem had any plans to improve the property. He noted this may be a good opportunity to change his property from a "plain Jane" to a good seller. Mr. Van Moorlehem stated the real estate agent had told him although it would add to the value of the home, it would cost money to do it and those costs would not be recovered. There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to reduce the 1989 valuation of the property at 6261 Brooklyn Drive to $69,600. The motion passed unanimously. The City Assessor noted Mr. Arnold Friedl, 4012 65th Avenue North, was not present. He stated the Board of Equalization need not take any action on this. He added staff is not recommending any change to the 1989 market value. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Ronald Shodeen, 5448 Dupont Avenue North. Mr. Shodeen stated the Appraiser has been out and has recommended lowering the market value to $41,000. He stated he and his wife concur with the new valuation. There was a motion by Councilmember. Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to reduce the 1989 valuation of the property at 5448 Dupont Avenue North to $41,000. The motion passed unanimously. 5/1/89 -2- The City Assessor stated David Retrum, 2719 63rd Avenue North, had scheduled an appointment for this evening but was unable to appear. He noted Mr. Retrum called and requested the Council consider his request for review as a letter request. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to reduce the 1989 valuation of the property at 2719 63rd Avenue North to $81,900. The motion passed unanimously. The City Assessor stated there were four properties which should be considered as letter requests and entered into the minutes. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to affirm the City Assessor's 1989 valuation for the property at 1915 57th Avenue North. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to affirm the City Assessor's 1989 valuation for the property at 4435 68th Avenue North. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to affirm the City Assessor's 1989 valuation for the property at 3901 Lakebreeze Avenue North. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to affirm the City Assessor's 1989 valuation for the property at 5915 John Martin Drive. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Board of Equalization adjourned at 7:42 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 5/1/89 -3- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL SESSION MAY 1, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:42 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Todd Paulson, and Jerry Pedlar. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, City Assessor Peter Koole, and Administrative Aide Patti Page. ACCEPTANCE OF COUNCILMEMBER RESIGNATION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to accept the resignation of Gene Lhotka effective April 30, 1989. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER REPLACEMENT Councilmember Paulson stated he had spent a little time putting together some proposed procedures for the process of selecting a new Councilmember. He stated he feels the best process would be open to all qualified individuals. He added he would like to have a roll call vote to keep in the spirit of the open process. Councilmember Pedlar stated it appears Councilmember Paulson has outlined a good and fair process but he doubts that this could be accomplished in 30 days. He noted time is of the essence, and he is concerned with the length of time it will take to interview and select an individual. Councilmember Scott stated she agreed with Councilmember Pedlar's comments. The City Manager stated the Council could solicit interested parties in the POST newspaper this week and give a week's time to contact Council or the Mayor. He noted the appointment could be made at the second meeting in May. He added the number of people who are interested may dictate the process to be used. He stated if the Council wished, each Councilmember could call the interested individuals and speak to them personally. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott requesting the POST newspaper to publish a notice soliciting interested parties to contact the Mayor or Council by May 10, 1989. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ulysses Boyd who stated he has lived in Brooklyn Center since 1954 and is interested in the Council vacancy. He stated he is now retired and is able to devote full -time to the duties of Council. Mayor Nyquist stated Mr. Boyd should put his interest in writing and direct it to one of the Council or himself. 5/1/89 -1- OTHER BUSINESS There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to transfer the City Manager's vehicle to use in the police pool and to authorize the City Manager to be reimbursed for mileage. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 8:04 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 5/1/89 -2- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL SESSION MAY 3, 1989 CONSTITUTION HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special 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 Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Jim Thompson, and Administrative Aide Patti Page. CONSIDERATION OF BILL KELLY HOUSE SPECIAL USE PERMIT The City Attorney briefly reviewed the stipulation agreement which would settle the pending lawsuit. He noted the agreement has been executed by Henry Norton for Kelly- Norton Programs, Inc. The City Manager noted a copy of the proposed uses for the Drew Avenue North facility was sent with the notices for the public hearing. Mayor Nyquist explained for those present, the agreement does not agree to the permit but does agree to reopening the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to approve the stipulation agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and Kelly- Norton Programs, Inc. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist opened the public hearing for consideration of the special use permit for Kelly- Norton Programs, Inc. He noted he would like interested parties to limit their remarks and comments to things that have changed or to new information since the past public hearings. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated Planning Commission Application No. 87012 was considered in 1987 and 1988. He went on to briefl y review the site and the four proposed uses which were agreed to in the stipulation agreement. He g noted the site plan would not change, but there would be a call for a revised parking lot plan. He noted it would be necessar y to install a wood trash enclosure and execute a proof -of- parking agreement. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated as part of the approval process, the applicant would have to clarify the number of staff involved in the proposed uses for Nos. 3 and 4. He explained the applicant would have to comment regarding the number of clients who would have their own vehicles on the premise so staff could verify 17 spaces would be adequate. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated there is a resolution before the Council for approval this evening, and he noted staff would recommend approval of the resolution which contains 23 conditions. He then went on to briefly review the 23 conditions. 5/3/89 -1- Mayor Nyquist recognized Ron Christensen, 6101 June Avenue North. Mr. Christensen inquired at what point the Council was in consideration of this permit. Mayor Nyquist stated the Council has approved the stipulation agreement which basically agrees to open the public hearing concerning the special use permit. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Duke Dalrymple who inquired if the property value study is complete. Mayor Nyquist responded affirmatively. Mr. Dalrymple inquired how much this study cost. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated it cost between $12,000 and $13,000. Mr. Dalrymple inquired how the study was completed. The City Manager stated a consultant was hired to study the effect of these homes on property values. He noted comparable group homes and neighborhoods were considered in this study. Mr. Dalrymple stated if the report was not based on Brooklyn Center property values, a facility with 23 residents, and a facility for dual diagnosis patients, he did not believe the report could be valid. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated one of the facilities studied was a former Bill Kelly House site, and a consultant did not find a decrease in property values for the surrounding neighborhood. The City Manager inquired if Mr. Dalrymple was aware of the fact that the proposed uses agreed to this evening are not for dual diagnosis. Mr. Dalrymple stated he believes the City is setting a precedent by paying off the Kelly- Norton Programs, Inc. He noted residents' rights are being violated because they cannot stand up and use their first amendment rights for fear of being sued. Mr. Dalrymple inquired if patients who have committed crimes without having gone through the criminal justice system would be allowed into the Bill Kelly House. The City Manager stated it would be possible for that to happen, however, he did not know how anyone would be aware of the fact if the patient did not go through the court system. Mayor Nyquist recognized John Derus, Hennepin County Commissioner. Mr. Derus stated the process in which the Council and staff have been involved in has been very difficult. He stated he is sure the Council and staff are feeling intimidated by this process, and he added he has never seen such a damaging court process as this has been. Mr. Derus stated he would hope the Council would not approve this permit, and he felt this process is not in the spirit of helping people. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Neil Nelson, 3519 53rd Place. He stated he noticed a "for sale" sign at the property two days ago but now it is gone. He inquired if the property is "for sale" or not. Henry Norton, Kelly- Norton Programs, Inc., stated the property had been put "for sale" a little over a year ago. He noted a sign was put up earlier in the week by mistake and then the realtor removed it. He noted generally "for sale" signs are not posted on the lawn of apartment buildings. Mayor Nyquist then recognized a Fridley resident who stated she lived at 5311 4th Street North. She noted if the property value remains the same and does not increase with the rate of inflation, then the value has actually decreased. She noted that is what is happening in Fridley. She noted three - quarters of the families in a particular neighborhood surrounding a group home have moved. She inquired how many employees the applicant proposes to have on duty at night for 5 -2- all four proposed uses. Mr. Norton stated there would be one employee on duty at night for each use. The City Manager pointed out the home which was spoken of was in the property value study completed for the City. Mayor Nyquist recognized Bernie Barkow, 3530 53rd Avenue North. Mr. Barkow stated it appears proposed use Nos. 2 and 4 appear to be dual diagnosis also. The City Manager stated the original application was for a dual diagnosis of chemical dependency and mental illness. He noted the diagnosis for the proposed uses Nos. 2 and 4 are different than chemical dependency and mental illness. He stated all uses proposed for Nos. 1 through 4 are less intense and problematic than the original application. Mayor Nyquist recognized Hampton Dailey, 3900 France Place. Mr. Dailey stated he is concerned with the mentally ill being free to roam at the nearby park. He noted he would not allow his grandchildren to go to the park by themselves with mentally ill people roaming around. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ulysses Boyd, 4807 Azelia Avenue North. Mr. Boyd inquired if the residents would be accompanied by a chaperone when they leave the home. He stated he feels there is a potential danger to children and everyone who would be going through this neighborhood. Mayor Nyquist recognized Justine Malmberg, 3810 Oak Street. Ms. Malmberg stated in proposed use No. 2 it mentions those patients with traumatic brain injury. She stated brain damage or injury to the central nervous system can cause erratic and violent behavior within people just as mentally ill and chemically dependent people can also have erratic or violent behavior. Mayor Nyquist recognized a resident who stated she wanted to be referred to as Jane Roe for fear of a lawsuit. She stated she would like to see the City Council take a wait- and -see attitude because legislation is changing, and the City may not be forced to approve this permit. She stated she does not feel Mr. Norton was honest when the application was first considered. She stated she cares first and foremost about her children, and she is very concerned with the possibility of mentally ill people being housed right next to an elementary school. She stated she is also concerned with the fact the facility is run for profit. Mayor Nyquist recognized Bernie Barkow, 3530 53rd Avenue North. Mr. Barkow stated none of the Councilmembers live in the immediate area and are not aware of the maintenance problems which exist there already. He noted the police are always at the apartment building for some problem or other. An unidentified resident stated she was angry to think the residents of the City have no rights. She stated she would be afraid to live there if this group home is approved. She added she believes that is why there is an increase in crime because there are so many people running loose who should not be free. Mayor Nyquist recognized Bill Hawes, 3612 53rd Avenue North. Mr. Hawes stated it appears some of the rights guaranteed under the constitution are being taken 5/3/89 -3- away. He noted two people from the neighborhood have been barred from attending the meeting this evening. Mayor Nyquist stated the Council did not bar anyone from attending this meeting. Apparently, these two people have chosen or been advised to not attend. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Pedlar stated he would like some clarification regarding those people who have been convicted of certain crimes. He inquired if a person is convicted and released, would they be allowed into the facilities three years after their release. The City Manager stated the potential does exist if the person is convicted and released three years prior to admission to the facility. Councilmember Paulson stated as a Councilmember he has to rely on people speaking their mind. He stated he has not heard much from the applicant, and he would like to hear a little more information from the applicant. Susan Lentz, attorney for Kelly- Norton Programs, Inc., stated she and the applicant are here to answer any questions the Council may have. She stated she did have three points she would like to make for the Council this evening. The first being, the initial lawsuit was brought by the citizens of Brooklyn Center and Mr. Norton merely exercised his rights to counterclaim. She noted Mr. Norton did not impede the presence of Ms. Sherritt or Mr. Roach. Ms. Lentz stated the second point she would like to make is that Mr. Norton has tried throughout this process to provide full and complete information to staff and residents. She stated the City Manager is correct in stating the proposed uses are not as intense as the initial application. Ms. Lentz noted her third point is this permit is individual and only for this applicant. She stated if the building were sold, the permit would not be transferable to a new owner. Councilmember Pedlar stated he was quite surprised when he read the property values study. He noted he felt the study would show the property values have decreased in surrounding areas of group homes. Councilmember Pedlar noted there are a number of group homes in Brooklyn Center, and he feels quite strongly against them. He noted, however, the decision made this evening has to be in the best interest of the City regardless of personal opinions and feelings. Councilmember Scott stated she would like to urge all residents to keep lobbying their legislators so the City may have more power over these decisions. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -81 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CLARIFYING MEMORANDUM WHICH IS ATTACHED TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 88 -51 5/3/89 -4- i The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -82 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RESCINDING CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 88 -51 AND APPROVING AMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 87012 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 8 :45 p.m. City Clerk Mayor S 5/3/89 -5- t 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 8, 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 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, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, EDA Coordinator Brad Hoffman, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Administrative Aide Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Scott. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist recognized yq d L.T. Merri an g Mr. Merri an stated he g g is legal counsel for Howard Atkins, E & H Properties. Mr. Merrigan noted it appears the first reading of the ordinance for the moratorium this evenin g has all come about because of a planning commission application which his client submitted. He stated he is concerned that the City Council is attempting to prohibit development in the area, and it appears that his client is the only one at which this ordinance is directed. He noted he would appreciate it if the City Council would allow the current application to go forward. Mayor Nyquist recognized Gene Kasmar, 5559 Lyndale Avenue North. Mr. Kasmar stated he was present this evening to register a protest against the City Council having an invocation at the beginning of its meetings. Mr. Kasmar went on to explain his reasoning for protesting the invocation at Council meetings, noting he felt it violated the Constitution. Mayor Nyquist recognized Marie Castle, 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway. Ms. Castle stated she too was present this evening to register a protest against the invocation at Council meetings. She stated she has a signed petition which she would like to leave for the Council. She noted many people she approached with the petition were too intimidated to sign it. She stated that while a number of people agreed with the concept of the petition, they were too uncomfortable to sign it. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Daniel Reiva, 1707 Amy Lane. Mr. Reiva stated he was shocked to learn that the Brooklyn Center City Council opened its meetings with a prayer. He noted as Ms. Castle stated intimidation is real in this issue, and the City Council is the cause of it by having an opening prayer. Mayor Nyquist stated the City has been advised by its legal counsel that an • opening invocation for the Council meetings is admissable. The City Attorney 5/8/89 _1_ noted the courts have found this practice to be allowed under the Constitution, and Congress itself opens with a prayer. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Pedlar request item 8d be removed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 24 1989 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes of the April 24, 1989, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 89 -83 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSALS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS FOR FURNISHING AND INSTALLATION OF NEW LIGHTING SYSTEM IN CONSTITUTION HALL (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -05) - 1989 BUDGET ITEM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -84 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO FURNISH AND INSTALL AUTOMATIC WATERING SYSTEM FOR CENTRAL PARK PLAZA (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -10) - 1989 BUDGET ITEM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -85 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DENYING PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE FOR MABEL RUSTAD, 5229 GREAT VIEW AVENUE NORTH 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: CATERING FOOD VEHICLE Penguin Ice Cream 1461 Belmont Lane CIGARETTE Brooks Superette 6804 Humboldt Ave. N. 5/8/89 -2- FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Baskin Robbins 1277 Brookdale Center Boulevard Superette 6912 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooks Superette 6804 Humboldt Ave. N. Gloria Jean's Coffee Bean 1119 Brookdale Center Pizza Hut 5806 Xerxes Ave. N. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Park & Recreation Central Park Brooklyn Center Park & Recreation Earle Brown Days Parade MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Air Comfort, Inc. 3944 Louisiana Circle Care Heating and Air Cond., Inc. 1211 Old Highway 8 Dependable Heating & Air Cond., Inc. 2619 Coon Rapids Blvd. Green Mechanical, Inc. 8811 E. Research Cntr. Rd. Igloo Heating and A /C, Inc. 11440 Lakeland Dr. N. Kraemer Heating 7441 Dallas Court Minnesota Heating & A/C 6908 Georgia Ave. N. Pfiffner Heating & Air Cond. 6301 Welcome Ave. N. Thompson Air, Inc. 5115 Hanson Court Ray Welter Heating Co. 4637 Chicago Avenue MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. • SIGN HANGER Cragg, Inc. 7150 Madison Ave. W. Kaufman Sign Co. 315 Washington Ave. N. Lawrence Signs, Inc. 945 Pierce Butler Route Leroy Signs, Inc. 6325 Welcome Ave. N. Nordquist Sign Co., Inc. 312 West Lake Street SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT Carson Pirie Scott 1200 Brookdale Center SWIMMING POOL Brookwood Estates 6201 North Lilac Drive Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Blvd. The motion passed unanimously. PRESENTATION - DECISION RESOURCES INC. - COMMUNITY SURVEY The City Manager stated the results are in from the community survey which was conducted by Decision Resources, Inc. He noted Bill Morris and Diane Traxler are present this evening to make a brief presentation on the survey. Mr. Morris stated 503 households were randomly surveyed within the City of Brooklyn Center. He noted the average length of the survey was 41 minutes, and the accuracy rate is plus or minus 4.5 %. Mr. Morris then went on to review select portions of the survey and noted the overall results were very positive. 0 5/8/89 -3- RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Amending the 1989 General Fund Budget and Accepting Proposal to Conduct a Study of General City Hall Office Space Needs. He noted in past discussions the Council inquired if we are currently utilizing the space to its fullest. He noted staff feels this study will give a good analysis of the utilization of space on the main floor. Councilmember Scott inquired what the City would receive for the $3,000 fee. The Director of Public Works stated a space analysis would be done along with a very preliminary rearrangement of office space. He noted the next step would be to obtain recommendations for remodeling and the necessary furniture. Councilmember Paulson inquired if the Council would still be getting a tour of City Hall. The City Manager stated he has been waiting for a light agenda to put the tour on the agenda. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -86 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT A STUDY OF GENERAL CITY HALL OFFICE SPACE NEEDS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Amending the 1989 Pay Plan. The City Manager noted the City has been having problems recruiting for this position, and they feel it can be attributed to the low pay scale for the position. He noted it had been decided earlier that these salary ranges would be examined in early 1989. RESOLUTION NO 89 -87 Member Todd Paulson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 PAY PLAN The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving Purchase of Software Program for the Fire Department. The City Manager noted in 1987 and 1988 funds were budgeted for a software program in the Fire Department. He noted at that time there was not a software program available that fit the City's needs. He stated at this time a program is available, and staff is seeking approval to purchase this software from the contingency fund. RESOLUTION NO 89 -88 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE COMPUTER SOFTWARE TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER FIRE DEPARTMENT 5/8/89 -4- i The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly econded b y y member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting a Proposal for Professional Telephone Consulting Service and Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Sign a Contract. He noted the Economic Development Authority is requesting similar action this evening, and both resolutions should either be passed or denied. Councilmember Pedlar inquired what distinct advantage there is to hiring a consultant. The City Manager stated staff has spoken with a number of communities who have recently put in phone systems, and it seems the communities that did not use consultants experienced the luck of the draw. He noted if the community did not hire a consultant, but was fortunate enough to hire a good vendor, then good specs were written and a good system was purchased. He noted by hiring a consultant staff would receive some independent advice from someone who had knowledge of the technical advancement of phone systems over the years. The EDA Coordinator noted there would be a slight change to the resolution which would allow the money for this service to be taken from the contingency fund. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -89 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL TELEPHONE CONSULTING SERVICE; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A CONTRACT; AND TO AMEND THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -90 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT AND OF THE PROJECT PLAN FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCES The City Manager presented An 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 T.H. 252. He noted this item is offered this evening for a first reading. He added an RFP would be available at the time of the public hearing and second reading for this ordinance. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated E & H Properties has submitted a new planning commission application for development on this site. Councilmember Scott inquired how this ordinance would affect the applicant. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the ordinance would not take affect until after the second reading and publication. He noted, technically, the planning commission application should be on the next planning commission agenda, and if approved construction should be underway before the ordinance takes effect. He 5/8/89 -5- noted any construction would be in direct conflict with the moratorium. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar to approve for first reading 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 T.H. 252. Mayor Nyquist seconded this motion for voting purposes. Councilmember Scott stated she did not believe there should be two processes going on at one time that are in direct conflict with each other. She stated she felt the Council should take care of the planning commission application before placing a moratorium on development. The City Manager noted the Council was in a very similar situation when Target stores submitted its planning commission application. He noted if the Council proceeds with the planning commission application, there would P 1 be no need to roceed with t p h he moratorium. He stated usually the City would try to study an area before a project is proposed. The Director of Planning and Inspection went on to review the area in uesti q •n and the recommendations from the neighborhood meetings. He noted one of the aspects of the moratorium is to decide what uses are best suited for the site. Upon vote being taken on the foregoing motion, the motion passed unanimously. The public hearing and second reading of this ordinance was set for June 12, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:32 p.m. and reconvened at 8:48 p.m. The Director of Park and Recreation entered the meeting at 8:48 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR AN ICE ARE The City Manager stated the Park and Recreation Commission has recommended a feasibility study for an ice arena be approved and an appropriation of not more than $2,500 be approved for this study. He noted staff has reviewed this recommendation and believes $2,500 will not be enough to cover a complete feasibility study. He stated he would like to see this issue included in the park facility study. The City Manager noted Brooklyn Center School District has indicated some interest in this issue, but it has not yet been determined what the school district's role would be in this. He added it has also not yet been determined whether City funds can be used to improve school district properties. Mayor Nyquist recognized Noah Bridges, 6712 Emerson Avenue North. Mr. Bridges stated he believes there is enough interest from existing programs to demonstrate a need for this type of facility. He stated he felt this would draw people into the community, and he saw this as a good chance to draw young families into Brooklyn Center. Mayor Nyquist inquired if the facility would be 5/8/89 -6- i self- supporting. Mr. Bridges stated it was hard to say at this time, but he believed the feasibility tud would answer that question. Y Y q Councilmember Pedlar questioned the comprehensiveness of the study which would cost $2,500. Mr. Bridges stated an incredible amount of leg work has already been completed for the he architect which hich would help defray some of the costs. He noted he felt the high school would be a good site for the ice arena, and the Superintendent of School District #286 is 100% behind the feasibility study. Mr. Bridges noted the architect g itect has done feasibility studies for multiuse fuse facilities in the past, and he (the architect) felt $2,500 would cover a complete study. Mayor Nyquist inquired how the other arenas in the area are doing financially. Mr. Bridges stated from what he can ascertain, it appears they are running in the black. The City Manager stated one question the Council must keep in mind is, if the revenues do not meet the expenses who would pick i u the bill. P p p 1. He noted it would boil down to two governmental bodies being responsible to finance the deficit. He noted if this is approved he would recommend the City take a larger role in the capital expenditure xpenditure rather than the operational expenses. Councilmember Pedlar inquired how a multipurpose facility would come out financially. The City Manager stated his past experience shows that they are generally ot self-supporting. o Y rtin M Pp g. r. Bridges stated he feels there is a unique situation at this time because there is an organization who is looking for 2,000 plus hours of ice time. Mayor Nyquist inquired when the organization would be interested in booking ice time. Mr. Tim Boyle stated the Minneapolis skating g club would be looking for ice time early in the morning and at various times throughout the day. He stated that is a question that would have to be looked into more closely. Councilmember Pedlar inquired what staff's recommendation for timing would be. The City Manager stated he would like to first speak with the school district to get their feelings on the issue. He noted he is aware that everyone is in a hurry, but there is a great need to have good economic information on the issue. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar directing the City Manager to review the issue of a proposed ice arena with the School District. The motion passed unanimously. CITY ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT REGARDING PROPOSED TRAIL CONSTRUCTION ON NORTH LILAC DRIVE FROM CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE TO CSAH 57 (57TH AVENUE NORTH) The City Manager noted in the agenda materials for this evening's meeting, an engineer's ineer s g report was submitted which outlined e in d three alternates for construction of the off - street bikeway and pedestrian trail from the Lions Park trail at Centerbrook club house to 57th Avenue North. The Director of Public Works stated the existing conditions were evaluated by Brooklyn Center engineering staff and Brauer & Associates during the winter of 1988 -1989. He noted the following conditions ions were addressed. location of trail as it would relate to the existing slopes between T.H. 100 and North Lilac Drive; existing pavement grades and drainage on North Lilac Drive; and trail routing and slope treatment at the northerly end of North Lilac Drive and the off -ramp from T.H. 100 to 57th Avenue North. He then went on to review the three alternates for construction which were discussed in the engineer's report. 5/8/89 -7- I The Director of Parks and Recreation, the EDA Coordinator, and the Personnel Coordinator left the meeting at 9:27 p.m. After review of the three alternates, the Director of Public Works stated staff is recommending the selection of alternate No. 1 on the basis that staff believes it provides a safe trailway, at a reasonable cost, with the lowest annual maintenance cost of any of the three alternates. He further noted regardless of which alternate is selected, the City must submit an application for an amendment to our existing permit from MNDOT for construction of the trail. He stated the City would have to receive its approval of that amendment before proceeding with final design and construction of the improvement. He added if approval is received from MNDOT City staff would then finalize the construction plans and specifications and submit them to the City Council for final approval. There was a brief discussion regarding the benefits of each alternate. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar tentatively approving alternate No. 1 and directing staff to obtain the required permit from MNDOT. The motion passed unanimously. PRELIMINARY REPORT AND COST ESTIMATE REGARDING PAVING OF FOUR UNPAVED ALLEYS The Director of Public Works briefly reviewed the history of alleys within the City of Brooklyn Center and the existing policies regarding alley improvements. He noted in 1978 the City Council initiated proceedings and conducted improvement hearings on a staff proposal to improve all unimproved alleys then remaining. He stated following those hearings, the City Council terminated proceedings on these projects primarily because of objections to the proposed assessments by a majority of the property owners. He stated in addition to the objections to special assessments, several other issues were raised during the proceedings. He then proceeded to review slides of each of the four alleys. The Director of Public Works stated in alley No. 1 which is located between Fremont and Emerson Avenues North from 55th to 57th Avenues North installation of a storm sewer is mandatory if the alley is to be improved, and staff is recommending paving it with concrete to allow for the best drainage. He stated alley Nos. 2 and 3 are also being strongly recommended for concrete paving. He noted No. 4 would be paved with bituminous. Councilmember Paulson inquired if improvement of these alleys would raise property values. The Director of Public Works stated he believed it would raise the property values. Councilmember Paulson inquired if there would be a need for speed bumps in these alleys. The Director of Public Works stated historically and consistently staff has recommended against speed bumps because staff does not feel they are effective with regard to violators. The Director of Public Works stated he recommends the City Council consider amending the City's existing policies and briefly reviewed some questions which should be considered. He stated there may be more support from the neighborhoods if the policies were changed. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar directing staff to prepare an amendment to the policies and procedures pertaining to alley improvements and to incorporate into this amendment the 5/8/89 -8- following items: the cost of stoyca sewer construction would be paid for by the City of Brooklyn Center; two rates of assessment featuring a 60/40% split per buildable parcel for those property owners who have a garage on the alleyway and those who do not. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar tentatively approving the use of concrete on alley No. 1. The motion passed unanimously. ANNUAL PLANNING PROCESS UPDATE The City Manager stated he has tentatively set the date for the Annual Planning Session for June 1, 1989. He noted in 1988 the Annual Planning Session was held over two evenings, but he feels this year the session can be completed within one evening because he is suggesting use of a computer and new facilitator. There was a motion by Councilmember Paulson and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar setting the date for the Annual Planning Session for June 1, 1989. The motion passed unanimously. ESTABLISHMENT OF A CADET PROGRAM IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT The City y briefly reviewed the proposed Cadet Program submitted by the Police Chief. He stated the Cadet Program would hire college students in their first year of college, and thus, build a pool of what staff believes would be qualified "protected class" candidates. He stated it would give staff a good solid look at potential Police Officer candidates; allow interested young people to get a feel for what police work is about; and present an opportunity to meet �s the City's equal opportunity employment guidelines. There was a brief discussion regarding the proposed duties of the Cadet Program. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the Cadet Program and authorize the Police Department to implement the program in 1989. The motion passed unanimously. NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS ON MAXIMUM CONTAMINATION LEVELS FOR LEAD AND COPPER The Director of Public Works briefly reviewed the reports submitted pertaining to this agenda item. He stated there is universal support for the goals of the safe drinking water program. He added, however, evaluation of the proposed regulations by experts in the subject indicates that the proposed regulations are very unrealistic, that compliance would be very expensive, and compliance with the proposed regulation would not accomplish the goals of the program. He stated he has discussed this matter with staff and with Black & Veatch, the consultants for the City's current water supply study. He noted the City's major objection to the proposed regulations is that they assign responsibility for water quality at the tap (i.e. inside the home or business establishment) to the cities. He noted this is dramatic departure from the established policy that City's are responsible for water quality in the water mains, but property owners assume the responsibility for water service lines and in -house plumbing systems. He went on to explain adoption of the regulations which assign that responsibility to the City creates the following problems: it invades the 5/8/89 -9- privacy of private properties; it creates severe perception problems; and it raises a number of liability issues. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -91 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROPOSED NEW USEPA RULE FOR NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS The City Manager stated during the past winter the Northbrook Shopping Center came under new ownership. He noted the City has operated a liquor store in this shopping center since 1971. He stated since November 1, 1987, the City has operated without a contract and has continued under the terms of the expired lease on a month -to -month basis. He explained a new lease has recently been negotiated, and staff is requesting the Council to authorize execution of the agreement with Northbrook Partners. The City Manager went on to explain select portions of the new lease and noted Northbrook Partners is in the process of remodeling the center. He noted included in the remodeling plans is the relocation of the Northbrook Liquor Store. The City Manager explained the store would remain in the same building that it is currently located, but the store would be somewhat reduced in size and completely reversed so that it will front on 57th Avenue North. He noted staff reduced the square footage to make it more affordable but noted because of the frontage to 57th Avenue North, there would be better accessability to the customers. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement with Northbrook Partners for the rental of space in the Northbrook Shopping Center to be used for the Northbrook Liquor Store. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Paulson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10:54 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 5/8/89 -10- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5 -22 -89 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION • ITEM DESCRIPTION: Bond Release for Target /Shingle Creek Center DEPARTMENT AP OVAL: Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspecti o MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: 4; No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The following performance guarantee is recommended for release: Target /Shingle Creek Center 6000 -6100 Shingle Creek Parkway Planning Commission Application No. 85001 Amount of Guarantee - $25,000 bond Obligor - Ryan Construction Company Coniferous trees have been added at the ,jog in the southeast property line to screen the loading d P 9 ock and trash compactor at Target. All trash containers are in screened areas. The opening to the Best site to the east has been closed with curb and gutter. We are holding a separate bond for improvements related to the recent Target addition. All other site improvements have been completed for some time. Recommend total release. Submitted by Gary Shallcross, Planner CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meetin Date 5/22/89 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR 1989 SEALCOATING PROGRAM (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -08) *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: * * * * * * * * * * * ** N * *P *�* DIRECTOR OF PU I C WORKS * ********************** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached No Explanation • Improvement Project 1989 -09 is the continuation of the sealcoat program initiated in 1988 using only Class A aggregate for sealcoating. Class A aggregate is a granite chip or trap rock. The bid proposal and specifications have been modified for 1989 in the following areas. 1. Proposals are being received for both granite chip and trap rock. The selection of the aggregate material will be at the discretion of the City Council. The benefits are: Granite Trap Rock More readily obtainable Major source - Dresser, WI Secondary to trap rock in Hardness is superior and may hardness lengthen application by 1 to 2 Light grey in color - years over granite slower snow & ice melt More brownish in color and absorbs sun's heat for faster snow & ice melt 2. Traffic advisory signs will be changed from "Fresh Oil" to "Loose Rock ". It is the intent to lengthen the time span between the first and second sweeping on low volume residential streets by approximately one week to allow traffic to seat the aggregate with the extended time period. 3. The size of the aggregate has been reduced from the MNDOT specification of FA -3 (up to 1/2 inch) which has been the accepted size in previous years to a 3/8" maximum aggregate size. 4. A provision has been added to assure that the amount of overlap between sprays of sealcoat is kept at a minimum. City Council Action Re uired A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. I i • i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR 1989 SEALCOATING PROGRAM (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -08) WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council that it is necessary and in the best interests of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota to sealcoat various City streets; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared specifications for the proposed work; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has estimated the cost of said improvement to be $149,900.00: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The following project is hereby established: SEALCOATING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -09 2. The specifications for Contract 1989 -C for said improvement project prepared by the City Engineer are hereby approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 3. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published as required by law, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until the date and time specified, at which time they will be publicly opened at City Hall by the City Clerk and the City Engineer. Subsequently, the bids shall be tabulated and will then be considered by the City Council at a meeting of the City Council. The advertisement shall state that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for 5 percent of the total amount of such bid. 4. The accounting for Project No. 1989 -09 will be done in the General Fund, Street Maintenance Division No. 42. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date s� Agenda Item Number 1 9L REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: 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 NO. 1989 -14) DEPT. APPROVAL: * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * *R * ** OR *� ** P *B * * ** * WORKS * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Explanation During the construction phase of Contract 1988 -H (France Avenue, Lakebreeze Avenue, 50th Avenue and Logan Avenue) and field adjustments to the bikeway / pedestrian trail along France Avenue North in the vicinity of Minnesota Sketchbook /Dale Tile, the existing berms had to be cut back to an unacceptable steepness. These berms contained planting beds of ornamental shrubs, six deciduous trees, and two coniferous trees. Two options were considered for completion of the required relandscaping, i.e.: Option 1 - to negotiate with the general contractor (Thomas and Sons) to complete this work under a Supplemental Agreement to Contract 1988 -H; or Option 2 - to defer the work until this year and proceed with it under a separate contract. Option 1 was rejected because the contractor was already running late on his completion schedule and because we needed more time to develop a plan which could satisfy the adjacent property owners (who had given the City easements to allow construction of the trailway). In addition, the general contractor would have simply received a quote from his landscaping contractor, then added handling charges to those costs. Accordingly, we are now proceeding under Option 2 and have developed a plan for regrading and relandscaping the berms which meets with the property owners' approval. The following proposals were received Wednesday, May 17, 1989: Mickman Brothers Nurseries, Inc. $10,635..00 Countryview Nursery 11,511.00 Noble Nursery, Inc. 12,520.00 All costs for this work should be charged to the local Municipal State Aid Street fund - the same source of funding which was used to build the trailway. City Council Action Required A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT, APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL, AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FO LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ON LAKEBREEZE AVENUE AND FRANCE AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1989 -14) WHEREAS, the City Council has determined there is a need to regrade and relandscape existing berms on Lakebreeze Avenue North and on France Avenue North to correct unacceptable conditions which resulted from construction of the pedestrian/bicycle trailway under Contract 1988 -H; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has prepared specifications for the proposed work and has received the following proposals for completion of the work in accordance with the plans and specifications: Contractor Amount Mickman Brothers Nurseries, Inc. $10,635.00 Countryview Nursery 11,511.00 Noble Nursery, Inc. 12,520.00 AND, WHEREAS, it appears that Mickman Brothers Nurseries, Inc. 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 following project is hereby established: LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT ON LAKEBREEZE AVENUE AND FRANCE AVENUE NORTH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1989 -14 2. The sum of $10,955.00 is hereby appropriated from the Municipal State Aid Street Fund, Account No. 2611, for payment of all costs related to this work. 3. The proposal of Mickman Brothers Nurseries, Inc., in the amount of $10,955.00, is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute a contract with that firm in accordance with their proposal the plans and specifications. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk RESOLUTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5 /�_ Agenda Item Number (� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: 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) DEPT. APPROVAL: * * * * * * * * * * * ****** * D *R EC TOR OF PUBLIC WORK * * ** A*W* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached No ) Explanation The existing water service line which provides a water supply to the Garden City • Park shelter building is a 4 -inch cast iron pipe which extends from the water main on Brooklyn Drive easterly toward the shelter building. During the past 10 years this service line has broken at least six times, including twice during the winter of.1988 -89. Each repair project has cost approximately $W0.00,.and has resulted in substantial disruption of the recreational program." This continuing problem is the result of the wrong pipe material (i.e. cast iron) being used in an area of very unstable soils. We believe that the only positive solution to this recurring problem is to replace this service line with a type of pipe which is suitable for use under these conditions (i.e., a 4 -inch, ductile iron pipe with "Field -Lok" joints, with a corrosion - protection continuous polyethylene sleeve). (Note: None of the breaks which have occurred have been within the easement area between houses between Brooklyn Drive and the park boundary. Accordingly, we do not recommend replacing that section at this time.) Based on plans and specifications which we prepared for this work, we estimated the contract cost at $12,995.00. We have received three proposals from contractors to furnish and install a new service line. The lowest proposal received in the total of $8,850.00 is from Glendale Contracting - a firm which has an excellent performance history on projects which they have previously completed in Brooklyn Center. Accordingly, we recommend accepting the proposal submitted by Glendale Contracting. City Council Action Required A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. I - 9� Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 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) WHEREAS, the City Manager has advised the City Council that there is a need to replace the water service line to the Garden City Park shelter building; and WHEREAS, the following proposals have been received for the furnishing and installing of a new water service line to the Garden City Park shelter building: Glendale Contracting, Inc. $ 8,850.00 Hank Weidema Excavating 10,950.00 Volk Sewer and Water, Inc. 22,930.00 AND WHEREAS, it appears that Glendale Contracting, Inc. 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 sum of $8,850.00 is hereby appropriated to the Park Maintenance Division 69 of the General Fund from the Capital Projects Fund balance to fund the costs of the proposed improvement. 2. The proposal of Glendale Contracting, Inc. to complete said improvement at a total cost of $8,850.00 is hereby accepted and approved. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute a contract with that firm in accordance with their proposal. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded b P g g y y 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. l CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5 a 9 Agenda Item Number 9 d REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ® ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1989 -A (REHABILITATION OF WELL NO. 8, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1988 -23) DEPT. APPROVAL: **** * * * * * * * * *kP *P *�4 * * * *O *O ** P *B WORKS * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Explanation Rehabilitation work on Well No. 8 has been completed, the well has been reactivated, and, after 2 weeks of operation, appears to be functioning very well with no evidence of additional problems (i.e., cave -in of the well cavity). As shown on the attached resolution, the value of work completed is less than half of the amount of the contract. This reflects the fact that, because several previous attempts to correct problems related to this well resulted in contract overruns, we used a very conservative approach in setting up this contract. This time we had a pleasant surprise. While we still can offer no guarantee that there won't be additional problems with this well, we are reasonably optimistic that the well cavity has now stabilized. As noted in previous reports, the rehabilitation process included cutting back the pumping rate on this well pump from 1,550 gallons per minute to 1,250 gallons per minute. By making this change, we believe that the probability of future collapses of the well cavity are substantially reduced. City Council Action Reguired Adoption of the attached resolution • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1989 -A (REHABILITATION OF WELL NO. 8. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1988 -23) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1989 -A signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Keys Well Drilling Company has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: REHABILITATION OF WELL NO. 8 PROJECT 1988 -23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: As Approved Final Amount Contract Amount 41 600.00 17 072.50 2. The value of work performed is less than the original contract amount plus approved change orders and supplemental agreements by $24,527.50 due to a general overestimation of planned quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $17,072.50. 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 5 /2 2 1 29 Agenda Item Number % J5 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO REPAINT OVERHEAD DOORS AND TRIM ON EAST AND WEST FIRE STATIONS *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: * * * * * * * * * * * * *N * *P *�4 * DIRECTOR * * * *B * * ** * WORK S * ** *k** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached No Explanation ® In 1981 new overhead doors were installed at both fire stations. These doors are galvanized steel doors and were painted with a single coat of paint at the time of installation. By 1987 the paint on all of these doors showed serious deterioration and a contract was awarded to repaint these doors, along with all other doors, windows and trim on these buildings. During the progress of this contract substantial problems were experienced with the overall performance of the contractor, and especially with the painting of the overhead doors. After several attempts, the project was finally completed and accepted. However, soon after the one -year warranty period, the new paint on the overhead doors started showing signs of some deterioration at both fire stations. All other painted areas still appear to be in good condition at this time. In 1988 another contract was awarded for cleaning the interior walls and ceilings at the East fire station. During the progress of that work that contractor allowed some of the cleaning solvents to drip and stand on the outer faces of the overhead doors - while they were in the open position, resulting in discoloration and streaking of the 1987 paint job. At first it appeared that this could be remedied by simply applying another coat of paint. Accordingly, we reached agreement with that contractor to deduct $525.00 from our payment for the work on his contract. (We had obtained a proposal from a contractor to repaint the doors for that amount.) During the winter of 1988 -89 the paint on the overhead doors of both fire stations started peeling badly down to the galvanized surface of the doors. It has now become apparent that all existing paint must be stripped from these doors and that a special zinc primer must be applied before the finish coat is applied. Because the new paint will not match the exact color of the man doors and trim at the East station, and the man doors at the West station, these items also need to be repainted (after sanding and cleaning). Two proposals have been received for all required work at both fire stations. The lowest proposal received, in the total amount of $2,463 was submitted by Preferred Surfaces, Inc. of Edina, Minnesota. That company was the subcontractor for the 1988 remodeling contract in the Police Department and did excellent work on that project. Accordingly, we recommend acceptance of their proposal. Council Action Required A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. • • 9E Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO REPAINT OVERHEAD DOORS AND TRIM ON EAST AND WEST FIRE STATIONS WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General Fund budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and WHEREAS the City Manager has s advised the City y g y Council that there is a need to repaint the overhead doors P and trim on the East and West fire stations; and WHEREAS, the following proposals have been received for painting the doors and trim on the East and West fire stations: Preferred Surfaces, Inc. $2,463.00 Janel Decorators $5,750.00 AND WHEREAS, it appears that Preferred Surfaces Inc. has submitted the PP , 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 $2,463.00 Decrease the Appropriations for the following line items Unallocated Dept. Expense - No. 80, Object No. 4995 $2,463.00 2. The proposal submitted by Preferred Surfaces, Inc. 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 Meeting Cate 5/222/89 Agenda Item Number / F REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO REPAINT THE OVERHEAD DOORS AT THE MUNICIPAL GARAGE AND SALT STORAGE BUILDING DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAP DIRE OF PUBLIC * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *4* CTOR WORKS DIRE * * * * * PUBLIC X* * * * * * * ** * n n * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _ No Explanation ® In 1981 new overhead doors were installed at the City Garage building. These doors, like the ones at the fire stations (see previous item on agenda), were galvanized steel doors and were painted with a single coat of paint at the time of installation. In 1985 the entire exterior of the City Garage, including these overhead doors, was repainted. While minor problems were experienced with the contractor during the progress of the contract, the project was completed and accepted by the City. No signs y g of deterioration were noted until late summer of 1988. Then during the winter of 1988 -89, numerous sections of the paint started peeling badly - down to the galvanized surface of the doors (similar to the condition at the fire stations). It is noted that all other surfaces painted under that contract are in good condition, and that the 1 -year warranty has expired. Here, too, it has become obvious that all existing paint must be stripped and that a special zinc primer must be applied before the finish coat is applied. In addition, we recommend that the large wooden door on the salt storage building be repainted under the same contract. (That door is now painted orange and seriously clashes with the proposed new burgundy color.) Again two proposals have been received and we recommend acceptance of the low proposal from Preferred Surfaces, Inc. in the total amount of $1,220. City Council Action Required A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO REPAINT THE OVERHEAD DOORS AT THE MUNICIPAL GARAGE AND SALT STORAGE BUILDING WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General Fund budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has advised the City Council that there is a need to repaint the overhead doors at the municipal garage and salt storage building; and WHEREAS, the following proposals have been received for painting the overhead doors at the municipal garage and salt storage building: Preferred Surfaces, Inc. $1,220.00 Janel Decorators 2,000.00 • AND WHEREAS, it appears that Preferred Surfaces, Inc. 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 $1,220.00 Decrease the Appropriations for the following line items Unallocated Dept. Expense - No. 80, Object No. 4995 $1,200.00 2. The proposal submitted by Preferred Surfaces, Inc. 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. a CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/22/89 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Approving Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Delivery of One (1) Computerized Engine Analyzer DEPT. APPROVAL p ` Administrative Aide Signature - title * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * ** 00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: �6= No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached An appropriation was approved in the 1989 budget for Department #43 for the purchase of a computerized engine analyzer. if the specs are approved, the advertisement would be published and bids would be opened on June 8, 1989. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) COMPUTERIZED ENGINE ANALYZER BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center that the specifications for the delivery of one (1) computerized engine analyzer are hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise for and receive bids for the delivery of one (1) computerized engine analyzer in accordance with said 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. SPECIFICATION FOR A COMPUTERIZED ENGINE ANALYZER Able to analyze on board computer and distributorless ignitions Full color monitor Compatible with General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler products Rapid test function Pinpoint test function Must include a printer Must provide complete equipment training on a timely basis Must provide onsite equipment service by factory technicians r Q O r n 'A W cc Icc r. ry e. q - A 4 , "A a,� a +w' pare - S' ° k, •nN.� E`.. sS�3 IM k )VIE C ,. K �� M,Y :t; b � a '1•L�l �d�, x 4 "v'+'��aY 3�5 :" k !,7, �y�,ayyyy 9 4 r f f � ✓yr :�F''^� sroS�_.�. � 4 �s,i "'d,�y� ����� ��' �:'�. Wb t zra5 � f ,,��� � 65� � ? r � * t� 3k. W M ° �i __ a tw b a � - �` a r��r 3r��� i ! ,. y }qua � � � � V F� ✓'�KYµ� N 3 a���brti� r T dY r il, u, li `' Y � CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/22/89 Agenda Item Number 9 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into an Agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and North Hennepin Mediation Project DEPT. APPROVA Personnel Coordinator Sig ture - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: sheet (supplemental s attached The City's 1989 budget has $5,000 allocated for mediation services (Unit 11 - City Council). To date, S the City has not yet entered into a 1989 contract with North Hennepin Mediation Project (NHMP) for provision of mediation services. Attached is a contract and resolution authorizing the City to do so. The contract, other than the amount paid to NHMP, is virtually identical to the terms of the 1988 contract. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Pass a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into an Agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and North Hennepin Mediation Project. 9 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND NORTH HENNEPIN MEDIATION PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has allocated $5,000 in the 1989 budget, Unit 11, Object 4429 for mediation services; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center and North Hennepin Mediation Project are desirous of renewing an agreement for the provision of services from the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. The Council has reviewed the Agreement Between the City of Brooklyn Center and North Hennepin Mediation Project and finds that the execution of the agreement is in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. 3. The City Manager is directed to transmit an executed copy of the agreement to North Hennepin Mediation Project. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER and NORTH HENNEPIN MEDIATION PROJECT This Agreement is made the 22nd day of May, 1989, between the City of Brooklyn Center, hereinafter referred to as the City, and the North Hennepin Mediation Project, hereinafter referred to as NHMP; In consideration of the covenants set forth herein, the City and NHMP agree as follows: Services Provided. NHMP, within its financial resources, agrees to provide its full range of professional and volunteer services to the residents of the City including, without limitation, the following: a. Mediation services for citizens - City disputes resulting from conflicts in enforcement of City ordinances, rules, and regulations. b. Mediation services for resolving ordinance and nonordinance related neighborhood disputes. C. Mediation services for resolving juvenile justice system disputes, provided that the records and identity of the juvenile shall be provided to NHMP pursuant to Minn. Stat. 260.161. d. Such other services of a similar nature as may be assigned from time to time by the City Manager of the City and as agreed to by the NHMP Board of Directors. Limitations and Report NHMP shall not compete with the City or other Social Agencies by providing services which overlap with services provided by the City or other Social Agencies unless such services can be provided more efficiently and effectively by NHMP. NHMP shall submit an annual report to the City outlining the services provided to the City during the preceding year. B Liabilities. The City shall not exercise control of the process, means, or procedures used in providing services hereunder, shall provide no directive to, and shall not interfere with NHMP or its employees or volunteers in the performance of the services required by this contract. NHMP volunteers and employees shall not be considered employees of the City and shall be under the direct control of NHMP. NHMP agrees to indemnify the City and hold the City harmless from any liability, claim, demand or action of any kind, including legal expenses, arising out of NHMP activities, and NHMP shall carry a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance, including contractual liability insurance, in an amount approved by the City to cover this agreement. NHMP shall provide certificates of insurance to the City with the signing of this agreement. It is understood that this insurance requirement does not constitute all of the insurance that may be necessary. Duration. The services provided by NHMP hereunder shall commence on the 1st day of January, 1989, and continue until December 31, 1989. It is understood between the parties that NHMP intends to continue to provide similar services after expiration of this contract, as a volunteer organization. Nothing in this contract shall be construed to mean that the City shall renew this contract in the event that NHMP continues to provide such services to the residents of the City of Brooklyn Center after expiration of this contract. Payment. The City agrees to pay the sum of Five Thousand ($5,000) Dollars for the services provided hereunder, for the term of the contract. The sum of $5,000 shall be the total obligation of the City under this contract and shall be payable to NHMP as follows: $5,000 on May 31, 1989, in order to provide the services required hereunder. In the event that NHMP fails to provide the services hereunder, discontinues its operation, or otherwise breaches the contract in any material way, NHMP shall refund to the City the amount determined by dividing the number of days remaining under this contract by 365 days and expressing the quotient in percentum and then multiplying the said percentum times the total contract price. In the event the quality of services required by this contract is not acceptable to the City, this agreement may be terminated. Miscellaneous. In an effort to improve the quality of mediation services provided by this agreement, the City and NHMP agree to exchange information and ideas, maintain open communication, and respond to all disputes, misunderstandings, and recommendations. The parties agree that this contract is not assignable and that the contract shall become effective upon approval by the NHMP Board of Directors and the execution thereof by the President and Corporate Secretary, and upon the approval by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center and execution thereof by the Mayor and City Manager. The City shall be a corporate member of the NHMP. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Mayor City Manager NORTH HENNEPIN MEDIATION PROJECT President Corporate Secretary i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: l RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB ----------------------------------- WHEREAS, THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB has presented the City a gift of two thousand dollars ($2,000) and has designated that it be used to provide entertainment in the park; and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative'of the gift and commends the Brooklyn Center Lions Club for its civic efforts: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to acknowledge the gift with gratitude; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the gift of $2,000 be appropriated to the Parks and Recreation Department General Recreation Budget to be used for the "Entertainment in the Park" Program. --------------------- - - - - -- --------------------- - - - - -- 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. 9+ J Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER ROTARY CLUB ------------------------------------ WHEREAS, THE BROOKLYN CENTER ROTARY CLUB has presented the City a gift of seven hundred dollars ($700) and has designated that $300 be used to provide entertainment in the park and $400 be used to provide flowers in Central Park; and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of the gift and commends the Brooklyn Center Rotary Club for its civic efforts: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to acknowledge the gift with gratitude; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that $300 be appropriated to the Parks and Recreation Department General Recreation Budget to be used for the "Entertainment in the Park" Program; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that $400 be appropriated to the Government Buildings Grounds Maintenance & Landscaping Budget to be used for purchasing flowers for Central Park. --------------------- - - - - -- --------------------------- 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 5 -22 -8 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land DEPARTMEN3—AP- PROVAL: Signature' title Director of Planning and Inspecti MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: �•' No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached On April 10, 1989 the City Council approved Planning Commission Application No. 89002 which was a City- initiated rezoning from R5 (Multiple Family Residence) to C1 (Service /Office) of certain land located at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard (see attached map showing the location of this rezoning) . The last step in this rezoning process is an ordinance amendment which lists the rezoned land by description within the proper zoning classification within the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council on April 24, 1989 held a first reading on this ordinance establishing May 22, 1989 as the date for a public hearing on this matter. This procedure, for the most part, is a "housekeeping" or routine matter, but, nevertheless, is required. This ordinance is offered for second reading and adoption. mm lb MOUND CEMETARY ME NOS. , E l m oAr milli PARK iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillI mill ��ii CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER i Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 22 day of Icy , 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning or Certain Land. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City rdinances of the City of Brooklyn Center Y Y Y is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -1140. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R5). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (R5) Multiple Family Resident District zoning classification: [Lots 1 through 5, Block 1, Northgate Addition; except highway. Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 970 That part of Lot 9, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25, described as follows: Commencing at the most northerly corner of Lot 9, thence southeasterly 100 feet along the northeasterly line of Lot 9 and the same extended; thence northwesterly at right angles 104.8 feet to the north line of Lot 9; thence east and northeasterly along the north line and northwesterly line of Lot 9 to the point of the beginning; except highway.] Lot 1, Block 1, Hamm's Addition. Section 35 -1170. SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT (Cl). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (C1) Service /Office District zoning classification. Lots 1 through 5, Block 1, Northgate Addition; except highway. Lot 2, Block 1, Hamm's Addition. Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 970 ORDINANCE NO. 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 (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted). CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meetin Date 5 -22 -89 Agenda Item Number /0,6 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Expansion of Single- Family Homes in the C1 Zoning District DEPARTMENT A- PRROVAL: Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspect MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X _} On April, 10, 1989 the City Council approved Planning Commission Application No. 89002 which involved the rezoning of certain land from R5 to C1. Following that approval, the Council directed the staff to prepare an ordinance amendment for their consideration which would allow otherwise nonconforming single- family homes in C1 • zoning districts to be structurally altered or enlarged. One of the owners of a single- family residential home on property that was being rezoned was mildly opposed to the rezoning since it would prohibit any further expansion of his home. Under the R5 zoning, expansions or alterations of nonconforming single - family homes are allowed as an exception. Under the new C1 zoning, the single - family homes could not be structurally altered or enlarged. A draft ordinance amendment which would allow nonconforming single - family homes in C1 zoning districts to be exempt from the structural alteration or enlargement limitation was presented (but not recommended by the staff) to the City Council on April 24, 1989. The Council considered the amendment and recommendation and held a first reading establishing May 22, 1989 as a date for a public hearing on this ordinance amendment. The City Council also requested the staff to contact the owners of existing single - family homes in the newly rezoned area to inquire of them if they objected to the requirement that their homes could no longer be structurally altered or enlarged. I have been able to contact four of the five homeowners, that being the owners of 6501, 6505, 6521 and 6527 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property at 6515 Brooklyn Boulevard was recently involved in a foreclosure and a couple apparently has acquired and lives at the property, but I was unable to contact them. Of the four properties contacted, one is owner - occupied (6521 Brooklyn Boulevard) and three (6501, 6505 and 6527 Brooklyn Boulevard) are nonowner- occupied rental properties. I believe it is fair to say that the nonowner- occupied property owners generally did not have a strong concern over whether they would be allowed to alter or expand the homes. None have any thoughts of doing so. One of the nonowner - occupied property owners is, however, thinking of demolishing the home to make the land more saleable. One of this group (the owner of 6501 Brooklyn Boulevard) had some reservations and SUMMARY EXPLANATION Page 2 r p eferred that the options for expansion He was concerned p p be continued. s o erned about possible future mortgage problems and the ability to sell the property without restrictions. The one owner - occupied property owner contacted (6521 Brooklyn Boulevard) does want to see the ordinance amendment adopted that would allow single - family homes in C1 districts to be structurally altered or enlarged to protect his ability to expand his home in the future if he desires to do so. I believe it is also fair to say that all of the property owners would not object to the ordinance amendment because it keeps various expansion options open to them or future property owners that would otherwise be nonexistent. Attached is a copy of a map highlighting the properties that would be affected by this ordinance amendment. As indicated previously, the staff is opposed to this ordinance amendment because it seems to be contrary to the principle of nonconforming uses which is to allow such uses to continue, but to be phased out over time in order that a conforming use of the property can replace it. Expansion, structural alterations and enlargements are, therefore, prohibited. Anything that would prolong the nonconforming use rather than speed up its eventual phaseout would seem to work against this principle. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 22nd day of Play , 1989 at 7.30 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Expansion of Single - Family Homes in the C1 Zoning District. Auxiliary Aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING EXPANSION OF SINGLE - FAMILY HOMES IN THE C1 ZONING DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -111. NONCONFORMING USES. Unless specifically provided otherewise herein, the lawful use of any land or building existing at the time of adoption of this ordinance may be continued even if such use does not conform to the regulations of this ordinance, provided: 3. A nonconforming use of a building existing at the time of adoption of this ordinance may be extended throughout the building provided no structural . alterations except those required by ordinance, law, or other regulation are made therein, and provided that no such extension in the floodway overlay zone shall result in increased flood damage potential. Excepted from the structural alteration limitation are single- family dwellings, located in residential districts other than Rl and R2 or in the C1 zoning district provided any structural alterations or additions shall conformwith the requirements of the R1 and R2 district, and the Flood Plain regulations as applicable. 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 (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted). v11111 1 111 11 l��, ,I� , 1110! 1 51 ! �► \ \ I ift i� ..► ,'�► .� /' �,© + may ••�`� �p7 ✓ o^ u.:• rr` 4l' 4v. 9: M-. '49NN:."1:4.G6`�C'.�'now;NVVnnr w... ;� `�`7E. M um A U JIB 111 1.. fir-' �` � °.� t!� �i1un' �/�, : ��I 1 ` � . '. �� _!�! ,�• � 3 ' �i� �. � .,. • � ���r � ra��= or �� � � � � � � ;": :�: � �III1111 ���� �Itaa ■�EEy I III�I l'11�3 �SII�IIIIII � �nnil . ii1i11r � - � ��� + jj ��::.� ►i � �, � ! �w� �1 �� `► �� -'�, . �� 11111 GGr� �rJ ?�= -- -- ■1111 =1 =l��t� a1a s� �3l�1�� �L°bE�y'v, 1 � ������� ' 111111'111 111 Ilit I ■ Ili 8/11111111■ - �p••.. MIMI l ���111� 11 -� �l�1l�� ! !! !� ��l��l��1111� '� •�'�"`� -� .. �d:_::..._..:�: ®® �p •. J �' '• � �� Zi� 201 i�9i6 Illlil CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5 -22 -8 Agenda Item Number /cc, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Extending Interim Ordinance No. 87 - 16 DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspecti MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached An ordinance amendment was offered for City Council consideration on April 24, 1989 which would extend the moratorium on residential facilities. It was noted at that time that the Property Evaluation Study has been completed, but the Land Use Study being undertaken by Resolution, Inc. is not totally completed. The City Council held a first reading on that ordinance amendment and established May 22, 1989 as the date for public hearing on this matter. It is recommended that the City Council conduct the public hearing and adopt for second reading the ordinance amendment as submitted. This would extend the moratorium to August 31, 1989. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 22nd day of May , 1989 at 7 :30 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider 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. 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. 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 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Background 1.01 On October 26, 1987, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 87 -16 which placed a moratorium on the development of adult halfway houses, community based residential faci lities and similar facilities in the City and on November 7, 1988 2dopted Grdinance No. 88-19 which extended said m oratorium. 1.02 The moratorium was necessary to protect the planning process and the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City and to ensure that the City and its residents retained the benefits of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances until a study of such facilities could be completed and any necessary modifications to the Cit7l s zoning and a@ nd use regulations could be accomplished. 1.03 The moratorium imposed by Ordinance No. 87 -16 and extended by Ordinance No. $ -19 will expire on April 30, 1989• 1.04 The studies of such uses which have been undertaken by the City will not be completed by April 30, 1989. However, the justifications for the moratorium recited in Ord nance No. 7- 1C — , continue and will continue to exist. Therefore, it is necessary to extend the moratorium as hereinafter provided. Section 2. Determination. 2.01 The moratorium imposed by Sections 2.01 and 2.02 of Ordinance No. 87 -16 are hereby extended and continued. 2.02 This ordinance shall remain in effect until August 31, 1989, or such earlier date as may be adopted by the City Council, provided that, if' the study and planning process have not been completed by said date, this ordinance may be extended for such additional periods as deemed necessary by the City Council not to exceed an additional period of eighteen months from November, 198 , as permitted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355, Subdivision 4. ORDINANCE NO. Section 3. Applicability. This ordinance applies to only application for site plan approvals, rezoning, licenses, platting or replattings, land divisions or consolidations, special use permits or building permits that have not received preliminary approval by the City Council before October 26, 1987. Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1989. Mayor Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, ter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 5/22/89 Agenda Item Number l od REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF AN EASEMENT IN LOT 18, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 310 DEPT. APPROVAL: * * * * * * * * * * * **N * *P *4 * DIRECTOR O F PU WORK * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes 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. City Council Action Required An ordinance is provided for consideration and first reading by the City Council. If the first reading is conducted, the proposed ordinance will be published along with a notice of public hearing. After the second reading and public hearing, the City Council would then consider final adoption of the ordinance. • . . < X �� < axe\ BRYAN 6RYANT AVE. N• � AVE A ffl r m z ALDRIC AV' C O U) 0 A m m z 6s�y 171 (%� "� qLF, N DEN DR. CAMDEN AVE m CAM S /' ` '"_�` / ' m wo EN AVE 0 5TN. AVE. N U) i a < —I m m -- Z ' S Q to 5Z N1W m Z WEST C7 �m o� A LA 667H AVE N z N c� N SUPER AMERICA -� �- EXISTING 60' EASEMENT REQUESTED VACATION (15' EACH SIDE) REMAINING 30' EASEMENT C/L EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER EXHIBIT B SUPERAMERICA EASEMENT VACATION J 1 I N EW M AN 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, M!�T 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 ro ert on 66th Avenue P P Y e 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, 7�&��'Yr%� ✓ /ri • David P. Newman DPN:jeb cc. Steven Fiterman Bill Ferris Ron Krank Suite 205, 6401 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 5543Z, 612 -571 -3850 1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of at 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 fflo CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 22nd day of May 1989, at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 7. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the personnel coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. 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 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 7 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 7 -101. DEFINITIONS. [Whenever used in this ordinance words shall] For purposes of Sections 7 -101 to 7-112, the following terms have the [following] meanings given them [A.] Subdivision 1. Approved [shall mean] means acceptable to the health authority following [his] the health authority's determination as to compliance with established public health practices and standards. Subdivision 2. Carryout Collection Service means the collection of recyclable materials accumulated in recycling containers from a location at a dwelling unit other than the location designated by the recycling authority for regular collection [B.] Subdivision 3. Council [shall mean] means the governing body of the [municipality] City Subdivision 4 Dwelling Unit means a residential structure in the City that is designated by the recycling authority to receive recycling collection services [C.] Subdivision 5. Garbage [includes] means all putrescible animal, vegetable or other matter that attends the preparation, consumption, display, dealing in or storage of meat, fish, fowl, birds, fruit or vegetables, including the cans, containers or wrappers wasted along with such materials but not including recyclable materials Subdivision 6. Generator has the meaning given it in Minnesota Statutes Section 115A.03, subdivision 12 [D.] Subdivision 7. Health Authority [shall mean] means the [municipal] g ty public health sanitarian or [his] an authorized representative. ORDINANCE NO. [E.] Subdivision 8 Manager [shall mean] means the administrative head for the [municipality] City Subdivision 9 Mixed Municipal Solid Waste has the meaning given it in Minnesota Statutes Section 115A.03 subdivision. 21. [F.] Subdivision 10 Open Burning [shall mean] means the turning of any matter whereby the resultant combustion products are emitted directly to the open atmosphere without passing through an adequate stack, duct, or chimney. [G.] Subdivision 11. Owner [is] means any person, [firm, corporation, or other partnership or organization] who alone, jointly, or severally with others [shall be in ownership of,] owns or [have] has charge, care or control of[,] any premises or business within the [municipality] City as owner, employee or agent of the owner, or as trustee or guardian of the estate or person of the title holder. [H.] Subdivision 12 Person [is] means any [person] individual firm, partnership, association, corporation, company, or organization of any kind. [I.] Subdivision 13 Premises [is] means any dwelling, house, building, or other structure or parcel of property. [J.] Subdivision 4 1 Public Place [is] means any and all streets, sidewalks, boulevards, alleys, parks, public buildings, and other public ways. Subdivision 15. Recyclable Materials has the meaning given it in Minnesota Statutes Section 115A.03 subdivision 25a. Subdivision 16 Recycling has the meaning given it in Minnesota Statutes Section 115A.03 subdivision 25b. Subdivision 17 Recycling Authority means the official designated by the manager to perform the powers and duties of the recycling authority as provided in this chapter. The recycling authority ma be the administrator of the Hennepin RecVcling GrOUD ioLnt powers entity of which the City is a member Subdivision 18 Recycling Container means a receptacle designated by the recyclinE authority for the accumulation and collection of recyclable materials at a dwelling unit Subdivision 19 Recycling Collection Services means the collection of recyclable materials accumulated in recycling containers from a location at a dwelling unit that is designated bv the recyclin authority for regular collection Subdivision 20. RecyclinE Services means recycling collection services carryout collection services and any other services provided to a dwellinE unit in accordance with this chatter. ORDINANCE NO. [K.] Subdivision 21. Refuse means all solid waste products or those having the character of solids rather than liquids in that they will not flow readily without additional liquid and which are composed wholly or partly of such materials as garbage, swill, sweepings, cleanings, trash, rubbish, litter, industrial solid wastes or domestic solid wastes; organic wastes or residue of animals sold as meat, fruit or other vegetable or animal matter from kitchen, dining room, market, food establishment or any place dealing in or handling meat, fowl, fruit, grain, or vegetables; offal, animal excreta, or the carcass of animals; [tree or shrub trimmings, or grass clippings,] brick, plaster, wood, metal or other waste matter resulting from the demolition, alteration or construction of buildings or structures; accumulated waste materials, cans, containers, junk vehicles, ashes, tires, junk, or other such substance which may become a nuisance but not including_ recyclable materials [L.] Subdivision 22. Rubbish is nonputrescible solid wastes such as wood, leaves, trimmings from shrubs, dead trees or branches thereof, shavings, sawdust, excelsior, wooden waste, printed matter, paper, paper board, pasteboard, grass, rags, straw, boots, shoes, hats, and all other combustibles not included under the term garbage but not includin recyclable materials [M.] Subdivision 23 Swill includes that particular garbage which is wholly or nearly edible and usable as a food and has food value for animals or fowl, accumulating from animal, vegetable or other matter wasted from clubs, hotels, hospitals, restaurants, and public eating places. [N.] Subdivision 24. Vehicle is every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a thoroughfare including devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. [0.] Subdivision 25, Waste Matter is nonputrescible solid waste such as soil, earth, sand, clay, gravel, loam, stone, brick, plaster, crockery, glass, glassware, ashes, cinders, shells, metal, and other noncombustible material which has been or is to be discarded but not including recyclable materials Subdivision 26. Yard Waste has the meaning given it in Minnesota Statutes, Section 115A.931. Section 2. Section 7 -102 of the Brooklyn Center Code is amended to read as follows: Section 7 -102 REFUSE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL. , [A.] Subdivision 1. Containers Required. The owner of any premises, and any other person having refuse as herein defined, [shall] must provide and keep on such premises sufficient containers for the storage of refuse accumulated on the premises between disposal or collection. Each [such] container [shall] must be watertight, [shall] must have a tight fitting lid, [shall] must be impervious to insects, rodents, vermin, and absorption of moisture and [shall] may ORDINANCE NO. not exceed 30 gallons in size unless otherwise specifically authorized in writing by the health authority. All refuse on any premises [shall] must be stored in [the] required containers [required herein, except if the same may be] unless it is immediately consumed or disposed of on [such] the premises in an approved incinerator. All commercial, business, industrial, or other such establishments having a refuse volume in excess of two cubic yards per week, and all six family and larger dwellings, [shall] must provide approved bulk or box type refuse storage containers or approved equivalent. [These] The containers [shall] must be [so] located so as to be accessible to collection equipment and so as not to require an intermediate transfer. [B.] Subdivision 2 Sanitary Disposal. All refuse [shall] must be disposed of in a sanitary manner as approved by the health authority and [shall] may not constitute a nuisance. Refuse [shall] may not be composted or buried except that composting in an approved rodent and fly proof device and /or filling operations using approved fill materials and methods may be permitted. In no case [can] may garbage be composted or buried. [C.] Subdivision 3. Frequency and Manner of Collection. The contents of the containers [shall] must be collected once every week, or more frequently ent q 1 if necessary or Y y r by the provisions of any other ordinance of the [municipalit it b a . C _� , y c licensed [hereunder] under this Chapter [He shall] The collector must transfer the contents of the containers to [his] the collection vehicle without spilling them, and if any spilling occurs [he shall] the collector must clean it up immediately and completely. Collection [shall] must be conducted in [such] a manner as to not create a nuisance. Collection in residential zones [shall] must be between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. Upon each collection the containers [shall] must be completely emptied and returned to the racks or stands where they are kept, and the lids of the containers [shall] must be replaced. [D.] Subdivision 4. Placing of Containers. The containers [shall] must be placed in the rear of the premises or [in such a manner as to be] out of view from the street in front of the premises or placed in a garage located on the premises, except as may be reasonable and immediately necessary for collection. In no event [shall] may containers be placed or maintained in [such] a way [as to] that unreasonably [interfere] interferes with the use of adjoining property. Containers kept outside [shall] must be placed in [such] a manner (as] that does not [to] permit entry of or harborage for animals, insects or other vermin, [and so maintained as not to be] or Permit the container to be tipped over. Containers [shall] must be maintained in a reasonable clean condition at all times. [E.] Subdivision 5 Defective Containers. If, upon inspection by the health authority, a container is found to be in poor repair, corroded or otherwise defective so as to permit insects, vermin or rodents to enter, or does not meet other requirements of this ordinance, the ORDINANCE NO. health authority [shall notify the provider or user of the container of the deficiency and shall require repair or replacement of the container and shall state a compliance date in the notice] may require the container to be repaired or replaced by notifying the provider or user of the container of the deficiency and stating a compliance date in the notice If the deficiency is not corrected by [said] the compliance date, the health authority [shall] may condemn the deficient container and affix a tag so stating such condemnation. It [shall be] is unlawful for any person to place or deposit refuse in a container which has been condemned. Subdivision 6 _Preparation of yard wastes Yard wastes must be bagged separately from other ag_rbage refuse and waste matter and must be placed 3 to 6 feet from garbage and other refuse on collection day Section 3. Section 7 -103 of the Brooklyn Center Code is amended to read as follows: Section 7 -103 REFUSE HAULERS REGULATIONS. [A.] Subdivision 1 License Required. No person [shall engage in hauling or conveying] haul or convey refuse from any premises in the City other than [his] the person's own domicile, [in the municipality] unless [he] the person holds a valid license [hereunder]. [Each such vehicle so used must be licensed.] A license is required for each vehicle used to haul or convey refuse [B.] Subdivision 2 License Procedure. The provisions of Sections 23 -001 through 23 -013 of the City Ordinances [shall] apply to all licenses required by this ordinance and to the holders of [such] the license. The [annual license fee shall be as set forth by] city council may establish the annual license fee from time to time by resolution. The -term of each license hereunder [shall be] is from July 1 through June 30. The applications for license or renewal of, license [shall] must contain a description of the types and makes of motor vehicles used for collection, a schedule of services to be made to the customers, the frequency of service to be rendered, and full information where and how the material collected will be disposed of, and any other information the health authority [shall] may require. Applicants for licenses[, after July 1, 1970,] to provide routine weekly collection and removal of refuse from residences [shall] must provide [as required under this ordinance,] complete collection of all refuse which normally results from day -to -day use of [this type of] residential property except furnishings, appliances, building or construction wastes and similar bulky wastes for which individuals must make special arrangements. The health authority may require vehicle inspection before processing the license application. Applications for license [hereunder shall] must be submitted to the health authority for review and recommendation. If the council is satisfied that the public need, convenience, and good order will be served thereby, it may grant a license to any [such] applicant meeting the requirements of this ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. [C.] Subdivision 3. License Classification. [Applicants for licenses issued hereunder shall be] Licenses are issued for the following classes of operation: Class I Residential Refuse Collection Vehicle Class II Commercial and Business Refuse Collection Vehicle Class III Residential and Commercial Refuse Collection Vehicle Class IV Rubbish and Waste Matter Collection Vehicle Class V Rendering Collection Vehicle [D.] Subdivision 4 Insurance. Applicants for licenses or renewals of licenses [shall] must file with each application a copy of an insurance policy or policies and an endorsement, under which there is coverage as to each vehicle to be used for loss or damage to persons in the amount of $100,000 for each person and $300,000 for each accident; and for loss or damage to property in the amount of $50,000. Every such policy [shall] must provide that it [shall] may not be cancelled or terminated for any reason without at least 10 [days] days prior written notice [thereof first] being given to the municipality. [E.] Subdivision 5 Vehicle License Decals. Whenever a license or renewal has been granted [hereunder] the health authority [shall] must furnish to the licensee a decalcomania for each vehicle. The decalcomania [shall be so worded as to signif must indicate g y] that the vehicle is licensed by the [municipality] City The licensee [shall] must apply the decalcomania to the left forward side of the body of the appropriate licensed vehicle as indicated by the health authority. Old, expired, or otherwise invalid decalcomania [shall] must be removed form the vehicle. [F.] Subdivision 6. Vehicle Specifications. Every vehicle used to collect refuse [shall] must have the name of the owner or operator on the body or placed on a durable metal or wood plaque attached to the body. [Said] The lettering [shall] must be at least three inches in height and the color of the lettering and of the background [shall] must be contrasting. The body of every vehicle licensed [hereunder shall] must be constructed entirely of metal or the space in the vehicle in which refuse [shall be] is kept [shall] must be completely lined with metal. All joints [shall] must be effectively closed so that no dripping or leaking or drain off of water, liquids or any substance can occur. The loading space [shall] must be provided with a tight metal hood having an opening fitted with metal doors, or [shall] must be provided with a heavy tarpaulin or equivalent cover fitted with eyes, grommets, tie ropes, or hooks so that the cover - can be held ORDINANCE NO. securely over the loaded refuse. Every vehicle [shall] must be equipped with the necessary hand tools for cleaning up spills. [G.] Subdivision 7 Vehicle Maintenance. Every licensed vehicle [licensed hereunder shall] must be kept well painted, clean, and in good repair. Every [such] vehicle used for collecting garbage or swill [shall] must be cleaned every week or oftener as necessary to prevent ersistent odors P and [shall] must be cleaned before being used for any other purposes. [H.] Subdivision 8 Vehicle Loading. Garbage, refuse, rubbish, or other waste matter [shall] must be so loaded that none of such materials can jar loose and fall to the ground or street when the vehicle is in motion. Loose paper, trash, and similar materials [shall] must be so secured that they cannot be displaced by the wind or fall out of the vehicle. Containers used to carry refuse in or on any vehicle [shall] must comply with the requirements of [Section 2 hereunder] Section 7 -102 of this Code. [I.] Subdivision 9 Service Cancellation. The collector [shall] must cancel service to any premises when the only container or containers thereon have been condemned and may cancel service for cause or when the party charged for the collection service is two months or more overdue in paying for such services. When any collector cancels service to any premises, written notice [thereof shall] must be served upon or mailed to the occupant, manager or owner of the premises and a copy of the notice [shall] must be mailed to the health authority. [J.] Subdivision 10 Vehicle Storage and Parking. No person [shall] may at any time park or store any refuse collection vehicle on any premises zoned for use as a single or multiple residence dwelling, within one hundred feet of [any aforementioned] the premises or within two hundred feet of any food establishment, for purpose other than, or for periods inconsistent with, providing refuse collection at [said] the premises. No person [shall] may at any time park or store any loaded or partially loaded refuse collection vehicle on any premises within the [municipality] City except for the purpose of and for periods consistent with providing refuse collection at that parcel of property. Subdivision 11 Collection Districts. The City, under the direction of the city manager or his designee shall establish specific refuse and recycling collection districts and specific days of collection within these districts for all licensees. The pur ose of this provision is to coordinate and facilitate same day collection within said districts throughout the City. Said coordination is necessar to encourage citizen participation in the City's recycling effort to insure compliance with state mandates for solid waste management as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 115A and to insure compliance of the City's contractual obligations as a member of the Hennepin Recycling Group pursuant to the Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Solid Waste Disposal. Also, said coordination will be beneficial to the health safety and welfare of Brooklyn Center residents and streets by limiting the number of refuse and recycling vehicles using said streets at any one time The following considerations will be ORDINANCE NO. utilized by the city manager or his designee to establish the collection districts: A-.- household counts within the districts: ricts• b. compatibility with the licensees existing refuse collection stops to the extent possible: c. compatibility with municipal boundaries to the extent possible d. coordination with recycling collection to the extent possible Subdivision 12 Collection within Districts. Where an apnroved collection district has been established licensed refuse haulers must establish their regular collection routes and days of collection in a manner consistent with the approved collection district and specified days of collection Violation of this subsection is grounds for revocation of the hauler's license. It is not a violation of this subsection to collect refuse or recyclable materials on a day other than the specified collection day, if the collection is for a missed pick up or is in a week in which a legal holiday occurs Section 4. Section 7 -104 of the Brooklyn Center Code is amended to read as follows: Section 7 -104. REFUSE LITTERING PROHIBITED. No person [shall] may throw, scatter or deposit, [nor] or cause or permit to be thrown, scattered or deposited any refuse, handbills, or other littering materials upon or in any public or private lands, bodies of water, vehicles or structures within the [municipality] City Every person [shall] must maintain his or her premises and abutting sidewalks and boulevard areas free of refuse litter. Section 5. Section 7 -105 of the Brooklyn Center Code is amended to read as follows: Section NUISANCE ABATEMENT, Subdivision 1 Any accumulation of refuse on any premises not stored in containers which comply with this ordinance, or any accumulation of refuse on any premises [which has remained thereon] for more than one week is hereby declared to be a nuisance [and] A nuisance may be abated by order of - the officer charged by the city manager with enforcement of this section, and the costs of abatement may be assessed against the property on which the nuisance was found as [follows] provided in this section [A.] Subdivision 2. In all cases to which Minnesota Statutes, Sections 145A.04 and 145A.08 apply, the City [shall] will proceed under those sections. [B.] Subdivision 3 In all other cases, the officer charged with enforcement [shall] must notify the owner of the property on which the nuisance is found in writing, specifying the nature of the nuisance and ordering that the nuisance be abated. Notice [shall] must be served in person or by mail. If the owner is unknown or cannot be located, notice ma y be served by posting it property. The notice [shall] must specify the steps to be taken the abate the nuisance and the time, not exceeding ten (10) days, within which the nuisance [shall] must be abated. If the owner does not comply with the notice and order of the enforcement officer within ORDINANCE NO. the time specified [therein], the city council may, after notice to the owner and the occupant of the property if different from the owner, and an opportunity to be heard, order that the nuisance be abated by the City. The notice of hearing [shall] must be served in the same manner as the notice and order of the enforcement officer and [shall] must be given at least ten (10) days before the date specified for hearing of the matter by the city council. If notice is given by posting, at least thirty (30) days [shall] must elapse between the date of posting and the hearing. In an emergency circumstance where there is an immediate threat to the public health or safety or an immediate threat of serious property damage, the enforcing officer may provide for abating the nuisance without action of the city council. In such a case, the enforcing officer [shall] must reasonably attempt pt to notify the owner and occupant of the intended action and the right to appeal the determination that a nuisance exists and the order to abate the nuisance at the next regularly scheduled city council meeting. [In case of abatement of nuisances by the City, upon determination of the cost of abatement, including administrative and other related expenses, the] The city clerk [shall] must prepare and mail a bill [therefor] to the property owner for the amount of the costs incurred by the City in abating _a nuisance including administrative and other related expenses The bill is [so determined which shall immediately be] due and payable upon receipt In the event [such] bill is not paid by the September 1st next following the abatement of the nuisance, the costs of abatement [shall] may be levied against the property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. Section 6. Section 7 -106 of the Brooklyn Center Code is amended to read as follows: Section 7 -106. MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY REGULATIONS ADOPTED. [A.] Subdivision 1 Regulation Adopted. Subject to specific modifications and additions contained herein, the [municipality] City hereby adopts by reference Air Pollution Control Regulations Nos. 7 (Incinerators) and 8 (Open Burning Restrictions) contained in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency document entitled "Ambient Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations ", adopted May 11, 1969; filed with the Secretary of State July 3, 1969, and filed with the State Department of Administration July 7, 1969, including all subsequent amendments thereto. Three copies of such regulations [shall] will be on file and available for inspection in the office of the clerk. These regulations [shall] do not apply to wood burning fireplaces, nor to fires used solely for preparation of food by barbecuing. [B.] Subdivision 2 Modifications to APC Regulations. It is hereby determined, effective July 1, 1970, that adequate refuse collection service is available to the [municipality] City Open burning is [thereafter] prohibited after that date Effective January 1, 1971, no device or container for open burning [shall] may be maintained on any premises. Exceptions to APC Regulation No. 8 [shall] require written approval of the municipal fire chief. ORDINANCE NO. All incinerators of ]Less than 2,000 lbs. /hr. capacity [shall] must comply with the provisions of APC Regulation No. 7 on or before January 1, 1971. Section 7. Section 7 -107 of the Brooklyn Center Code is amended to read as follows: Section 7 -107 [SEPARABILITY. If any section, subsection, group, phrase, sentence, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional, such portions shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof.] RECYCLING AUTHORITY: POWERS The recycling authority is responsible for supervising and controlling the collection, removal, and disposal of recyclable materials from all dwelling units in the City. The recycling authority_ may contract with one or more collectors or haulers for the collection removal and disposal of some or all types of recyclable materials from dwelling units. The recycling authority may adopt and enforce additional rules not inco nsistent with this chapter as necessary for the collection removal and disposa of recvclable materials including but not limited to rules governing the _days and hours of collection the types of recyclable materials to be collected, the manner in which generators must prepare recyclable materials for collection the recycling containers to be used and the location of rec cli containers for collection The rules of the recycling authority are not effective until approved by the council Section 8. Section 7 -108 of the Brooklyn Center Code is amended to read as follows: Section 7 -108 [PENALTY. Any person violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to a fine of not more than $700 or by imprisonment for a period of not exceeding 90 days or both, together with the costs of prosecution. Each day that a violation exists shall constitute a separate offense.] RECYCLING RATES: BILLINGS. Subdivision 1 Rates. The city council may establish rates for recycling services from time to time by resolution. By resolution the city council may also charge the cost of recycling containers to owners or occupants of dwelling units as a recycling service Subdivision 2. Billing. Each owner or occupant of a dwelling unit must Pay the rates for recycling co llection services. The rates for carryout collection services are Payable by the owner or occupant of a dwellinz unit who requests to receive the service according to the procedure established by _the recycling authority The amountspayable for recycling services will be shown as a separate charge on the utility bill for the dwelling unit and will be Payable according to the same terms as those provided in this Code for uti.li:ty bills. Section 9. Section 7 of the Brooklyn Center Code is amended by adding the following new sections: Section 7 -109. ASSESSMENT O F UNPAID BILLS. On or before September 1 of each year the city clerk must list the total unpaid charges for recycling services against each lot or parcel to which they are attributable The city council may then spread the charges against the property benefited as a special ORDINANCE NO. assessment in the same manner a s provided for current services by Minnesota Statutes Section 429.101 and oth pertinent statutes for certification to the Director of Property Taxation of Hennepin County and collection the following year along with the current taxes Section 7 -110. OWNERSHIP OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS PROHIBITED. Subdivision 1. Ownership. Recyclable materials are the property of the generator until collected by authorized City employees collectors or haulers. Recyclable materials become the Property of the City, authorized collector, or authorized hauler upon collection Subdivision 2. No Scavenjaine It is unlawful for a person other than authorized employees of the City, or authorized collectors or haulers to distribute. collect remove or dispose of recvclable materials after the materials have been placed or deposited for collection Section 7 -111. SEPARABILITY'. If any section subsection group phrase sentence, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional such portions _shall be deemed a separate distinct and independent provision and such h olding shall not affect the validity of the remaining_ portions hereof. Section 7 -112 PENALTY. Any person violating any of the provisions of this ordinance is guilty of a mis and subiect to a fine of not more than $700 or imprisonment for a period of not exceeding 90 days or both together with the costs of prosecution Each day that a violation exists constitutes a separate offense Section 10. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date [Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.] 0 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MAY 11, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Mike Nelson at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson, Ellamae Sander and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 27, 1989 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the minutes of the April 27, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Ainas, Johnson and Mann. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Sander. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89009 (Milton Carlson and Harriet Berg) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request to rezone from R2 to R4 the two four plexes at 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North. The application had been expanded by the Planning Commission in March to consider the other nonconforming multiple- family buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report and a draft resolution of approval regarding Application No. 89009 (see Planning Commission Information Sheet and draft resolution concerning Application No. 89009 attached). Commissioner Bernards asked regarding the uses allowed in the R4 zoning district. The Secretary stated that R4 uses (1 1/2 to 2 storey apartments) or R3 (Townhouses) would be permitted in the R4 zoning district. Commissioner Malecki asked whether, if any of the buildings were destroyed, could at least three units be rebuilt on any of the parcels in question. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Chairman Nelson asked the applicants whether they had anything to add. Mr. Jerry Miller, a realtor representing the applicants, stated that the matter had been covered well and that they had nothing further to add. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89009) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89 -4 Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 5 -11 -89 -1- RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED 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 Molly Malecki and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bernards stated that he wished to express appreciation to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group which met to consider the application in April and had 100% attendance. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief review of upcoming business items, there was a motion by Commissioner Johnson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Chairman 5 -11 -89 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89009 Applicant: Milton Carlson and Harriet Berg Location: 610 and 620 53rd, 1107 57th, 1201 57th, 5500 Bryant, 5843 Fremont, 5301 Dupont Avenue North, 1425 55th, 5547 Lyndale and 5601 Lyndale Request: Rezoning The applicants request rezoning from R2 to R4 of the two four plexes at 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North. The Planning Commission considered this application on March 16, 1989 and expanded the rezoning consideration to include other nonconforming multiple- family buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood. The application was tabled and referred to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The neighborhood advisory group met on April 18, 1989 at City Hall (see minutes attached) and recommended approval of the rezoning, including all of the nonconforming multiple family buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood. It was noted during the meeting that 5452 Fremont was mistakenly included as a three -unit building. (It is a single - family home.) That address was, therefore, removed from consideration. Phil Cohen, former mayor of Brooklyn Center, attended the meeting and explained that these scattered multi - family buildings were generally developed as the end lots of subdivisions. They were not zoned R4 in 1968 because the planning consultant and city attorney at the time were concerned about the appearance of spot zoning. We do not believe, however, that rezoning the buildings to R4 is spot zoning even though the sites are small and scattered. The important thing is that the various sites are consistent with recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Ordinance defines spot zoning as zoning which is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Since these multiple- family dwellings are referred to in the Plan and are located on collector streets, we believe rezoning them to R4 does not constitute spot zoning and is appropriate. It should be pointed out that the lot areas of the various parcels under consideration will not allow the construction of any additional units. All have been built at a density at or greater than allowed in the R4 district. A summary of the parcels and buildings is listed below: Address Units Lot Area Year Built 1107 57th 4 13,500 s.f. 1963 1201 57th 4 12,873 s.f. 1961 5500 Bryant 4 14,250 s.f. 1961 5843 Fremont 7 19,800 s.f. 1960 5301 Dupont 6 15,363 s.£. 1960 1425 55th 4 10,710 s.f. 1960 5547 Lyndale 4 15,240 s.f. 1960 5601 Lyndale 4 15,450 s.f. 1962 610 53rd 4 12,500 s.f. 1959 720 53rd 4 12,500 s.f. 1959 The lot requirement for one and one -half to two storey apartments in the R4 zone is 3,600 sq. ft. per unit. Most of the above properties are, therefore, deficient in area, built to the old multi- family requirement of 2,700 sq. ft. per unit (the present R5 density). A resolution recommending approval of Application No. 89009 is attached for the Commission's review. The public hearing will be continued at Thursday night's meeting. Notices have been sent to all property owners neighboring the various multiple- family buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood. 5 -11 -89 adoption: Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution and moved its PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 4 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 89009 SUBMITTED BY MILTON CARLS AND HARRIET BERG WHEREAS, Application No. 89009 submitted by Milton Carlson and Harriet Berg proposes g p es rezonin P g from R2 (One or Two Family Residence District) to R4 (Multiple Family Residence District) of the two four - plexes at 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on March 16, 1989 when testimony regarding the request was taken, and the Planning Commission expanded the properties under consideration to include the other nonconforming multiple - family dwellings in the Southeast Neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the request was tabled and referred to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment, which met on April 18, 1989 and considered the expanded application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on May 11, 1989 again held a duly called public hearing regarding the matter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that; Application No. 89009 submitted by Milton Carlson and Harriet Berg be approved in consideration of the following: 1. The rezoning request is consistent and compatible with existing adjacent land uses and with location along collector streets. 2. The existing multiple - family housing on the parcels in question meets a need for multiple- family housing in the Southeast Neighborhood and should be conferred status as conforming. 3. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the recommendation of the City's Comprehensive Plan to permit apartment buildings of one and one- half stories at intersections of collector or arterial streets in the Southeast Neighborhood. 4. Conferring conforming status on the small apartment buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood will not allow for additional dwelling units, but will allow for the construction of garages (provided ordinance requirements are met) which will enhance the properties in question and, indirectly, the neighborhood. 5. The properties in question can support at least 3 dwelling units or more which is the minimum number of units required to be classified as a multiple - family dwelling. The properties can, therefore, bear fully the development restrictions for the proposed zoning district. 6. In light of the above, it is believed that the proposed rezoning meets the guidelines for evaluating rezonings set forth in Section 35 -208 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89 -4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the rezoning action shall a AP Y 1 to all of the following properties: 1107 57th Avenue North, 1201 57th Avenue North, 5500 Bryant Avenue North, 5843 Fremont Avenue North, 5301 Dupont Avenue North, 1425 55th Avenue North, 5547 Lyndale Avenue North, 5601 Lyndale Avenue North, 610 53rd Avenue North and 620 53rd Avenue North. Date Chairman ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Molly Malecki, and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Mike Nelson, Wallace Bernards, Molly Malecki, Bertil Johnson, Lowell Ainas, Ellamae Sander and Kristen Mann and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 5 - 22 - 89 r Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 89009 - Milton Carlson and Harriet Berg DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: �a l� ignature - 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. 89009, submitted by Milton Carlson and Harriet Berg, is a request to rezone from R2 (One and Two- Family Residence) to R4 (Multiple - Family Residence) the two four plexes located at 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North. . This application was first considered by the Planning Commission at its March 16, 1989 meeting and the rezoning request was expanded to consider rezoning other nonconforming multiple - family buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood which were comparable to the two properties originally considered under this application. The application was tabled by the Planning Commission and referred to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The neighborhood advisory group met on April 18, 1989 at the City Hall and recommended approval of the rezoning, including all of the nonconforming multiple - family buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood of the City. The Planning Commission again considered this application at its May 11, 1989 meeting and recommended approval of the expanded rezoning through their adoption of Planning Commission No. 89 -4 (copy attached). Attached for the City Council's consideration are excerpts of the minutes from the Planning Commission's May 11 and March 16, 1989 meetings as well as the information sheets which were presented at those meetings. A copy of the minutes of the April 18, 1989 Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group minutes; a copy of Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -4; a copy of Section 35 -208, the City's Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines; a map of the area showing all of the Properties that are under consideration in this rezoning application; various sections of the Zoning Ordinance relating to uses allowed in the R2 and R4 zoning districts; copies of the Southeast Neighborhood Plan recommendations from the City's Comprehensive Plan; and submissions from the applicants, Milton Carlson and Harriet Berg, regarding how they believe their proposal meets the City's Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines. Recommendation This application is recommended for approval and a draft resolution is submitted for the City Council's consideration. Also attached is An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 Regarding he Zoning Classification g g on of Certain Land Considered Under Planning Commission Application No. 87009 which is offered for a first reading. eadin This is housekeeping type of ordinance amendment which changes the zoning classification of property listed in the City's Zoning Ordinance from being under the R2 to being under the R4 zone. s,{ CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of 1989 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land. Auxiliary Aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City's Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND CONSIDERED UNDER PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 89009 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -1110. TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R2). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (R2) Two Family Residence District zoning classification. That area bounded by the following: Beginning at the intersection of 55th Avenue and the west right -of -way line of F.A.I. No. 94; thence southerly along the west right -of -way line of F.A.I. No. 94 to the south City limits (centerline of 53rd Avenue) ; thence west along the south City limits to its intersection with Russell Avenue; thence north along Russell Avenue (and Russell Avenue extended to its intersection with 54th Avenue (and 54th Avenue extended); thence east along 54th Avenue to its intersection with the west property line (extended) of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1, Meri -dale Addition; thence northward along the west property line (extended) of Lots 1 and 2 to its intersection with the north property line of Lot 3, Block 1, Krutzig's Addition; thence west along said north property line to its intersection with the east property line of Lot 4 of said Block 1, Krutzig's Addition; thence north along the east property line (extended) of said Lot 4 to its intersection with 55th Avenue; thence east along 55th Avenue to the point of beginning [ . ] , except th properties explicitly described in Section 35 -1130 as belonging in the R4 zo in ng 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 R zoning district. Section 35 -1130. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R4). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (R4) Multiple Family Residence District zoning classification: That part of Lot 46, Garcelon's Addition to Minneapolis lying west of the east 200 feet thereof, except street. f 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, Bell 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, GarcelonI Is 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, Gareelon'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.) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 89009 SUBMITTED BY MILTON CARLSON AND HARRIET BERG WHEREAS, Application No. 89009 submitted by Milton Carlson and Harriet Berg proposes rezoning from R2 (One or Two Family Residence District) to R4 (Multiple Family Residence District) of the two four-ilexes at 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on March 16, 1989 when testimony regarding the request was taken, and the Planning Commission expanded the properties under consideration to include the other nonconforming multiple- family dwellings in the Southeast Neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the request was tabled and referred to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment, which met on April 18, 1989 and considered the expanded application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on May 11, 1989 again held a duly called public hearing regarding the matter; and WHEREAS, the rezoning request was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission through Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 -4; and WHEREAS, the City Council on May 22, 1989 held a duly called public hearing and considered the matter in light of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines and the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 89009 submitted by Milton Carlson and Harriet Berg be approved in consideration of the following: 1. The rezoning request is consistent and compatible with existing adjacent land uses and with location along collector streets. 2. The existing multiple- family housing on the parcels in question meets a need for multiple- family housing in the Southeast Neighborhood and should be conferred status as conforming. 3. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the recommendation of the City's Comprehensive Plan to permit apartment buildings of one and one -half stories at intersections of collector or arterial streets in the Southeast Neighborhood. 4. Conferring conforming status on the small apartment buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood will not allow for additional dwelling units, but will allow for the construction of garages (provided ordinance requirements are met) which will enhance the properties in question and, indirectly, the neighborhood. 5. The properties in question can support at least 3 dwelling units or more which is the minimum number of units required to be classified as a multiple - family dwelling. The properties can, therefore, bear fully the development restrictions for the proposed zoning district. RESOLUTION NO. 6. In light of the above, it is believed that the proposed rezoning meets the guidelines for evaluating rezonings set forth in Section 35 -208 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the rezoning action shall apply to all of the following properties: 1107 57th Avenue North, 1201 57th Avenue North, 5500 Bryant Avenue North, 5843 Fremont Avenue North, 5301 Dupont Avenue North, 1425 55th Avenue North, 5547 Lyndale Avenue North, 5601 Lyndale Avenue North, 610 53rd Avenue North and 620 53rd Avenue North. 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. adoption: Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution and moved its PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89 -4 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 89009 SUBMITTED BY MILTON CARLSON AND HARRIET BERG WHEREAS, Application No. 89009 submitted by Milton Carlson and Harriet Berg proposes rezoning from R2 (One or Two Family Residence District) to R4 (Multiple Family Residence District) of the two four - plexes at 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on March 16, 1989 when testimony regarding the request was taken, and the Planning Commission expanded the properties under consideration to include the other nonconforming multiple- family dwellings in the Southeast Neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the request was tabled and referred to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment, which met on April 18, 1989 and considered the expanded application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on May 11, 1989 again held a duly called public hearing regarding the matter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 89009 submitted by Milton Carlson and Harriet Berg be approved in consideration of the following: 1. The rezoning request is consistent and compatible with existing adjacent land uses and with location along collector streets. 2. The existing multiple - family housing on the parcels in question meets a need for multiple- family housing in the Southeast Neighborhood and should be conferred status as conforming. 3• The proposed rezoning is consistent with the recommendation of the City's Comprehensive Plan to permit apartment buildings of one and one- half stories at intersections of collector or arterial streets in the Southeast Neighborhood. 4. Conferring conforming status on the small apartment buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood will not allow for additional dwelling units, but will allow for the construction of garages (provided ordinance requirements are met) which will enhance the properties in question and, indirectly, the neighborhood. 5. The properties in question can support at least 3 dwelling units or more which is the minimum number of units required to be classified as a multiple- family dwelling. The properties can, therefore, bear fully the development restrictions for the proposed zoning district. 6. In light of the above, it is believed that the proposed rezoning meets the guidelines for evaluating rezonings set forth in Section 35 -208 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the rezoning action shall apply to all of the following properties: 1107 57th Avenue North, 1201 57th Avenue North, 5500 Bryant Avenue North, 5843 Fremont Avenue North, 5301 Dupont Avenue North, 1425 55th Avenue North, 5547 Lyndale Avenue North, 5601 Lyndale Avenue North, 610 53rd Avenue North and 620 53rd Avenue North. Date Chairman ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Molly Malecki, and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Mike Nelson, Wallace Bernards, Molly Malecki, Bertil Johnson, Lowell Ainas, Ellamae Sander and Kristen Mann and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MAY 11, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Mike Nelson at 7 :32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson, Ellamae Sander and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 27, 1989 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the minutes of the April 27, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Ainas, Johnson and Mann. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Sander. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89009 (Milton Carlson and Harriet Berg) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request to rezone from R2 to R4 the two four plexes at 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North. The application had been expanded by the Planning Commission in March to consider the other nonconforming multiple- family buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report and a draft resolution of approval regarding Application No. 89009 (see Planning Commission Information Sheet and draft resolution concerning Application No. 89009 attached). Commissioner Bernards asked regarding the uses allowed in the R4 zoning district. The Secretary stated that R4 uses (1 112 to 2 storey apartments) or R3 (Townhouses) would be permitted in the R4 zoning district. Commissioner Malecki asked whether, if any of the buildings were destroyed, could at least three units be rebuilt on any of the parcels in question. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Chairman Nelson asked the applicants whether they had anything to add. Mr. Jerry Miller, a realtor representing the applicants, stated that the matter had been covered well and that they had nothing further to add. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89009) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 89-4 Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 5 -11 -89 -1- RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION N0. 89009 SUBMITTED BY MILTON CARLSON AND HARRIET BERG The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Molly Malecki and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bernards stated that he wished to express appreciation to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group which met to consider the application in April and had 100% attendance. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief review of upcoming business items, there was a motion by Commissioner Johnson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Chairman 5 -11 -89 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89009 Applicant: Milton Carlson and Harriet Berg Location: 610 and 620 53rd, 1107 57th, 1201 57th, 5500 Bryant, 5843 Fremont, 5301 Dupont Avenue North, 1425 55th, 5547 Lyndale and 5601 Lyndale Request: Rezoning The applicants request rezoning from R2 to R4 of the two four plexes at 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North. The Planning Commission considered this application on March 16, 1989 and expanded the rezoning consideration to include other nonconforming multiple- family buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood. The application was tabled and referred to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The neighborhood advisory group met on April 18, 1989 at City Hall (see minutes attached) and recommended approval of the rezoning, including all of the nonconforming multiple family buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood. It was noted during the meeting that 5452 Fremont was mistakenly included as a three -unit building. (It is a single - family home.) That address was, therefore, removed from consideration. Phil Cohen, former mayor of Brooklyn Center, attended the meeting and explained that these scattered multi - family buildings were generally developed as the end lots of subdivisions. They were not zoned R4 in 1968 because the planning consultant and city attorney at the time were concerned about the appearance of spot zoning. We do not believe, however, that rezoning the buildings to R4 is spot zoning even though the sites are small and scattered. The important thing is that the various sites are consistent with recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Ordinance defines spot zoning as zoning which is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Since these multiple - family dwellings are referred to in the Plan and are located on collector streets, we believe rezoning them to R4 does not constitute spot zoning and is appropriate. It should be pointed out that the lot areas of the various parcels under consideration will not allow the construction of any additional units. All have been built at a density at or greater than allowed in the R4 district. A summary of the parcels and buildings is listed below: Address Units Lot Area Year Built 1107 57th 4 13,500 s.f. 1963 1201 57th 4 12 s.f. 1961 5500 Bryant 4 14,250 s.f. 1961 5843 Fremont 7 19 s.f. 1960 5301 Dupont 6 15,363 s.f. 1960 1425 55th 4 10,710 s.f. 1960 5547 Lyndale 4 15,240 s.f. 1960 5601 Lyndale 4 15,450 s.f. 1962 610 53rd 4 12,500 s.f. 1959 720 53rd 4 12,500 s.f. 1959 The lot requirement for one and one -half to two storey apartments in the R4 zone is 3,600 sq. ft. per unit. Most of the above properties are, therefore, deficient in area, built to the old multi- family requirement of 2,700 sq. ft. per unit (the present R5 density). A resolution recommending approval of Application No. 89009 is attached for the Commission's review. The public hearing will be continued at Thursday night's meeting. Notices have been sent to all property owners neighboring the various multiple- family buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood. 5 -11 -89 MINUTES OF THE SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP MEETING OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND STATE OF MINNESOTA APRIL 18, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting was called to order by Chairman Louis Sullivan at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Louis Sullivan, Advisory Group Members June Scofield, Everett Lindh, Ben Davidson, Delores Hastings and Jody Brandvold. Also present were Planning Commissioner Wallace Bernards, Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, and Planner Gary Shallcross. REVIEW OF APPLICATION NO. 89009 (HARRIET BERG AND MILTON CARLSON) Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren briefly reviewed with the neighborhood advisory group the function of neighborhood advisory groups, namely to review and comment on rezonings and comprehensive plan amendments. He reviewed with the neighborhood advisory group members the memo that he had sent them regarding Application No. 89009 submitted by Milton Carlson and Harriet Berg. He explained that the applicants wish to build garages on their property and are unable to do so at present because they are nonconforming uses which are not allowed to expand. He stated that, if they were rezoned to R -4, they would become conforming uses and garages could be added. He reviewed with the neighborhood advisory group the recommendation of the comprehensive plan which calls for permitting one and one half to two storey apartments at intersections of collector or alteral streets in the southeast neighborhood. He explained that, although the comprehensive plan acknowledges the existing small apartment buildings in the southeast neighborhood, the zoning ordinance does not confer R -4 zoning on them. He explained further that, if there is an inconsistency between the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance prevails. Mr. Warren noted that the Planning Commission had recommended expanding the rezoning application to include the other small apartment buildings in the southeast neighborhood since they are in basically the same circumstances as 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North. Mr. Warren pointed out that the memo includes 5452 Fremont as a 3 -plex. He explained, however, that this was a mistake and that the residence is only a single family home and should not be considered in the rezoning. He pointed out on an area map the location of the other small apartment buildings in the neighborhood which would be affected by the rezoning. Mr. Warren stated that he had received a couple of phone calls from people who received notice of the meeting. He stated that one call was concerning 5452 Fremont which will be eliminated from consideration of the rezoning. He stated the calls he had received had no obligations to the rezoning and that some of the calls were actually favorable. He pointed out that the rezoning would not allow for any additional apartment units to be built on the existing apartment building properties. DISCUSSION Delores Hastings asked whether a greater lot area was required for the building of -1- garages. The Planner answered that, as a practical matter there is usually more land needed to provide garages, but that there is no land area requirement under the zoning ordinance to build garages. Mr. Warren explained that there are requirements for off street parking pertaining to multiple family dwellings and that garages do count toward meeting these requirements. June Scofield asked whether the entrance to the garage at 53rd and Camden would be off Camden Avenue North. Mr. Warren responded in the affirmative. Jody Brandvold stated that she had no reason to think of the proposed garage as anything other than an improvement to the property. Everett Lindh noted that the proposed rezoning did not appear to be opening the neighborhood for further multiple family development. Mr. Warren responded in agreement. June Scofield asked whether garages were actually feasible for the apartment building at 55th and Humboldt. Mr. Warren answered that garages could not be built without a proper building permit and that a plan would have to be submitted to the city and be approved before the garages could be built. He also pointed out that multiple family dwellings cannot utilize tandem parking as is common in one and two family dwellings. He added that paving and curb and gutter is required for parking lots in multiple family zones. Ms. Scofield asked why the matter was referred to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group when there appeared to be no particular opposition. Mr. Warren explained that the tradition in reviewing rezonings is to refer the proposals to the relevant neighborhood advisory group. He stated that the decision by the Planning Commission was to consider all of the small apartment buildings in the southeast neighborhood collectively since they were all in similar circumstances and had been built around the same time. Jody Brandvold stated that she appreciated handling the question at one time. She stated she saw no reason to oppose the rezoning and recommended approving the whole group at one time. Wally Bernards explained that expanding the rezoning to include the other small apartment buildings in the southeast neighborhood required the City to notify more neighbors and that a public meeting was appropriate to handle any comments. He added that he believed that the addition of garages to these buildings would be a good option. Ben Davidson stated that he had looked at the access question and the concern regarding traffic flow for these apartments and that his concern had been answered. Jody Brandvold had asked whether there had been any negative comment on the proposed rezoning. Mr. Warren stated that one party had expressed concern about 5452 Fremont, which is being eliminated from the rezoning request. The Planner added that one woman had called him with concern regarding 5500 Bryant Avenue North. She had stated that she was afraid a garage would be too close to her property. The Planner pointed out that buffers are required between R -4 uses and R -1 uses. Mr. Warren pointed out that the comprehensive plan seems to have recommended small apartment buildings at intersections of collector streets but that the zoning designation did not follow upon that recommendation. He stated that he did not know why the zoning did not follow the comprehensive plan recommendation. PUBLIC COMMENT Chairman Louis Sullivan then opened the meeting for comments from anyone else present wishing to speak regarding the application. Mr. Jerry Miller, a representative of the applicants stated that he had no problem with the report delivered by Mr. Warren. Harriet Berg, one of the owners of 620 53rd Avenue North, 4 -18 -89 -2- explained that, because of a sewer easement through the property, access to the new garage to be built would be off 53rd Avenue North rather than Camden. Ms. Brandvold stated that she did not have any problem with that. Mr. Phil Cohen, a long time resident the of the southeast neighborhood and former mayor, explained some of the history behind the existing situation. He stated that the apartment buildings were usually built on end lots of developments which had excess land area. He stated that the city attorney and the planner hired by the City to do the comprehensive plan were concerned regarding nonconforming uses and spot zoning of these apartment buildings. He stated there was concern especially of the possibility of setting a precedent by spot zoning these various parcels to R -4. Mr. Cohen went on point out that state law preempts local zoning in some cases. He noted that groups homes can be allowed in apartment buildings. Mr. Cohen explained that the area in the south end of the southeast neighborhood was zoned R -2 to allow for double bungalows on lots that could be created by g combinin two 40 foot lots together. He recommended looking at the possiblity of upzoning more land in the southeast neighborhood to R -3 or R -4 to allow for more multi - family housing, especially for the elderly who live in the neighborhood. Mr. Warren thanked Mr. Cohen for backgrounding the group on the history of the area and responded briefly to some of the comments. He pointed out that spot zoning is defined in the City Zoning Ordinance has zoning which is contrary to the City's Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that the comprehensive plan does refer to the small apartment buildings and that, therefore, their rezoning to R -4 would be consistent with the plan. He stated that he agreed with the points expressed regarding group homes. He explained that State Law requires that homes with up to 6 wards or clients be allowed as a permitted single - family permitted use of property. In multiple- family zones, he went on, State Law requires allowing up to 16 clients. He stated that he felt a nonconforming apartment building could still be used as a group home. June Scofield noted that there was only one group home in the southeast neighborhood, located on Lyndale Avenue North. DELIBERATION Chairman Louis Sullivan then polled the group members as to their feelings regarding the rezoning request. Each of the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group and Planning Commissioner Wallace Bernards stated that they favored the proposed rezoning, with the exception of 5452 Fremont Avenue North. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion regarding housing maintenance problems in the southeast neighborhood and the difficulties in enforcing the ordinance, there was a motion by Jody Brandvold, seconded by June Scofield to adjourn the meeting of the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group. The motion passed unanimously. The neighborhood group adjourned at 8:13 p.m. Chairman 4 -18 -89 -3- MEMORANDUM TO: Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group Louis Sullivan 560 -0135 Everett Lindh 560 -0835 Jody Brandvold 560 -8263 Ben Davidson 561 -5767 June Scofield 560 -0740 Dolores Hastings 561 - 3956 FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection DATE: April 10, 1989 SUBJECT: Review of Planning Commission Application No. 89009 The Planning Commission considered the above matter at a public hearing on March 16, 1989 and has referred this rezoning request to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The application has been submitted by Milton Carlson and Harriett Berg, owners of 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North, who request that their properties be rezoned from R2 (One or Two Family Dwellings) to R4 (Multiple Family) . The lots in question are located at the northeast corner of 53rd Avenue North and Camden Avenue North and are bounded on all sides by single - family homes. The purpose of the rezoning is to make the two existing four -plex buildings conforming uses so that garage expansions can be built. Right now, the four - plexes are nonconforming uses (they have been since 1968) and are not permitted to expand. No additional apartment units are proposed, nor could they be built under the density limitations of the R4 zoning district (3,600 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit). The Comprehensive Plan makes reference to these and other small apartment buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood on page 90.2 (attached) in which it recommends permitting one and one -half storey apartment buildings in the older portion of the neighborhood at the intersections of collector or arterial streets (53rd Avenue North is classified as a neighborhood collector street). There is nothing in the public record explaining why the small apartment buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood were not zoned R4 in 1968 so that they would be conforming uses. It appears that they are acknowledged as acceptable uses in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission, in its action referring the rezoning request to the neighborhood advisory group, expanded the properties under consideration to include the other nonconforming apartment buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood. These include the following addresses: ADDRESS Units Lot Area Year Built 1107 57th 4 13,500 s.f. 1963 1201 57th 4 12,873 s.f. 1961 5500 Bryant 4 14,250 s.f. 1961 5843 Fremont 7 19,800 s.f. 1960 5301 Dupont 6 15,363 s.f. 1960 1425 55th 4 10,710 s.f. 1960 5547 Lyndale 4 15,240 s.f. 1960 5601 Lyndale 4 15,450 s.f. 1962 610 53rd 4 12,500 s.f. 1959 620 53rd 4 12,500 s.f. 1959 Memo Page 2 April 10, 1989 Most of these apartment buildings were built in the early 1960's when multi - family buildings were allowed by special use permit in the R1 zone. They are all located on streets which serve somewhat as collectors within the neighborhood (perpendicular streets must stop at 53rd, 55th, 57th and 59th Avenues North) . The Planning Commission has expanded the rezoning request to include these other buildings because they all present basically the same set of issues (see the staff report on Application No. 89009 attached). The applicant's representative, Mr. Jerry Miller, has submitted a written statement (attached) in which he asserts that the proposed rezoning is consistent with Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance which is the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines (attached). The Neighborhood Advisory Group is reminded that all rezonings must be consistent with the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines and this should be the major considerationn when reviewing the proposed rezoning. The following information is enclosed for review: 1. The Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89009 and minutes of the March 16, 1989 Planning Commission meeting pertaining to Application No. 89009. 2. Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance which is the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines. 3. A map of the area showing the location of all properties to be rezoned in relation to other lots, roads, etc. There are also site plans of the properties at 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North. 4. A copy of Sections 35 -311 and 35 -313 regarding uses allowed in the R2 and R4 zoning districts. 5. Page 90.2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding recommendations for the Southeast Neighborhood. 6. Correspondence from the applicants and from Jerry Miller addressing the Rezoning Evaluation Guidelines. The Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, April 18, 1989 and will be held in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Commission would appreciate your written comments and /or recommendation within thirty days. If you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact either Planner Gary Shallcross or myself. If for any reason you cannot attend the meeting please contact us as soon as possible at 561 -5440. It is important that we have enough members present to conduct business and there will be people from the neighborhood present. Thank you for your participation. Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89009 Applicant: Milton Carlson, Harriet Berg Location: 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North Request: Rezoning The applicants request a rezoning from R2 to R4 of the two four - plexes at 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North. The properties are bounded on the south by 53rd Avenue North, on the west by Camden Avenue North, and on the north and east by single- family homes. Background The two existing four - plexes at 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North are nonconforming uses in the R2 zoning district. They were built in 1959 when the land on which they were built was zoned R -B (Residence- Business) . The R -B zone permitted multiple family dwellings. In 1968, the City rezoned many areas within the City in accordance with the recommendations of the 1966 Comprehensive Plan. The southerly portion of the Southeast Neighborhood was rezoned to R2 (One or Two Family Dwellings) , including the land on which these two four- plexes are built. The four - plexes thus became nonconforming uses, subject to the restrictions of Section 35 -111 of the Zoning Ordinance(attached). One of those restrictions is that nonconforming uses may not expand. One of the applicants, Ms. Harriet Berg, has recently purchased 620 53rd Avenue North and wishes to live in it with her sisters. One improvement they wish to make is the addition of a fourth garage stall (there is presently a three stall garage serving the property). However, because the four -plex is nonconforming, no to expansions are permitted. The purpose of the proposed rezoning is to make these two four plexes conforming uses again to allow for r g o garage expansion. No additional dwelling units are proposed nor would the be y allowed under the density requirements of - Section 4 5 00. 3 (Both lots are approximately 12,500 sq. ft. in area. A four - plex in the R4 zone requires 14 400 sq. ft. of land - q d area. The four plexes would thus be almost 2,000 sq. ft. deficient in area.) Although these and other small apartment buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood are nonconforming, the 1966 and 1982 Comprehensive Plans do not appear to recommend phasing them out of existence as is normally the objective with nonconforming uses. Plan recommendation No. 1 for the Southeast Neighborhood (page 90.2) states: "l. Permit up to one and one -half story apartment buildings at no more than twelve units per acre within the older portion of the neighborhood, but only at the intersections of collector or arterial streets. This pattern of development has already existed for some time. By restricting such development to specific corners, the neighborhood's single- family character will be preserved, and some of the demand for rental family living within this neighborhood is met." Fifty -third Avenue North is classified as a neighborhood collector street in the Comprehensive Plan. This plan recommendation clearly refers to small apartment buildings such as 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North. 3 -16 -89 -1- Application No. 89009 continued R ezoning Evaluation Guidelines All rezonings must be evaluated in light of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) . The applicants have submitted two letters, the first (attached) arguing the merits of the rezoning primarily on the basis of the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. The second letter (also attached) was submitted by Ms. Berg's realtor, Mr. Jerry Miller, and addresses the guidelines point by point. The Commission is referred to the letters for review. The first letter notes the nonconforming status of the two four - plexes since the 1968 rezoning to R2. It also highlights the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan, cited above, to permit low -rise apartment buildings in the neighborhood on collector or arterial streets. The letter states that the primary concern of the owners is the desire to build additional garage stalls at 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North. To do this the four - plexes must become conforming uses. Thus the request to rezone the properties to R4. The second letter addresses the guidelines for evaluating rezonings on a point by point basis. The statements contained in the letter are repeated below with staff comment. a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Applicant: "Yes. Ordinance control can better be enforced when property is 'conforming to its zoning.' The zoning since 1968 has been R2; R2 zoning does not allow construction of any more garages on either property; one parcel has a 4 homes unit 1 112 story with a 3 car garage; the other 4 homes units 1 112 story has only a 2 car garage. To construct garages to enclose cars for each unit would enhance the area. There would be far less parking lot type parking." Staff: One measure of the public need or benefit of the proposed rezoning is the need or demand for multi - family housing in the Southeast Neighborhood. Right now, in the Southeast Neighborhood, there are 244 apartment units, including 48 which are zoned either R1 or R2 and are thereby nonconforming. This is the second fewest number of apartment units by neighborhood in the City. If rental townhouses are included, the Southeast Neighborhood has the fewest. In 1980, owner - occupied dwelling units were 85.2% of all dwelling units in the Southeast Neighborhood (this includes single - family rentals) considerably above the 69.2% for the City as a whole. It would appear from these numbers that the 48 nonconforming apartment units in the Southeast Neighborhood are "needed" to meet the neighborhood demand for multi- family housing. At least, there doesn't seem to be a surplus. The eight units in question are among the 48 nonconforming units and contribute to meeting the need for multi - family housing in the neighborhood as cited in the Comprehensive Plan statement regarding these units. b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? 3 -16 -89 -2- Application No. 89009 continued Applicant: "Yes. The Plan recommendation passed in 1968, recognized these unit dwellings and it stated: 'by restricting such development to specific corners, the neighborhood's single family character will be preserved...' These properties are on the corner of one of the (arterial streets defined in that plan) , specifically 53rd Avenue North." Staff: We agree. Small multi - family buildings along collector or arterial streets are not incompatible with adjacent single- family development, especially at intersections. The Comprehensive Plan designates 53rd, 57th, and Dupont as neighborhood collector streets in the Southeast Neighborhood. At the time the Plan was written, Lyndale was Highway 169 and classified as a major thoroughfare. All of the nonconforming multi - family buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood are located along the following streets: 53rd, 55th 57th, 59th and Lyndale. All of these streets are through streets and traffic along perpendicular streets must stop at these streets (ie. at 53rd, 55th, 57th, 59th and Lyndale) . Therefore, they all function somewhat as collectors even if they are not all designated as such in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan acknowledges that intersections with collector and arterial streets are appropriate locations for occasional multi- family buildings. These two four - plexes and others in the Southeast Neighborhood clearly meet that criterion. c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Applicant: "All permitted uses are existing now for the proposed zoning, except no garages for some dwelling units." Staff: Yes they can. One concern is that these lots are smaller than would be required today to support four dwelling units. The land area requirement for these buildings in 1959 was 2,700 sq. ft. per unit. This is the R5 density today. However, it would do no good to rezone these properties to R5 since one and one -half to two storey apartment buildings in that zone must still have 3,600 sq. ft. per unit. Therefore, even if the properties are rezoned, they will be deficient in lot area. Nevertheless, they would become conforming uses and garage expansion would be permitted. d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Applicant: "No. Since the blanket rezoning of the southeast area of Brooklyn Center to R2, in 1968, there has been no physical or zoning classification changes in that area." Staff: The major physical change in the Southeast Neighborhood since 1968 has been the construction of the freeway. Access to the freeway is gained at 53rd Avenue North. Some concern was expressed at the time the Comprehensive Plan was written that this might stimulate a demand for commercial development on 53rd Avenue North. 3 -16 -89 -3- Application No. 89009 continued That has not really materialized. Traffic levels on 53rd are higher as you approach the freeway. Perhaps this would also tend to justify some multi - family development along 53rd, especially east of Humboldt Avenue North. However, we feel the traffic levels (4250 ADT at Camden in 1986) are not so high that one or two - family development is inappropriate. Therefore, the R2 zoning is still appropriate for most of this area. e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Applicant: "Not applicable." Staff: This is not a City- initiated rezoning. However, the Planning Commission may wish to extend the purview of this rezoning application beyond these two properties to some or all of the nonconforming apartment buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood. The purpose of such an expanded rezoning would be to confer conforming status on apartment buildings which the Comprehensive Plan explicitly recommends permitting. Almost all the nonconforming, small apartment buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood were built in the early 1960's when multiple- family dwellings were allowed by special use permit in the Rl zoning district. By 1968, that provision was no longer in effect and the buildings became nonconforming. We would not recommend that multiple- family dwellings again be allowed in the R1 or even R2 districts. But, there may be merit in rezoning some or all of these nonconforming apartment buildings to R4, given their location along collector streets. Making the buildings conforming uses would allow for garage expansions which would generally upgrade these properties. We must admit, however, that were all these properties vacant today, we probably would not recommend the rezoning of scattered sites within the neighborhood. Taking each in isolation, such a rezoning would probably have the appearance of "spot zoning" which is opposed by the provisions of Section 35 -208. The real merit of a scattered site rezoning is that such uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the Southeast Neighborhood. These apartment buildings meet a need for multi- family housing in the Southeast Neighborhood and are located on collector streets. Those may be too loose criteria for rezoning scattered lots to R4, but such a rezoning would at least be acknowledged in the Comprehensive Plan. I f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? Applicant: "Yes. The existing improvements are within the proposed R4 zoning restrictions; any further improvement will bear fully the restrictions of proposed R4 zoning. Staff: The existing four -plex uses are one and one -half storey apartment buildingswhich are a permitted use in the R4 district. 3 -16 -89 -4- Application No. 89009 continued However, the four - plexes are deficient in land area. If by some cause they were destroyed, only three unit buildings could be rebuilt, unless under building parking were provided (this is unlikely in -a one and one -half or two storey building). g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Applicant: "Yes. The subject property's existing improvements are: One has a 1 112 story 4 unit dwelling with only a 3 car garage; the other has a 1 112 story 4 unit dwelling with only a 2 car garage. The rezoning in 1968 to R2 placed these in a nonconforming use category." " Staff: The location of the subject properties is suited to either R2 or R4 development. The location is not unsuited to R2 development. h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? Applicant: "No. There will be no expansion of a zoning district; Just allow garages to be constructed for existing dwellings." Staff: There will be a modest expansion of the R4 zoning district Based on the Plan recommendations for the Southeast Neighborhood, it is probably warranted by the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission is probably wondering, as are we, why these scattered apartment buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood were not zoned R4 when the City undertook a comprehensive rezoning of the City in 1968. The record, unfortunately, is silent on that question. It may have been felt that the language in the Comprehensive Plan was insufficient to confer conforming status on these properties and that rezoning them to R4 would be multiple instances of spot zoning. We don't know. However, state law dictates that when there is a discrepancy between the Comprehensive Plan and zoning that the zoning prevails. Therefore, the status of these buildings is nonconforming. i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Applicant: "Yes. The proposal will place the use of the parcels in a 'conforming use' R4 category, with restrictions applicable and enforceable to that zoning. Allowing garages for each dwelling unit will enhance the neighborhood. Staff: Assuming that these apartment buildings help to meet the demand for multi- family housing in the Southeast Neighborhood, there is merit to allowing these buildings to become conforming uses and continue to meet that need. We also agree that the addition of garages will enhance the properties and, at least indirectly, the neighborhood. 3 -16 -89 -5- Application No. 89009 continued Procedure hem standard procedure with rezoning applications is to open the public hearing, take comment, and then table the application and refer it to the appropriate neighborhood advisory group for review and comment. We recommend that procedure in this case also. (A public hearing has been scheduled). One issue the Commission should address at this meeting is whether to extend the rezoning question to the other small apartment buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood, or whether to keep it restricted to the two properties that have applied. The only historcial difference between these two four - plexes and the other small apartment buildings is that these properties were actually zoned R -B which allowed apartments as a permitted use. The others were zoned R1 and were allowed by special use permit between 1959 and 1963. They are all equally nonconforming now. Extending the rezoning to include these other properties would, of course, involve notifying many more people and opens up the possibility of more public input. Nevertheless, the issues are virtually the same for these other buildings and the Commission may prefer to deal with the entire question now in fairness to these other property owners. A map showing the locations of these other nonconforming apartment buildings is attached for the Commission's review. 3 -16 -89 -6- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MARCH 16, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Mike Nelson at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Nelson noted that Commissioner Sander and Johnson were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1989 Motion by Toommissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the March 2, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards and Mann. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Ainas. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89009 (Milton Carlson and Harriet Berg) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request to rezone from R2 to R4 the two existing four plexes at 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89009 attached). Commissioner Bernards asked how many units were nonconforming in the southeast neighborhood. The Secretary answered that there were 48 apartment units in approximately 10 buildings. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the other buildings had garages or not. The Planner answered that there was perhaps one building that had garages, but that most do not have garages. Chairman Nelson asked the applicant whether she had anything to add. Ms. Harriet Berg, the owner of 620 53rd Avenue North, stated that she wanted to build one more garage stall behind the existing garage that faces Camden. She stated that the garage would get access off 53rd through the neighboring property. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89009) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. No one spoke. Chairman Nelson asked the Planning Commission for their comments and whether they felt the application should be expanded to include the other nonconforming multiple- family buildings in the southeast neighborhood. Commissioner Bernards pointed out that other buildings would have the same right to apply. The Secretary stated that the application could be limited to the two four plexes that have applied, but that the other buildings in the southeast neighborhood present essentially the same issues as these two buildings and that, to be fair to these other buildings, it might be appropriate to include them in any rezoning action. Commissioner Malecki stated that it would be appropriate to refer the matter to the southeast neighborhood group and open it up to all of the other buildings. 3 -16 -89 -1- Commissioner Bernards expressed some concern about the possibility of spot zoning with the scattered four plex units. The Secretary explained that spot zoning is not necessarily based on the size of the parcel to be zoned, but whether it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that if a rezoning action is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Plan must be amended as has been done in a few cases for the rezoning to be accomplished. He pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan does refer to these units in the southeast neighborhood and that a rezoning to R4 would be consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Bernards asked whether adding the other units would slow the process down. The Secretary stated that it might. He stated that the staff would set up a neighborhood meeting and send notices to all neighboring properties around the other units. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the net effect of these rezonings would be to allow garages. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He noted that it may be difficult to build garages on some of the properties because of inadequate space. He added that garages are not required in any zoning district. Commissioner Ainas stated that he was originally concerned regarding the appearance of spot zoning of these various apartment buildings. He added, however, that he felt now that the other buildings should be included in the rezoning action. He recommended that the notice to other property owners specify that it is only to make the existing apartment units conforming and not so that more units could be built. Commissioner Mann asked whether, if something happened to the buildings, the lots would be too small to rebuild four apartment units. The Secretary explained that if the buildings were destroyed now, all that could be built would be an R2 use. He went on to explain that, if the rezoning were approved, the owners could rebuild three units on the land available. He explained that to build single- family homes on the lots would then require a down zoning. Commissioner Malecki noted the existence of a three plex at 55th and Fremont. She asked whether the parcel in that case could accommodate even three dwelling units under the R4 restrictions. The Planner stated that he was not sure of the area of that particular parcel, but would check it out. Commissioner Malecki explained that, if the lot is too small to build even three units, it might as well remain R2. The Secretary agreed with this observation. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 89009 (Milton Carlson and Harriet Berg) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to table Application No. 89009, continue the public hearing, refer the matter to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment, and to expand the rezoning application to other nonconforming multiple family buildings in the southeast neighborhood, provided they have enough land area to accommodate a multiple - family building. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. - - A - P - PLICATION NO. 89010 (Be.isner Ltd. /Zim Computers) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for special use permit approval to allow retail sales of computers as a secondary use to a wholesale business in 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89010 attached). The Secretary also noted that the floor area of the showroom space within the tenant space would be 1,122 sq. ft. rather than the 1,050 sq. ft. contained in the report. 31689 - 2 - Section 35 -208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the com- prehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaulation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77 -167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Policy It is the policy of the City that: a) zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning," defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and against these guidlines which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. Guidelines (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be comtemplated for development of the subject property? (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? (e) In the case of City - initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, con - figuration, topography or location? (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? D II�YII I:� lIAIY�I W A ll mom oil mum WOMEN MIMMIM! S MEN N Hill T ILITTILYKV13 11 W JILL i IR aw- Z L OCr( LELL VL) p = INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS - C. E . COULTER PLATTING CITY LOTS LAND SURVEYOR FARM SURVEYS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING LAKESHORE REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA LICENSED BY ORDINANOF- OF CITY JUDICIA OF MINNEAPOLIS 3300 LYNDALE AVE. SO. MINNEAPOLIS S. MINN. .r TAYLOR 4 -0370 NDbAL D �°ur�ptrnr's �eriiftrair / V _1. S AL 1 sue' I so.l 29.6 5 GAR r 1 7 , � v Q sa .o – y o a•n.c_ v 16 1 N P,ao�osEO 14 + ; �, i9 Z P. 251 8 213 St e;` stakt I ,i i ,.� i4A 4./7.3 a h h) M _ - - - — —A- —�— —f- - -- A f E / V — I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct plat of a survey of: The West 99.32 feet of Lot 11, Block 2, Bellvue Acres Hennepin County Minn. As surveyed by me this 13th day of April 1959 A.D. Signed to, 112 nnesota Registration NO. 258 55 76 - 6 /0 Nor- h . �- r '1 '4 N i I j � ICU O I _ I i -- t�f �es�' /99.3z ar �° P.- epbs�� •., f 1r �- Gdyd9� N ,�c /I vNC. Ac 35 -310 2. Special Uses a. Chapels, churches, temples and synagogues, provided primary vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street. b. Public and private elementary and secondary schools offering a regular course of study accredited by the Minnesota Department of Education, provided primary vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street. C. Golf courses and accessory buildings essential to the operation of a golf course. d. Cemeteries. e. Publicly -owned structures, other than poles and underground facilities in easements or in rights -of -way of public streets or alleys. f. Special home occupations as defined in Section 35 -900. g. Other, noncommercial uses required for the public welfare in an Rl district, as determined by the City Council. f Section-25-311. R2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a. One and two family dwellings. lings. b. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial accessory use. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Renting of not more than two indoor parking spaces. 3. Accessory buildings or carports, either detached or attached to the dwelling building, subject to the following limitations: aa. The ground coverage of any single accessory building shall be no greater than 1,000 square feet. bb. No more than two accessory structures shall be permitted on any one residential premises. CC. The total ground coverage of the accessory building or buildings shall not exceed the ground coverage of the dwelling building. 35 -311 4. Public recreational structures in parks, playgrounds and athletic fields. 5. Playground equipment and installations, including private swimming pools and tennis courts. 6. Home occupations not to include special home occupations as defined in Section 35 -900. 7. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 8. A temporary real estate tract office for the purpose of selling lots on the tract upon which it is located. 9. The renting of not more than two sleeping rooms by a resident family, provided adequate offstreet parking is provided. 10. Tents, stands and other temporary structures for churches, charities, carnivals and similar purposes as provided by Section 35 -800 of these ordinances. 11. Rummage sales as defined in Section 35 -900. 2. Special Uses a. Chapels, churches, temples and synagogues, provided primary vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street. b. Public and private elementary and secondary schools offering a regular course of study accredited by the Minnesota Department of Education provided primary vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street. C. Golf course and accessory buildings essential to the operation of a golf course. d. Nursing homes and rest homes provided primary vehicular access shall be gained by a collector or arterial street. e. Cemeteries. f. Publicly -owned structures, other than poles and underground facilities in easements or in rights -of -way of public streets or alleys. g. Special home occupations as defined in Section 35 -900. h. Other, noncommercial uses required for the public welfare in an R2 district as determined by the City Council. Section 35 -313. R4 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a. Multiple family dwellings of one and one -half or two stories in height. b. R3 uses, provided such uses shall adhere to the district requirements that prevail in the R3 zoning district. C. Parks, playgrounds, athletic fields and other recreational uses of a noncommercial nature. d. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial accessory uses. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Garages for use by occupants of the principal use. 3. Playground equipment and installations, including swimming pools and tennis courts. 4. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 5. A real estate office for the purpose of leasing or selling apartment units in the development in which it is located. 6. Home occupations not to include special home occupations as defined in Section 35 -900. 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35 -410 of these ordinances. 3. Special Uses a. Nursing care homes, (at not more than 50 beds per acre), maternity care homes, boarding care homes and child care homes, provided that these institutions shall, where required by state law, or regulation, or by municipal ordinance, be licensed by the appropriate state or municipal authority. Section 35 -314. R5 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 1. Permitted Uses a. Multiple family dwellings of two and one half or three stories in height. b'. R3 uses, provided such uses shall adhere to the district requirements that prevail in the R3 zoning district. 6. Encourage the development of the general commercial area in the southeast corner of the neighborhood at the West River Road/ Interstate 94 freeway intersection. The type of commercial development should be limited to specialty establishments such as motel, restaurant, and bowling alley. In general, the commercial uses already existing in the area are quite appropriate. 7. Continue to permit the construction of up to two and one -half story apartment buildings around the.proposed commercial areas as a tran- sition to single family housing, and along the west side of Humboldt Avenue, south of 69th Avenue as a transition between the industrial park and the neighborhood proper. Townhouses would also be an appropriate type of use in these areas. It is important that the apartment buildings be designed in a related group rather than in a piecemeal unrelated fashion. 8. Encourage the Anoka - Hennepin and Brooklyn Center School Districts to work toward a revision of their common boundary or reach an " agreement on some arrangement which would allow students living within a reasonable distance to attend Brooklyn Center Junior - Senior High School rather than be transported long distances to schools far from their neighborhood. Presently the Brooklyn Center School District is in a period of declining enrollment and has available facilities to accommodate additional students. Also, high fuel costs and potential oil shor- tages make realignment or some other .arrangement a more effective way of dealing with the present situation. The responsibility of resolving this situation clearly rests with the respective School Districts and the City should assist in any way Possible. Southeast Neighborhood The Southeast Neighborhood is bordered on the south by the south City limits; on the east by the M i s s i s s i p p i River; on the north by FA I -94; and on the west by Shingle Creek. Plan Recommendations I. Permit up to one and one -half story apartment buildings at no more than twelve units per acre within the older portion of the neigh- borhood, but only at the intersections of collector or arterial streets. This- pattern of development has already existed for some time. By restricting such development to specific corners, the neighborhood's single family character will be preserved, and some of the demand for rental family living within this neighborhood is met. 2. Consider permitting duplexes in the older part of the neighborhood in cases where lot sizes are more suitable for duplex than single family housing. 90.2 3. Encourage the development of townhouses in the pocket of land in the extreme northwest part of the neighborhood. The land is now undeveloped and portions of it are to be used for freeway purposes. The remaining undeveloped land will lend itself quite well to medium density housing. High density housing should definitely not be allowed because of poor access to and from freeways - necessarily through existing single family areas. The area should be developed as a complex with its own identity within its "parent" neighborhood. 4. Permit multiple family developed, preferably townhouses, as a tran- sition between the Northbrook Shopping Center and the nearby single family housing to the east. Heights of the buildings should not exceed the heights of the existing stores and homes - generally one and one -half stories. 5. Install pedestrian walkways as indicated on the Comprehensive Plan map to complete the pedestrian walkway system. 5. Consider a neighborhood conservation /rehabilitation program to bring some of the older visually deficient parts of the neighbor- hood up to more acceptable standards. Most of the deficient homes are such that minor repairs and normal maintenance are all that would be required. 7. Designate and maintain the following streets as neighborhood collector streets: Dupont Avenue North 57th Avenue North C 53rd Avenue North Southwest Neighborhood _The Southwest Neighborhood is bordered on the south by the South City Iimits; on the east by Shingle Creek; on the north by County Road 10; and on the west by the west City limits. Plan Recommendations I. Maintain that part of the Southwest Neighborhood lying north of 53rd Avenue North in permanent single family residential. The frontage road along Brooklyn Boulevard should permit the existing adjacent homes to continue as an integral part of the neighborhood. Commercial development along the east edge of the neighborhood should be limited to areas isolated from the neighborhood.to the east such as from the current Northport Clinic site northerly to the office complex currently under development which is located northerly of the existing library. 90.3 • • J 1 Supplement to application for rezoning of properties at: 610 and 620 53RD AVE NO., BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA In 1968, at the time the property was rezoned to R2, it was recognized that there were existing 4 unit, 1 -1/2 story homes in the Southeast District of Brooklyn Center. Building permits were issue for their construction; These 1 -1/2 story 4 unit homes were constructed according to the existing ordinances. The plan recommendations below provide for permitting building such as the buildings at 620 & 610 53rd Ave. No., which are 1 -1/2 story structures, as long as they are on collector or arterial streets. (53rd Avenue North has been defined in that plan as an arterial street FTh east Neighborhood outheast Neighborhood Is bordered on the south by the south City limits; on the east by the M i s s i s s i p p i River; on the north by FA I -94; and, e west by Shingle Creek. Recommendations . Permit up to one and one -h alf story apartment buildings at no more than twelve units per acre within the older portion of the neigh- borhood, but only at the intersections of collector or arterial treets. T hi s D attern of development has already existed for some E restricting such development to specific corners the neighborhood's single family character will be preserved, and some 90-2- UT the demand for ren a I tam i I y I iv I ng w th I n th I s neTg is met. The 4 -plex at 620 53rd Ave.No. has an existing 3car garage. The 4 -plex at 610 53rd Ave.No. has an existing 2car garage. We,the owners plan to erect garages to accommodate each unit. To provide garages for each unit would allow cars to be inside for these Minnesota winters; neighborhood character would be enhanced with less outside parking. Building a garage such as this is not allowed under the provisions of the ordinance passed in 1968; presently R2 for these properties. We therefore request rezoning to R4, to allow "conforming use" for these properties. x � �\ of 610 53rd Ave No.x ( ate) x / J Owner of 620 53rd Ave No.x v74, (date) L THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES ARE PER PROCEDURE OF REZONE 35 -208 a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Ans. YES Ordinance control can better be enforced when property is "conforming" to its zoning. The zoning since 1968 has been R2; R2 zoning does not allow the construction of any more garages on either property; One parcel has a 4 homes unit 1- 1/2 story with a 3 car garage; the other 4 homes units 1 -1/2 story has only a 2 car garage. To construct garages to enclose cars for each unit would enhance the area. There would be far less "parking lot" type parking. b. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Ans. YES The plan recommendation passed in 1968, recognized these 4 unit dwellings and it stated: "..by restricting such development to specific corners, the neighborhood's single family character will be preserved,.." These properties are on the corner of one of the (arterial streets defined in that plan), specifically "53rd Ave No." c. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Ans. All the permitted uses are existing now for the proposed zoning, except no garages for some dwelling units. d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Ans. NO. Since the blanket rezoning of SE area of Brooklyn Center to R2, in 1968, there has been no physical or zoning classification changes in that area. e. NOT APPLICABLE. f. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? Ans. YES The existing improvements are within the proposed R4 zoning restrictions; any further improvements will bear fully the restrictions of proposed R4 zoning. 5 �✓'o• x* • g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Ans. YES The subject property's existing improvements are: One has a 1 -1/2 story 4 unit dwelling with only a 3 car garage; The other has a 1 -1/2 story 4 unit dwelling with only a 2 car garage. The rezoning in 1968 to R2 placed these in a "non- conforming" use category. h. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? Ans. NO. There will be no expansion of a zoning district; Just allow garages to be constructed for existing dwellings. i. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Ans. The proposal will place the use of these parcels in a "conforming use" R4 category, with restrictions applicable and enforceable to that zoning. Allowing garages for each dwelling unit will enhance the neighborhood CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/22/89 Agenda Item Number •✓ Q/ ` L REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: REPORT REGARDING COST ESTIMATES, DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION AND PETITION PROCESS RELATING TO IMPROVEMENT OF FOUR UNIMPROVED ALLEYS *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNA DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached YES Explanation On May 8th the City Council approved several changes in the City's policies • regarding alley improvements. Based on those policy changes we have developed and sent packets of information to all property owners abutting the four unimproved alleys. The information sent (copies attached) included: • a cover letter • an updated summary of the established policies regarding alley improvements • cost and special assessment information • individualized petitions which property owners may use to petition for or against the improvement of their alley, and to express their preference for bituminous surfacing r concrete paving. g P We have asked all property owners to return these petitions to our office by May 31st. After receiving the petitions, our office will review, analyze and summarize them, and submit a report covering each of the four alleys to the City Council on June 12th If, at that time, the City Council decides that there is enough support to conduct a public hearing, the Council would then adopt a resolution accepting the petition and calling for the public hearing to be held. If such resolution is adopted, notices of the ublic hearing would be sent P g to ever property owner abutting the alley(s) in which improvements are proposed, and a notice of the hearing would be published in the official newspaper - all in accordance with procedures established by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. Following a public hearing(s), the City Council would then vote whether or not to order the improvement(s). Following is a tentative schedule of proceedings which would allow initiation and completion of some or all of these projects this year: Petitions received 5/31/89 Council adopts resolution accepting petition(s), ordering feasibility report(s), ordering preparation of plans and specifications, and setting date of public hearing(s) 6/12/89 Public hearing held - If City Council approves project(s) the resolution(s) could also approve plans and specifications and authorize advertisement for bids 6/26/89 Open bids 7/20/89 Award contract 7/24/89 Completion date specified 9/30/89 City Council Action Required No action is required at this time. Calculation of Special Assessment Costs Improvement of Four Alleys (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) # of COST PER PROPERTY Direct TOTAL COST - - Storm - - - NET COST - - - 60% DIRECT COST - - 40% REMAINING COST - Access # of - - Bituminous - - - - Concrete - - Sewer ACCESS Proper- Proper- Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Alley Bituminous Concrete Cost Bituminous Concrete Bituminous Concrete Bituminous Concrete ties ties Access Access Access Access (Fremont /Emerson 155th to 57th I I I I I I I I 1 1 $79,400 $105,500 I $31,300 I $48,100 $74,200 I 28,860 44,520 ( 19,240 29,680 1 20 30 I $2,084.33 $641.33 ( $3,215.33 $989.33 I (Fremont /Girard I I I I I I I I 154th to 55th I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 2 32,100 48,700 I 17,300 I 14,800 31,400 I 8,880 18,840 I 5,920 12,560 1 15 18 I 920.89 328.89 I 1,953.78 697.78 I (Fremont /Emerson 1 I I I ( I I I 153rd to 54th I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 3 33,100 39,950 ( 16,300 I 16,800 23,650 I 10,080 14,190 I 6,720 9,460 1 19 22 I 835.98 305.45 i 1,176.84 430.00 i I I I I I I I I I ILakeview /Twin Lake Av I I I I I I I I ILakeside to Lakebreeze I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [ 1 4 19,000 30,000 I 0 I 19,000 30,000 I 11,400 18,000 I 7,600 12,000 I 6 12 I 2,533.33 633.33 I 4,000.00 1,000.00 I I I I I I I I- 18-May-89 d£s NOTE ON COST PER PROPERTY: 60% of the net cost is divided equally among those properties using the alley for access. SPASSESS:alleysum The remaining 40% is divided equally among all properties abutting the alley. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :BYROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 ENTER TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 May 19, 1989 RE: Alley Between Fremont and Girard Avenues From 55th to 57th Avenues Dear Property Owner: The alley in your block is one of four remaining unpaved alleys in Brooklyn Center. Improvements to that alley have been considered at various times over the past several years. However, each time it has been considered, numerous questions and objections have been raised by the affected property owners. Because it was apparent that many of the questions and objections which related to the City's policies regarding special assessments for this type of improvement were valid, the City Council recently approved four substantive changes to the previously - established policies. These changes are summarized as follows: 1. Previously, special assessments for alley improvement costs were made on the basis of linear feet of abutting lot. Owners with larger lots were assessed a larger proportion of the costs than owners of smaller lots, even though they received no additional benefit. The Council approved a change in policy to provide the assessment of costs on a per buildable lot basis. Owners of single lots of varying sizes will be assessed equal shares of the costs. Where a lot could be legally subdivided, additional "units" will be assessed. 2. Previously, owners of all lots abutting an alley were assessed for alley improvements at an equal rate, whether or not they used the alley for access. The Council approved a new two- tiered assessment policy. Under the new policy, forty percent of the assessable cost of improving the alley will be assessed equally to all owners of lots abutting the alley, while the remaining sixty percent will be assessed equally to all owners of lots utilizing the alley for access. We believe this two tiered system will result in assessments that more equitably reflect the benefit received, between owners who rely on the alley for access and those who do not. 0 0 . p iseeui- wue�aarr :rte May 19, 1989 Page 2 3. Previously, alleys were to be constructed only of bituminous material. The Council has approved the use of concrete in some cases. While concrete is more durable (i.e., it has a life expectancy of 25 to 30 years vs. the 10 to 15 year life expectancy for a bituminous alley), it is more expensive. Where conditions warrant, bituminous will continue to be used. Note: Regarding the alley in your block, City staff strongly recommends the use of concrete because the grades in this alley are very flat. With the use of concrete, we will be able to much more accurately control the grade of the pavement, thereby assuring a much more positive drainage pattern, and a much better ability to match the grade of the alley to the levels of your garage, driveway, and /or yard. However, the City Council does wish to receive your opinion regarding the use of concrete paving vs. bituminous paving. 4. Previously, property owners were assessed the cost of any storm sewer improvements required. The Council has approved a change in policy to provide that, where storm sewers are required, the costs for installing the storm sewer will be paid by City funds. Note: Regarding the alley in your block, a storm sewer is needed to provide positive drainage. If the alley is improved, the estimated $43,100 cost for that storm sewer will not be assessed, but will be paid for from other City funding sources. Enclosed is a copy of the City's complete current policy for alley improvements, including the new revisions noted above. Also enclosed is a petition form which provides you with an opportunity to request that the alley in your block be improved this year or to oppose such an improvement. In addition, the form provides an opportunity for you to express your preference for concrete paving vs. bituminous paving. We ask that you reply to both parts so that, even if you oppose the improvement, the City Council will know your preference regarding type of surface if a decision is made to improve the alley. Please review the enclosed materials and return your petition form by Wednesday. May 31, 1989. In accordance with the established policy, if 30% or more of the property owners in your block petition the Council to improve the alley, the Council would then conduct a public hearing on the proposal (probably in late June). Notices of the hearing would be sent to each of you and, of course, the City Council would welcome your attendance and your comments and questions at that hearing. Following the public hearing, the City Council would then decide whether or not to proceed with the improvement. If that decision is made in late June, bids for construction would be requested in accordance with established State laws regarding public contracts, and a contract could be awarded in late July, with completion specified for late September, 1989. May 19, 1989 Page 3 Again, we ask that you complete, sign, and return the enclosed petition to this office by May 31, 1989. If you have any questions about this information, or about the improvement process, please contact me. Sincerel '� � Sy Knapp Director of Public Works Enclosures SK: jn ALLEY IMPROVEMENT PETITION CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA RE: Alley Between Fremont and Girard Avenues From 55th to 57th Avenues TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER: 1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 I (we) the undersigned, owners of real property abutting on the above - described alley, hereby petition (or oppose) that such alley be improved in accordance with the City's currently - established policy for such improvements (check one): I (we) petition for this improvement I (we) petition in opposition to this improvement 2. Whether I (we) support this improvement, or oppose it, if the improvement is ordered by the City Council after formal proceedings and public hearing, I (we) prefer the following tpe of alley surfacing (check one): Bituminous Surface Concrete Pavement Name(s): (please print) Signature: Address (or legal description) of property abutting this improvement: Mailing Address (if different than the address of the property): Date: NOTE Please return this petition by May 31, 1989 to: City of Brooklyn Center Engineering Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 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). 18 -May -89 dfs SPASSySS:alleyl CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 BROOKLYN TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 May 19, 1989 RE: Alley Between Girard and Humboldt Avenues From 54th to 55th Avenues Dear Property Owner: The alley in your block is one of four remaining unpaved alleys in Brooklyn Center. Improvements to that alley have been considered at various times over the past several ears. However, each time 't a i has been considered, , numerous questions and objections have been raised by the affected property owners. Because it was apparent pp rent that many of the questions and objections which related to the City's policies regarding y P g g assessments for this type of improvement were valid, the Cit y y PP Council recently approved four substantive changes to the previously- established policies. These changes are summarized as follows: 1. Previously, special assessments for alley improvement costs were made on the basis of linear feet of abutting lot. Owners with larger lots were assessed a larger proportion of the costs than owners of smaller lots, even though they received no additional benefit. The Council approved a change in policy to provide the assessment of costs on a per buildable lot basis. Owners of single lots of varying sizes will be assessed equal shares of the costs. Where a lot could be legally subdivided, additional "units" will be assessed. 2. Previously, owners of all lots abutting an alley were assessed for alley improvements at an equal rate, whether or not they used the alley for access. The Council approved a new two - tiered assessment policy. Under the new policy, fort percent of the assess cos y y P able t of improving the alley will be assessed equally to all q y owners of lots abutting he alley, while g y, the remaining sixty percent will be assessed equally to all owners of lots utilizing the alley for access. We believe this two tiered system will result in assessments that more equitably reflect the benefit received, between owners who rely on the alley for access and those who do not. rose muunu rnt s ,iV, May 19, 1989 Page 2 3. Previously, alleys were to be constructed only of bituminous material. The Council has approved the use of concrete in some cases. While concrete is more durable (i.e., it has a life expectancy of 25 to 30 years vs. the 10 to 15 year life expectancy for a bituminous alley), it is more expensive. Where conditions warrant, bituminous will continue to be used. Note: Regarding the alley in your block, City staff strongly recommends the use of concrete because the grades in this alley are very flat. With the use of concrete, we will be able to much more accurately control the grade of the pavement, thereby assuring a much more positive drainage pattern, and a much better ability to match the grade of the alley to the levels of your garage, driveway, and /or yard. However, the City Council does wish to receive your opinion regarding the use of concrete paving vs. bituminous paving. 4. Previously, property owners were assessed the cost of any storm sewer improvements required. The Council has approved a change in policy to provide that, where storm sewers are required, the costs for installing the storm sewer will be paid by City funds. Note: Regarding the alley in your block, a storm sewer is needed to provide positive drainage. If the alley is improved, the estimated $20,400 cost for that storm sewer will not be assessed, but will be paid for from other City funding sources. Enclosed is a copy of the City's complete current policy for alley improvements, including the new revisions noted above. Also enclosed is a petition form which provides you with an opportunity to request that the alley in your block be improved this year or to oppose such an improvement. In addition, the form provides an opportunity for you to express your preference for concrete paving vs. bituminous paving. We ask that you reply to both parts so that, even if you oppose the improvement, the City Council will know your preference regarding type of surface if a decision is made to improve the alley. Please review the enclosed materials and return your petition form by Wednesday_ May 31, 1989 In accordance with the established policy, if 30% or more of the property owners in your block petition the Council to improve the alley, the Council would then conduct a public hearing on the proposal (probably in late June). Notices of the hearing would be sent to each of you and, of course, the City Council would welcome your attendance and your comments and questions at that hearing. Following the public hearing, the City Council would then decide whether or not to proceed with the improvement. If that decision is made in late June, bids for construction would be requested in accordance with established State laws regarding public contracts, and a contract could be awarded in late July, with completion specified for late September, 1989. May 19, 1989 Page 3 Again, we ask that you complete, sign, and return the enclosed petition to this office by May 31, 1989. If you have any questions about this information, or about the improvement process, please contact me. Sincer�, Sy Knapp Director of Public Works Enclosures SK: jn ALLEY IMPROVEMENT PETITION CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA RE: Alley Between Girard and Humboldt Avenues From 54th to 55th Avenues TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER: 1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 I (we) the undersigned, owners of real property abutting on the above - described alley, e y hereby petition g y y or P oppose) that such alley be improved in accordance with the City's currently- established policy for such improvements (check one): I (we) petition for this improvement I (we) petition in opposition to this improvement 2. Whether I (we) support this improvement, or oppose it, if the improvement is ordered b i y the City ouncil after formal proceedings and public hearing, y P g P g, I (we) prefer the following tpe of alley surfacing (check one): Bituminous Surface Concrete Pavement Is Name(s): (please print) Signature: Address (or legal description) of property abutting this improvement: Mailing Address (if different than the address of the property): Date: NOTE Please return this petition by May 31, 1989 to: City of Brooklyn Center Engineering Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 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 Y $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 Hennepin County lump -sum service charge of $.05 year (a total of $.50 for bituminous and $1.00 for concrete). Subsequent payments include twelve months' interest. Assessments may be paid in full at any time. Senior citizens and persons with a total and permanent disability may be eligible for a Hardship Deferment (see statement on the back of this page). 19-May-89 dfs SPASSESS:alley2 CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF I:BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE C ENTER 911 May 19, 1989 RE: Alley Between Fremont and Emerson Avenues From 53rd to 54th Avenues Dear Property Owner: The alley in your block is one of four remaining unpaved alleys in Brooklyn Center. Improvements to that alley have been considered at various times over the past several years. However, each time it has been considered, numerous questions and objections have been raised by the affected property owners. Because it was apparent that many of the questions and objections which related to the City's policies regarding special assessments for this type of improvement were valid, the City Council recently approved four substantive changes to the previously- established policies. These changes are summarized as follows: 1. Previously, special assessments for alley improvement costs were made on the basis of linear feet of abutting lot. Owners with larger lots were assessed a larger proportion of the costs than owners of smaller lots, even though they received no additional benefit. The Council approved a change in policy to provide the assessment of costs on a per buildable lot basis. Owners of single lots of varying sizes will be assessed equal shares of the costs. Where a lot could be legally subdivided, additional "units" will be assessed. 2. Previously, owners of all lots abutting an alley were assessed for alley improvements at an equal rate, whether or not they used the alley for access. The Council approved a new two - tiered assessment policy. Under the new policy, forty percent of the assessable cost of improving the alley will be assessed equally to all owners of lots abutting the alley, while the remaining sixty percent will be assessed equally to all owners of lots utilizing the alley for access. We believe this two tiered system will result in assessments that more equitably reflect the benefit received, between owners who rely on the alley for access and those who do not. "" /LL-AWRKA W May 19, 1989 Page 2 3. Previously, alleys were to be constructed only of bituminous material. The Council has approved the use of concrete in some cases. While concrete is more durable (i.e., it has a life expectancy of 25 to 30 y ears vs. the 10 to 15 year life expectancy for a bituminous alley), it is more expensive. Where conditions warrant, bituminous will continue to be used. Note: Regarding the alley in your block, City staff strongly recommends the use of concrete because the grades in this alley are very flat. With the use of concrete, we will be able to much more accurately control the grade of the pavement, thereby assuring a much more positive drainage pattern, and a much better ability to match the grade of the alley to the levels of your garage, driveway, and /or yard. However, the City Council does wish to receive your opinion regarding the use of concrete paving vs. bituminous paving. 4. Previously, property owners were assessed the cost of any storm sewer improvements required. The Council has approved a change in policy to provide that, where storm sewers are required, the costs for installing the storm sewer will be paid by City funds. Note: Regarding the alley in your block, a storm sewer is needed to provide positive drainage. If the alley is improved, the estimated $16,300 cost for that storm sewer will not be assessed, but will be paid for from other City funding sources. Enclosed is a copy of the City's complete current policy for alley improvements, including the new revisions noted above. Also enclosed is a petition form which provides you with an opportunity to request that the alley in your block be improved this year or to oppose such an improvement. In addition, the form provides an opportunity for you to express your preference for concrete paving vs. bituminous paving. We ask that you reply to both parts so that, even if you oppose the improvement, the City Council will know your preference regarding type of surface if a decision is made to improve the alley. Please review the enclosed materials and return your petition form by Wednesday May 31, 1989 In accordance with the established policy, if 30% or more of the property owners in your block petition the Council to improve the alley, the Council would then conduct a ublic hearing o P g n the proposal (probably in late June). Notices of the hearing would be sent to each of ou and of course the C' Council unci would y y 1 welcome your attendance and your comments and questions at that hearing. Following the public hearing, the City Council would then decide whether or not to proceed with the improvement. If that decision is made in late June, bids for construction would be requested in accordance with established State laws regarding public contracts, and a contract could be awarded in late July, with completion specified for late September, 1989. May 19, 1989 Page 3 Again, we ask that you complete, sign, and return the enclosed petition to this office by May 31, 1989. If you have any questions about this information, or about the improvement process, please contact me. Sincerely, i �4-v / Sy Ki'iapp Director of Public Works Enclosures SK: jn i ALLEY IMPROVEMENT PETITION CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA RE: Alley Between Fremont and Emerson Avenues From 53rd to 54th Avenues TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER: 1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 I (we) the undersigned, owners of real property abutting on the above - described alley, hereby petition (or oppose) that such alley be improved in accordance with the City's currently - established policy for such improvements (check one): I (we) petition for this improvement I (we) petition in opposition to this improvement 2. Whether I (we) support this improvement, or oppose it, if the improvement is ordered by the City Council after formal proceedings and public hearing, I (we) prefer the following tpe of alley surfacing (check one): Bituminous Surface Concrete Pavement Name(s): (please print) Signature: Address (or legal description) of property abutting this improvement: Mailing Address (if different than the address of the property): Date: NOTE Please return this petition by May 31, 1989 to: City of Brooklyn Center Engineering Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 ALLEY 3 FREMONT /EMERSON FROM 53RD TO 54TH DIRECT ACCESS INDIRECT ACCESS PROPERTIES PROPERTIES Bituminous Concrete Bituminous Concrete 10 Yrs 20 Yrs 10 Yrs 20 Yrs ---------------------------- -------------------------- Principle: $835.98 $1,176.84 $305.45 $430.00 Year ---- - - - - -- ---------------------- - - - - -- -------------------------- $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 Henneppin County lump -sum service charge of $.05 year (a total of $.50 for bituminous and $1.00 for concrete). Subsequent payments include twelvemonths' interest. Assessments may be paid in full at any time. Senior citizens and persons with a total and permanent disability may be eligible for a Hardship Deferment (see statement on the back of this page). 19-May-89 dfs SPASSESS:alley3 CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 BROOKLYN TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE C ENTE 911 May 19, 1989 RE: Alley Between Lakeview and Twin Lake Avenues From Lakeside to Lakebreeze Avenues Dear Property Owner: The alley in your block is one of four remaining unpaved alleys in Brooklyn Center. Improvements to that alley have been considered at various times over the past several years. However, each time it has been considered, numerous questions and objections have been raised by the affected property owners. Because it was apparent that many of the questions and objections which related to the City's policies regarding special assessments for this type of improvement were valid, the City Council recently approved four substantive changes to the previously - established policies. These changes are summarized as follows: 1. Previously, special assessments for alley improvement costs were made on the basis of linear feet of abutting lot. Owners with larger lots were assessed a larger proportion of the costs than owners of smaller lots, even though they received no additional benefit. The Council approved a change in policy to provide the assessment of costs on a per buildable lot basis. Owners of single lots of varying sizes will be assessed equal shares of the costs. Where a lot could be legally subdivided, additional "units" will be assessed. 2. Previously, owners of all lots abutting an alley were assessed for alley improvements at an equal rate, whether or not they used the alley for access. The Council approved a new two - tiered assessment policy. Under the new policy, forty percent of the assessable cost of improving the alley will be assessed equally to all owners of lots abutting the alley, while the remaining sixty percent will be assessed equally to all owners of lots utilizing the alley for access. We believe this two tiered system will result in assessments that more equitably reflect the benefit received, between owners who rely on the alley for access and those who do not. 1 a�� A IM AU-AMERIW MY May 19, 1989 Page 2 3. Previously, alleys were to be constructed only of bituminous material. The Council has approved the use of concrete in some cases. While concrete is more durable (i.e., it has a life expectancy of 25 to 30 years vs. the 10 to 15 year life expectancy for a bituminous alley), it is more expensive. Where conditions warrant, bituminous will continue to be used. Note: Regarding the alley in your block, topographic conditions would allow this alley to be successfully improved with bituminous pavement. However, the City Council does wish to receive your opinion regarding the use of concrete paving vs. bituminous paving. 4. Previously, property owners were assessed the cost of any storm sewer improvements required. The Council has approved a change in policy to provide that, where storm sewers are required, the costs for installing the storm sewer will be paid by City funds. Note: Regarding the alley in your block, no storm sewer installation is required. Accordingly, this change of policy does not affect your property. Enclosed is a copy of the City's complete current policy for alley improvements, including the new revisions noted above. Also enclosed is a petition form which provides you with an opportunity to request that the alley in your block be improved this year or to oppose such an improvement. In addition, the form provides an opportunity for you to express your preference for concrete paving vs. bituminous paving. We ask that you reply to both parts so that, even if you oppose the improvement, the City Council will know your preference regarding type of surface if a decision is made to improve the alley. Please review the enclosed materials and return your petition form by Wednesday May 31 1989 In accordance with the established policy, if 30% or more of the property owners in your block petition the Council to improve the alley, the Council would then conduct a public hearing on the proposal (probably in late June). Notices of the hearing would be sent to each of you and, of course, the City Council would welcome your attendance and your comments and questions at that hearing. Following the public hearing, the City Council would then decide whether or not to proceed with the improvement. If that decision is made in late June, bids for construction would be requested in accordance with established State laws regarding public contracts, and a contract could be awarded in late July, with completion specified for late September, 1989. May 19, 1989 Page 3 Again, we ask that you complete, sign, and return the enclosed petition to this office by May 31, 1989. If you have any questions about this information, or about the improvement process, please contact me. Sincerely, 4 Sy Knapp Director of Public Works Enclosures SK: jn J ALLEY IMPROVEMENT PETITION CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA RE: Alley Between Lakeview and Twin Lake Avenues From Lakeside to Lakebreeze Avenues TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER: 1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 I (we) the undersigned, owners of real property abutting on the above - described alley, hereby petition (or oppose) that such alley be improved in accordance with the City's currently-established olic fo Y policy r such improvements (check one): I (we) petition for this improvement I (we) petition in opposition to this improvement 2. Whether I (we) support this improvement, or oppose it, if the improvement is ordered by the City Council after formal proceedings and public hearing, I (we) prefer the following tpe of alley surfacing (check one): Bituminous Surface Concrete Pavement Name(s): (please print) Signature: Address (or legal description) of property abutting this improvement: Mailing Address (if different than the address of the property): Date: NOTE Please return this petition by May 31, 1989 to: City of Brooklyn Center Engineering Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 i ALLEY 4 LAKEVIEW /TWIN LAKE AV FROM LAKESIDE TO LAKEBREEZE 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 ---- - - - - -- ---------------------- - - - - -- -------------------------- $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 Henneppin County lump -sum service charge of $.05 year (a total of $.50 for bituminous and $1.00 for concrete). Subsequent payments include twelve months' interest. Assessments may be paid in full at any time. Senior citizens and persons with a total and permanent disability may be eligible for a Hardship Deferment (see statement on the back of this page). 19-May-89 dfs SPASSESS :alley4 DEFERRED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 435.193 to 435.195, the City Council may, at its discretion, defer the payment of a special assessment for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older, or by a person retired due to a permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make a payment. The City Council has established the following qualifying conditions for applicants for deferred payment of special assessments: 1. Applicant must be 65 years of age or older, or retired due to permanent and total disability. 2. The applicant's annual income shall not exceed $16,900. 3. The aggregate total of previous special assessment installments plus the first year installment of the current levy must exceed two (2) percent of the applicant's annual income. The applicant will be required to pay up to two (2) percent of his or her annual income toward the special assessment; any excess can be deferred. 4. Special assessments levied due to an applicant failure to pay charges for City services or failure to comply with City codes are not eligible for deferment and will not be included in calculating the aggregate total of annual special assessment installments. When deferment of a special assessment terminates, for any reason provided in the law, all amounts of accumulated plus applicable interest become due. Further information regarding deferred assessments and application forms are available at the City Clerk's office. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 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. 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. Driveway The cost of constructing a hot mixed bituminous asphalt or concrete driveway between the paved portion of the alley and the property line where gravel, crushed rock, or other non -hard surfaced driveways exist (minus the cost of sod restoration for an equivalent area) shall be individually computed and added to the assessment for the specific property involved. All new bituminous or concrete pavement construction beyond the alley property limits shall be the responsibility of the individual property owner. Assessment Period and Interest The assessment period for the alley pavement projects shall be ten (10) years for bituminous and twenty (20) years for concrete improvements. Interest shall be charged at the current rate as determined by the City Council. The unpaid balance may be paid off in full at any time the property owner desires. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/22/89 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: REPORT REGARDING CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER USE RESTRICTIONS DEPT. APPROVAL: 4 SY KNAPP DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached I SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation During 1987 and 1988 the City of Brooklyn Center found it necessary to impose water use restrictions as a result of increased demands caused by drought conditions. In the fall of 1988 the City Council requested City staff to conduct a survey f water r use restrictions imposed b other cities. and t P y o recommend adjustments to the City's J y contingency plan based on the results of that survey and a retrospective analysis of the City's experience during the past two years. A questionnaire was developed and sent to 33 cities in the MSP metro area. Of these, 19 cities responded. A detailed summary of those responses is attached to this report. However, three important messages emerged from that survey, i.e.. 1. the use of daily lawn and garden sprinkling bans (as used by Brooklyn Center ) is much more effective than the use of odd -even sprinkling bans; and P g , 2. it is important to provide a system of reasonable special exceptions to the general restrictions, and that the public be informed of the regulations; and 3. most water users are willing to accept and comply with water use restrictions. In fact, a high percentage of users felt that the use of restrictions was appropriate, and a significant percentage would support stronger restrictions and /or a water conservation program. The attached materials include an overview of our study; a copy of the survey results; our updated contingency plan; and administrative policies and procedures for implementing water use restrictions and notifying the public, and for monitoring and enforcing those restrictions. City Council Action Required This report is submitted for the information of and discussion by the City Council. No formal action is required unless the Council wishes to direct staff to provide additional information and /or to revise the proposed contingency plan. i CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 ENTER TELEPHONE 561 -5440 13 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 May 22, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: G. G. Splinter City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp Director of Public Works SUBJ: Contingency Plan for Water Use Restrictions During both 1987 and 1988 high temperatures and low precipitation resulted in an increased demand on the City's water supply. This demand became so great that we, as did most other cities in the metro area, found it necessary to impose restrictions on the use of water for non - essential purposes such as lawn and garden sprinkling. While precipitation so far this year has been about average, it's not possible to predict if this will continue, or if we will have a repeat of previous years' drought. In the event that we do have a recurrance of dry weather, the attached water restriction contingency plan has been prepared. This plan outlines the conditions under which various types of restrictions would be imposed, the details of those restrictions, and the procedures which will be followed. This plan is based on our experience in previous years, and on the experience of other cities in the area which also imposed restrictions. Background Section 4 -202 of the City ordinances provides the City with the right to limit the use of water from the City supply and the authority to prescribe emergency conditions. Section 4 -202. CONDITIONS OF USE. The City of Brooklyn Center hereby reserves the right to limit the use of water from the City water supply and distribution system and to prescribe emergency conditions for use of the water. Under the proposed contingency plan, there are three stages of conditions, based on water demand and its effect on required fire reserves. In 1988 we imposed a Stage 2 restriction - banning lawn and garden sprinkling between 3 p.m. and 9 p.m. The recent survey of Brooklyn Center residents (see Question # 100 on Attachment 1) indicated that only five percent of people surveyed thought the restrictions imposed in 1988 were too strict; about one fifth even thought those restrictions were not stringent enough. Clearly, there is recognition of the occasional need for such measures, and citizen support. In 1988 most residential and commercial users were very cooperative and understanding. The Proposed Plan The proposed contingency plan is a fine tuning of the plan we operated under in 1988. Earlier this year we conducted a survey of local communities, and nineteen provided us with information on their water restriction experiences. (See Attachment 2) Several useful ideas have been incorporated into the plan. Internal procedures have been clarified, including better coordination with Code Enforcement personnel. Exemptions to restrictions are more explicit, in some cases requiring residents to acquire a permit. The plan also includes procedures for providing residents with more information on how they can change their water use habits and voluntarily conserve water. Based on our review of 1988 water consumption records, the proposed plan shortens the daily time period during which, under a Stage 2 restriction, lawn and garden sprinkling and other non - essential uses are restricted. Last year, the restrictions were in effect from 3 p.m. to 9 p.m.; the plan as proposed would restrict these uses from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.. Our detailed review of water supply and use records, and a review of this data by our consulting engineers (Black and Veatch) indicates that our system should be able to "bounce back" adequately after a five -hour restriction. This will allow an extra hour of watering in the evening - at a time which is relatively convenient for a large portion of the customers. Finally, this contingency plan covers only the City water supply system; it does not affect private wells. Some municipalities in our survey report that their restrictions did apply to private wells. You may wish to consider this option. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1989 CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR WATER USE RESTRICTIONS INTRODUCTION The City of Brooklyn Center's water supply provides enough water for regular residential and commercial uses and a reserve to assure an adequate supply of water in the event of a major fire. During periods of high temperatures or below- normal precipitation, voluntary water conservation efforts are usually sufficient to keep water demand at manageable levels. However, an extended drought such as those experienced in both 1987 and 1988 can result in the need for water use restrictions. This contingency plan outlines the basic procedures the City will follow, if restrictions become necessary. City residents are requested to become familiar with this plan so they understand their responsibilities and can respond to an emergency, should one develop. The contingency plan for water use restrictions includes three stages of restrictive measures: Stage 1: General Warning Issued when water consumption trends indicate that peak demand is, over several consecutive days, approaching capacity. Residents should conserve water, but there are no restrictions. Enforcement officers will issue warnings to users observed to be wasting water. Stage 2: Restriction on the Use of Water for Lawn and Garden Sprinkling and Other Non - Essential Uses From 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. Issued when water consumption trends indicate that demand will deplete water storage below the required fire reserve level. All sprinkling and non - essential use will be prohibited between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m.. Enforcement officers will issue warnings on first violation, and misdemeanor citations on the second. Subsequent violations will result in a citation and water shut -off. Stage 3: Total Prohibition of Use for Lawn and Garden Sprinkling and Other Non - Essential Uses Issued when a crisis such as a mechanical or power failure occurs at one or more City wells, and the water supply is threatened. All non- essential use will be prohibited at all times, and residents will be encouraged to conserve water. Failure to comply will result in a misdemeanor citation. J DETAIL OF WATER RESTRICTION CONTINGENCY PLAN Stage 1: General Warning When water consumption during peak periods exceeds the system's capacity for several consecutive days, and when it becomes apparent to City officials that this trend will continue, a General Warning will be issued. During a General Warning, all users, both residential and commercial, are requested to use water prudently, and to voluntarily curtail sprinkling during daylight hours. In addition, users will be requested to take other voluntary measures to avoid waste and help conserve water, for example, checking sprinkling systems, repairing leaking fixtures, and reviewing home water use habits. During a General Warning period, no violation notices will be issued. However, the City's enforcement personnel will monitor the City to locate areas where water is being wasted, and will issue warning notices to those users. Stage 2: Restriction on the Use of Water for Lawn and Garden Sprinkling and Other Non - Essential Uses from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. Daily. The City must maintain a sizable reserve of water in its water tanks at all times to assure adequate fire protection. Accordingly, when City officials determine that continued unrestricted consumption would result in the depletion of water storage below this required reserve level, Stage 2 of this plan will be implemented. All lawn and garden sprinkling, car washing, wetting of children's slip and slide play apparatus and swimming pool filling will be prohibited between the hours of 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. Water pumping and storage data show that during periods of heavy water use, by 3 p.m. storage is often depleted to nearly minimal levels. Restricting non - essential uses will allow the water supply system to catch up to the demand and to replenish the storage in the City's water towers. Once imposed, this ban will remain in effect until City officials determine that demand no longer endangers the system's ability to maintain a fire reserve. During a Stage 2 restriction, enforcement personnel will on a first violation issue a warning. City Ordinances provide that failure to comply with these restrictions is a misdemeanor. A second violation will result in a citation, which can cost the violator up to $700. For subsequent violations, a citation will be issued and water will be shut off. Only three exceptions to these restrictions will be allowed: 1. Newly seeded or sodded areas may be watered for ten days. Residents must obtain a 10 Day Permit from the City's Water Department, and must post that permit in a readily visible location; 2. Trees, shrubs, and gardens may be watered by hand only. Residents should exercise care to avoid wasting water during such use, and are encouraged to complete this watering during the morning and evening hours; and 3. Fund- raiser car washes will be allowed, but participants will be instructed to be prudent in their use of water. An Administrative Land Use permit is required for such events; this permit will also serve as permission to be exempt from water restrictions. Any car wash found not to have obtained this permit and which does not comply with an enforcement official's order to cease operation will also be found to be in violation of these water restrictions. Stage 3: Prohibition of Water Usage for Lawn and Garden Sprinking and Other Non - Essential Uses The Stage 2 restrictions should be adequate to meet water supply needs under most high- demand conditions. However, in the event of an extended power outage to the City's water supply wells, major mechanical failure at one or more of the wells, or a major watermain break, this step may be required. In the event this type of crisis occurs, City staff will immediately close the valves on two of the three water towers to preserve as much water as possible for limited domestic use and fire reserve. A total prohibition on the use of water for lawn and garden sprinkling, car washing, pool filling, and other non- essential uses will be announced immediately. Residents will be requested to conserve water. In the unlikely event that this total prohibition is imposed, the City's Code Enforcement Officers and Public Utility employees will contact any resident or business observed to be violating the prohibition and order immediate termination of such use. Failure to comply will result in a misdemeanor citation subject to ,a fine of up to $700. ANNOUNCEMENT OF WATER RESTRICTIONS The City will make every effort to publicize any warnings or restrictions. All public officials, including the mayor, City Council members, department heads, and police officers, will have information regarding any restrictions. Stage 1 (General Warning) notices will be issued to the Brooklyn Center Post and will be posted on the City access cable television channel. In the event water shortages occur, City personnel will contact the major commercial and industrial users to request their cooperation and their voluntary reduction in water use. Stage 2 (Restrictions on Non - Essential Uses) announcements, if needed, will be issued to the Brooklyn Center Post, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, major radio and television stations, and the City access CATV. Youth groups will be asked to assist in delivering announcements door -to -door. Announcement of removal of restrictions when the emergency is over will be issued to these media. Stage 3 (Total Prohibition of Non - Essential Uses) announcements will be issued to all members of the press on an emergency basis with a request for maximum immediate coverage. ATTACHMENT 1 EXCERPT FROM CITY RESIDENTIAL SURVEY MAY, 1989 Let's talk about water.... 100. Thinking back on the water use STATEMENT A ..................5% restrictions imposed during the STATEMENT B .................70% drought of 1988, would you say STATEMENT C .................21% they were: DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ........... 4% A. Too restrictive and totally unacceptable; B. About right in view of the problem; C. Not tough enough and would support more stringent ones if the need arose. Attachment 2 City of Brooklyn Center March, 1989 Water Restriction Survey 1. TYPES OF WATER RESTRICTIONS UTILIZED Type of water restrictions imposed during the past 2 years: Type Comments Anoka JAB IA—yearly 12am -10pm 6/1 -8/31; B— added Apple Valley 15 A lam -7 m• 6 1 -9 I I P � / / Blaine JAB IA = 3 -9pm; B =May- September yearly Bloomington * I I Brooklyn Park * I I Burnsville I I Champlin JAB IA=noon-10pm; 6/1 -10 /1 Chanhassen * J i Coon Rapids * I I Cottage Grove I B 1year round - every year Eagan JAB I Eden Prairie I C112pm -6pm; 6/8 -10/31 Edina * J J Hopkins * ( J Maplewood * J J Minneapolis JAB IA:7/27 -8/16; B =6/29 -7/26 Minnetonka JAB (And total ban daily 2 -8pm, 6/6 -10/15 Minnetonka Beach JAB IStarted odd /even then to total ban New Brighton * I I North St. Paul I B 15/15 -9/1 Oakdale * I I Plymouth JAB Inoon -9pm; 6/15 -9/1 Prior Lake I B 16/6 -9/1 Richfield I INo Restrictions Robbinsdale * I I Shorewood * I I Spring Lake Park JA CIA:6 /15 -7/1; C= 7/1 -10 /1; 9am -9pm (doing tower work) St. Francis I B 16/1 -9/1 St. Louis Park * I I Stillwater I B 17/1 -9/15 Wayzata I B 16/13 -8/12 White Bear Lake * I I Woodbury I B 16/1 -12/31 A - Lawn & garden sprinkling ban for all water users daily B - Odd /even ban on lawn & garden sprinkling for entire 24 hour day C - Odd -even ban on lawn & garden sprinkling for specified hours * No response 2. EXEMPTIONS FROM RESTRICTIONS Type of water uses which are "exempt from compliance with restrictions: Type yp Comments Anoka JABC E IC =no total ban - odd /even only Apple Valley JA C Icommercials exempt C =small shrubs only Blaine (ABC JB &C -2 weeks only Bloomington Brooklyn Park Burnsville Champlin ABCD G B =1 2 months G —city s pools I i / yfi1 for p 1 fr$25 Chanhassen Coon Rapids Cottage Grove JAB DEFG JB =by permit only Eagan JABC Eden Prairie JABCDEFG Edina Hopkins Maplewood Minneapolis JABCD HOB —new sod only D—if approved, wading & golf Minnetonka I BCDEF IB =30 days only C =water by hand only Minnetonka Beach JA C New Brighton * North St. Paul JABCDEFGHlautomatic systems from midnight to 8 am only Oakdale * Plymouth (ABC JB &C =odd /even Prior Lake JAB JB—lst 60 days of the ban only Richfield I - - - - - -- - ono restrictions in 1988 Robbinsdale * Shorewood * Spring Lake Park JABC E JB-6 weeks only C =hand held watering only St. Francis CAB St. Louis Park * Stillwater Inone ono exemptions Wayzata JAB JB—if sod /seed in place at start of ban White Bear Lake * Woodbury JAB 110 day permits issued - must be posted A - Private well supplies B - New sod or newly seeded lawns C - Trees, shrubs, or gardens D - Fund raiser car washes E - Washing cars on private property (on driveway or lawn) F - Slip and Slide play apparatus G - Filling private swimming pools H - Other * No response 3. INFORMATIONAL PROGRAM Type of method or methods used to inform water users of the restrictions: Type Effectiveness? Anoka CAB DE ID—delivered with flushing notice in April Apple Valley JA Blaine SAC Bloomington * Brooklyn Park * Burnsville * Champlin (ABC E ewe feel everyone gets the word Chanhassen * Coon Rapids * Cottage Grove ( DE Icable tv, newsletter, water billing card Eagan (A C E Eden Prairie JA D knot very effective Edina Hopkins Maplewood Minneapolis JABC Flhand delivery to violators Minnetonka JA C EFIC =to offenders only F =tips helped calm callers Minnetonka Beach I C New Brighton * North St. Paul JA E Oakdale * Plymouth JA E Prior Lake CAB D Richfield ( --- - - - ono restrictions in 1988 Robbinsdale * Shorewood * I Spring Lake Park JABC EFL people still pled "ignorance" when tagged St. Francis JA C FItips with water bill St. Louis Park * Stillwater JA E Wayzata JA E White Bear Lake * Woodbury CAB D ID— message on every water bill A - Press releases B - "Official Ad" C - Hand - delivered notices or hosebib cards D - Mailed notices E - Cable T.V. or talk shows F - Water Conservation hints or tips No response 4. ENFORCEMENT Type of enforcement measures used or would use to enforce restrictions: Type Comments Anoka CAB DE ID =2nd violation $45, 3rd is $100 Apple Valley JA E Iwarning 1st - fine 2nd Blaine JA Bloomington * Brooklyn Park * Burnsville * Champlin CAB (warning card & turn off hose - sample to Chanhassen * determine city /private Coon Rapids * Cottage Grove CAB Eagan JABC Eden Prairie JA Edina Hopkins Maplewood Minneapolis JAB D [turn on fee = $55 Minnetonka JA C JA —lst time C =2nd time $50,$75,$100 ... add to bill Minnetonka Beach B D New Brighton North St. Paul B Oakdale Plymouth JA C IA -1 written C =$100 /day Prior Lake I BCD Richfield I - - - -- - ono restrictions in 1988 Robbinsdale * Shorewood * Spring Lake Park CAB St. Francis * St. Louis Park * Stillwater Inone Wayzata JAB Mines @ $100 /day after 1st warning White Bear Lake * Woodbury JA C 11 warning - 2nd carries $35 fine A - Warning notices B - Violation notices (not citations) C - Misdemeanor citations D - Shut off water service to violators E - Other * No response 5. EFFECTIVENESS OF RESTRICTIONS Generally - How well restrictions accomplished their functional objectives Peak Demand - Percent of usage reduction accomplished during peak demand Total Consumption - Percent of usage reduction during June, July, & August Type of Restriction - As indicated on page 1 of this summary Gen Peak Total Type Comments Anoka (Good 120 - 30120 -301AB I Apple Valley (Good 1 40+ 1 40+ JA I Blaine lExcell30- 40120 -301AB I Bloomington *1 1 1 1 1 Brooklyn Park *1 1 1 1 1 Burnsville *1 1 1 1 1 Champlin (Good 130 - 40110 -201AB I Chanhassen *1 1 1 1 1 Coon Rapids *1 1 1 1 1 Cottage Grove (Good I - - -- I - - -- I B Itoo soon to tell Eagan lExcell20- 3010 -10 JAB Jeliminated the peaks Eden Prairie JFair 10 -10 1 - - -- I CIdepends on community spirit & Edina *1 1 ( 1 city policies Hopkins *1 I I Maplewood Minneapolis (Good 120 - 3010 -10 JAB 1(see comments below) Minnetonka (Good 120 - 3010 -10 JAB I Minnetonka Beach JGood 120- 30120 -301AB I New Brighton *1 1 1 1 1 North St. Paul lExcell20- 30120 -301 B Idefinite results Oakdale *1 1 1 1 1 Plymouth JGood 120 - 30120 -301AB I Prior Lake JGood 110- 20110 -201 B I Richfield 1' -- 1 -- i -- I (no restrictions in 1988 Robbinsdale *I ( I I I Shorewood *i I I I I Spring Lake Park JFair 130- 40110 -201A C11st week good but decreased St. Francis IExce1110 -20110 -201 B JJune /July high - August dropped St. Louis Park *1 1 1 1 1 Stillwater lExcell30 -40110 -201 B I Wayzata lExcell30- 40120 -301 B I White Bear Lake *1 1 1 1 1 Woodbury lExcell20- 30110 -201 B I Poor (had little impact on ability to meet demand) Fair (had some impact, but still had substantial problems meeting demand) Good (for the most part, restrictions worked well) Excellent (we were able to meet the demands without problems) A - Lawn & garden sprinkling ban for all water users daily B - Odd /even ban on lawn & garden sprinkling for entire 24 hour day C - Odd -even ban on lawn & garden sprinkling for specified hours Minneapolis - The ban spead water usage - 2 -8pm gave us time to replenish towers Demand for total consumption was nearly as great as possible, but peak demand days and times were spread out better * No response 5. (CONTINUED) PREVIOUS RESTRICTIONS Comments regarding previous restrictions - What type was used previously, what are you using now, and why did you change Comments Anoka Apple Valley Blaine 1st odd /even had too many violators; went to total ban Bloomington Brooklyn Park Burnsville Champlin Chanhassen Coon Rapids Cottage Grove Eagan 1988 - emergency basis; 1989 -will schedule restrictions Eden Prairie Same plan Edina Hopkins Maplewood Minneapolis Same plan Minnetonka Same plan Minnetonka Beach Odd /even only New Brighton North St. Paul Oakdale Plymouth Odd /even to total - not effective enough Prior. Lake Richfield Robbinsdale Shorewood Spring Lake Park St. Francis St. Louis Park Stillwater Wayzata White Bear Lake Woodbury 5. (CONTINUED) RECORD KEEPING SYSTEM Type - System used to track consumption Total Daily Usage - Accuracy of system in recording daily usage totals Peak Demand Usage - Accuracy of system in recording peak demand usage Specific Effects - Level of confidence in the ability of our system to sort out variables and identify the effect of restrictions A B C D Comments Anoka IMan 1 2 1 3 2 1 Apple Valley IMan 1 1 1 2 2 1 Blaine IMan 1 1 1 3 1 2 Bloomington Brooklyn Park Burnsville Champlin IMan 1 1 1 1 1 2 Chanhassen Coon Rapids Cottage Grove 1 1 3 1 3 1 ono hourly records Eagan lAutol 1 1 1 1 2 1 Eden Prairie IMan 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 Edina Hopkins Maplewood Minneapolis IMan 1 2 1 1 1 3 Minnetonka IMan 1 2 1 4 1 1 Minnetonka Beach jAutoj 2 1 2 1 2 New Brighton * North St. Paul IMan ( 1 ( 4 1 2 Oakdale * Plymouth IMan 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Prior Lake IMan 1 2 1 2 ( 2 Richfield - -- - - ( - ono restrictions in 1988 Robbinsdale * Shorewood * Spring Lake Park Man 4 1 4 1 3 1 St. Francis IMan 1 1 1 2 1 2 IC =daily reports only St. Louis Park * I ( I Stillwater IMan ( 1 1 2 1 2 1 Wayzata IMan ( 1 1 2 1 2 1 White Bear Lake * Woodbury (Autos 1 1 1 1 2 1 A Type: Manual, Automated (with SCADA or other system), Other B - Total Daily Usage: 1 — Detailed and accurate, 2 — Good, 3 — Fair, 4 — Poor or non - existent C - Peak Demand Usage: 1 = Detailed and accurate, 2 = Good, 3 — Fair, 4 — Poor or non - existent D - Specific Effect confidence: 1 — High, 2 — Good, 3 — Fair, 4 — Poor * No response 6. FORMALITY OF PLAN Level of formality to which your contingency plan has developed: A B C D Comments Anoka X Apple Valley X Blaine X Bloomington * ( E Brooklyn Park Burnsville Champlin X Chanhassen Coon Rapids Cottage Grove X Eagan ( X Eden Prairie X Edina Hopkins Maplewood * f Minneapolis ( X Minnetonka I X I lemergency ban called by city manager Minnetonka Beach X New Brighton North St. Paul X Oakdale Plymouth X Prior Lake I lbrief guidelines adopted as city code Richfield - - - - Ino restrictions in 1988 Robbinsdale Shorewood Spring Lake Park X St. Francis X St. Louis Park Stillwater ( X Wayzata I I X White Bear Lake Woodbury I X A - Nothing on paper, decisions made on an as- needed basis B - General guidelines developed and understood by staff, but not formalized for city council or public C - Fairly detailed plan in operation and semi - formalized D - Complete contingency plan in place and published * No response 7. CITIZEN REACTION TO RESTRICTIONS Description of citizen reactions to the system of restrictions used: A B C D E Comments Anoka 3 3 4 1 1 1 3 Apple Valley 1 3 2 3 1 3 3 Blaine 1 3 +1 3 +1 3 +1 1 1 3 Bloomington * Brooklyn Park * Burnsville * ( f Champlin ( 3 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 4 I many tattlers on private well Chanhassen * I I I I I I neighbors Coon Rapids * Cottage Grove 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 3 4 Eagan 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 4 I Many said "didn't know about it" Eden Prairie 1 3 1 1 1 -( 1 1 1 1 Edina Hopkins * �' Maplewood * ' Minneapolis 1 3 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 3 Minnetonka ( 2 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3- moderate compliance about private Minnetonka Beach ( 3 1 3 1 3 2 1 2 well ban New Brighton * North St. Paul 1 3 3 4 3 1 3 Oakdale * Plymouth 1 3 1 3 1 3 +1 3 1 2 +1 Prior Lake 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 4 Richfield ( - I - I - ( - I - ono restrictions in 1988 Robbinsdale * Shorewood * Spring Lake Park 1 1 2 1 2 1 4 St. Francis 1 3 3 4 1 3 1 4 St. Louis Park * Stillwater ( 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 Wayzata 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 4 White Bear Lake * Woodbury 1 4( 3 3 1 3 1 3 Type of Complaints Received A - Complaints /objections to the entire concept of use restrictions B - Complaints regarding details (wrong hours, not enough exemptions, etc.) C - Objections to the type of restrictions we used (they wanted us to use another type of system) D - Neighbors reporting violations by others E - Comments that restrictions were not strict enough (city should take stronger meausres to develop a water conservation program) Number of Complaints Received 1 - Many 2 - Moderate 3 - Few 4 - None No response 8. FUTURE PLANS Indicate whether you believe the contingency plan used was effective .(OK) or will be revised in the future, if needed: OK Comments Anoka X Apple Valley X Blaine X Bloomington Brooklyn Park Burnsville Champlin X I Chanhassen Coon Rapids Cottage Grove X no plans to revise - works well Eagan not satisfied - will fine tune next year Eden Prairie plan to fine tune & update ordinance to mandatory Edina * not voluntary compliance Hopkins Maplewood Minneapolis ( X Minnetonka X Minnetonka Beach X New Brighton North St. Paul X Oakdale Plymouth X Prior Lake X Richfield - no restrictions in 1988 Robbi nsdale Shorewood Spring Lake Park X St. Francis X St. Louis Park Stillwater X Wayzata X White Bear Lake Woodbury X * No response 8. (CONTINUED) WATER SUPPLY CAPACITY Because of recent experience we will probably be increasing our water supply capacity. If so, our goal is to: A B C Comments Anoka X also adding a well in 1989 Apple Valley X Blaine X Bloomington Brooklyn Park Burnsville Champlin X Chanhassen Coon Rapids Cottage Grove expand as need arises Eagan X I Eden Prairie X Edina Hopkins Maplewood Minneapolis examing potential on 2nd water source Minnetonka X Minnetonka Beach X New Brighton North St. Paul X Oakdale Plymouth X Prior Lake Richfield - - - no restrictions in 1988 Robbinsdale Shorewood Spring Lake Park ( supply is sufficient St. Francis X St. Louis Park Stillwater X Wayzata X White Bear Lake * Woodbury meet community growth with current restrictions Water Supply Goals: A - be able to meet any demand without restrictions B - meet "normal year" demands without restrictions, but plan to use restrictions again in future drought years (like 1988 or worse) C - develop a plan which incorporates an agressive water conservation program No response CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF I:BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 r TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Public Utility Supervisors /Superintendents /City Engineers/ Public Works Directors FROM: Sy Knapp, Brooklyn Center Director of Public Works DATE: February 22, 1989 RE: Survey of Water Use Restrictions /Contingency Plans During the drought period of 1988, the City of Brooklyn Center imposed water use restrictions (i.e., a complete ban on lawn and garden sprinkling between 3 p.m. and 9 p.m. daily) on all water users. While we found these restrictions to be effective, we received a number of complaints regarding them. Accordingly, our City Council has asked that we conduct a survey of other cities to obtain information which might allow us to amend or fine -tune our restrictions, to improve our public information program, and to develop a more complete contingency plan for implementation and enforcement of the City's plan. Enclosed is a survey form which, while it covers 10 pages, can probably be answered in 10 to 15 minutes. If someone else in your organization is in a better position to respond, please pass this on to him or her. Please return it to me by March 3rd if at all possible. We will greatly appreciate your cooperation in answering this questionaire and returning it to me. If you wish to receive a copy of the completed summary just check that on the last page. We'll be happy to send you a copy in exchange for your participation. Yours very truly, Sy Director of Public Works CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SK: jn Please Return by March 3 1989 SURVEY OF WATER USE RESTRICTIONS /CONTINGENCY PLANS Response from the City of 1. Has your city imposed any type of water use restrictions during the past 2 years? Yes No If YES, please check and describe the type of restrictions imposed: lawn and garden sprinkling ban for ALL WATER USERS DAILY during a specified portion of the day (please specify hours): a.m, a.m. from p.m. to p.m. ODD -EVEN ban on lawn and garden sprinkling for entire 24 hour day ODD -EVEN ban on lawn and garden sprinkling for specified portions of the day (please specify hours): a.m. a.m. from p.m. to p.m. a COMBINATION of the above (please describe): OTHER (please describe): How long were your water use restrictions inplace during 1988? from to (date) (date) Return To: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 2. EXEMPTIONS FROM RESTRICTIONS Please check and describe the type of uses which are "exempt" from compliance with your general water use restrictions. private well supplies Describe and comment: "New sod" and /or "Newly Seeded" yards Describe and comment: Trees, shrubs or gardens, etc. Describe and comment: Fund raiser car washes, etc. Washing cars on private property on driveway or on lawns — g P P P Y� Y ) "Slip and Slide la _ play apparatus Describe and comment: Filling private swimming pools Describe and comment: OTHER Describe and comment: i 3. INFORMATIONAL PROGRAM Please check and describe the method(s) you used to inform your water users of the restrictions. PRESS RELEASES Describe and comment or send copy: "OFFICIAL AD" Describe and comment or send copy: HAND- DELIVERED NOTICES or HOSEBIB CARDS to all customers Describe and comment or send copy: MAILED NOTICES to all customers Describe and comment or send copy: _ Cable T.V. Notices and /or Talk Shows Describe and comment or send copy: Water Conservation HINTS, TIPS, etc. Describe and comment or send copy: Comments regarding effectiveness of various methods, etc.: 4. ENFORCEMENT Please describe the type of enforcement measures your city has used (or would use - if necessary) to enforce compliance with your restrictions.: WARNING NOTICES Describe and comment: VIOLATION NOTICES (not citations) Describe and comment: MISDEMEANOR CITATIONS Describe and comment: SHUT OFF WATER SERVICE to violator(s) Describe and comment: OTHER Describe and comment: 5. EFFECTIVENESS OF RESTRICTIONS A. GENERALLY: How well did the restrictions you imposed accomplish their functional objective? Poorly (had little impact on our ability to meet the demand) Fair (had some impact, but city still had substantial problems in meeting demand) Good (for the most part, the restrictions worked well, allowing city to meet demands) Excellent (we were able to meet the demands without problems) B. PEAK DEMAND: How effective were your restrictions in reducing peak demand periods (from what you think they would have been without restrictions)? 0% to 10% reduction in peak usage 10% to 20% reduction in peak usage 20% to 30% reduction in peak usage 30% to 40% reduction in peak usage more than 40% reduction in peak usage OR OTHER (define effectiveness in your own terms): Comments regarding effect on peak demand: C. TOTAL CONSUMPTION: What effect did your restrictions have on total consumption for June -July- August (from what you think the total consumption for this period would have been without restrictions)? 0% to 10% reduction in total consumption 10% to 20% reduction in total consumption 20% to 30% reduction in total consumption 30% to 40% reduction in total consumption more than 40% reduction in total consumption OR OTHER (define effect on that consumption in your own terms: Comments regarding effect on total consumption: D. PREVIOUS RESTRICTIONS: If you previously used a different plan for water -use restrictions than you now use: What type of plan did you have ? Why did you change from that plan to your current plan? s E. AVAILABILITY OF DETAILED CONSUMPTION RECORDS: Please define your record - keeping system. Records are kept: Manually Automated (with SCADA or other automated system) Other (describe): Regarding total daily consumption, our records are: Detailed and accurate Good Fair Poor or non - existent Regarding peak demand period usage (hourly or instantaneously), our records are: Detailed and accurate _ Good Fair Poor or non - existent Regarding our ability to identify the specific effect of water use restrictions (after sorting out the effects of other variables) we have the following level of confidence: High Good Fair Poor 6. FORMALITY OF PLAN Please indicate the level of formality to which your contingency plan has developed. Nothing on paper - decisions made on an as- needed basis General guidelinees developed and understood by public utility staff, but not formalized for city council or public Fairly detailed plan in operation and semi - formalized Complete contingency plan in place and published OR OTHER (describe): Copy Enclosed 7. CITIZEN REACTION TO RESTRICTIONS Please describe citizen reaction to the system of restrictions you use. (Check all as appropriate.) Number of Complaints or Objections Man Moderate rate Few None Complaints /objections to the entire concept of use restrictions Complaints regarding details ( "wrong hours ", not enough exemptions, etc.) Objections to the type of restrictions we used (i.e., they wanted us to use another type of system) Neighbors reporting violations by others Comments that restrictions were not strict enough (i.e., city should be take stronger measures to develop a water conservation program) Other (describe) a' 8. FUTURE PLANS Please check and describe (one or more), as appropriate. We believe our contingency plan is effective, and have no plans to change the type of restrictions we will use, if necessary, in the future. We have not found our contingency plan to be as effective as it needs to be. Accordingly, we are: planning to fine tune the basic plan we now have. changing to a different type of restrictions (describe) OTHER (describe) Because of recent experience (the 1988 drought and /or increased demand) we will probably be increasing our water supply capacity. If so, our goal is to: be able to meet any demand without restrictions. meet "normal year" demands without restrictions, but plan to use restrictions again in future drought years (like 1988 or worse). develop a plan which incorporates an aggressive water conservation program. OTHER (describe) 9. I would like to receive a copy of the summary of replies received from this survey. _ Yes No By Name Title City Telephone No. �k•.� ksP•� � ka x�: �x k�: xstixx k�Yx•� x k�'c k�; ��;c k kx kx•.�-.: ��-.� k k•� x � �xx kx-kx -k kx k-k kxxx :cx-� x� kxkx k�x�': •.t-�: x ^.��Yx RETURN T0: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 5/22/89 Agenda Item Number `,:� d— REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STORAGE OF COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached As you will recall, Councilmember Pedlar, approximately two months ago, raised the question as to whether or not the council might want to reconsider the ordinance regulating the Arkin of i 9 9 parking commercial r e cial type vehicles in residential areas which is to become effective on Jun 1 1 June 989. The council discussed the potential reconsideration and asked that the staff prepare materials for Councilmembers Pedlar and Paulson to review which would background them on the council's previous consideration of this matter. The materials were given to Councilmembers Pedlar n a d Paulson, and Councilmember Pedlar asked that this item be placed on the agenda for consideration. Attached please find a copy of the ordinance which will become effective on June 1, 1989, a copy of a staff report on the matter when it was originally considered, and copy of the results of the recent community survey relating to this question. RECOMMENDATION It is the staff's recommendation the city council not modify the regulation of commercial vehicles in residential zones as it was the result of an extensive consideration, and it has a basic rationale which encourages the separation of commercial activity from residential areas. This type of regulation appears to also have community support based on the recent community survey results. • g4 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 17th day of November , 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at the City hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Nuisance Ordinance by declaring the parking of certain vehicles in residential zoning districts a public nuisance. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. 88-20 AN ORDINANCE APiEPbDIidG CHAPTER 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES BY DECLARING THE PARKING OF CERTAIN VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS A PUBLIC NUISANCE Section 1. Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended as follows: Section 19 -103. PUBLIC NUISANCES FURTHER DEFINED. It is hereby declared to be a nuisance to permit, maintain, or harbor any of the following: 12. The parking and /or storage of construction equipment, farm vehicles and equipment, or a commercial vehicle with a length greater than 21 feet, or a height greater than 8 feet, or a gross vehicle weight greater than 9, 000 pounds, continuously for more than two hours on any property within a residential zoning district or being lawfully used for residential _ — purposes or on any public street adjacent to such properties. Such equipment and vehicles shall include, but are not limited to, the following: dump trucks, construction trailers, back hoes, front -end loaders, bobcats, well drilling equipment, farm trucks, combines, thrashers, tractors, tow trucks, truck - tractors, step vans, cube vans and the like. The prohibitions of this subdivision shall not apply to the following: a) Any equipment or vehicle described above being used by a public utility, governmental agency, construction company, moving company or similar company which is actually being used to service a residence not belonging to or occupied by the operator of the vehicle. — — b) Any equipment or vehicle described above which is actually making a pickup or delivery at the location where it is parked. Parking for any period of time beyond the time reasonably necessary to make such a pickup or delivery and in excess of the two hour limit shall be unlawful C) Any equipment or vehicle exceeding the above described length, height or weight limitations, but which is classified as recreation equipment as specified in Minnesota Statutes 168.011, Subdivision 25. — ORDINANCE 110. 88 -20 d) Any equipment or vehicle described above which is parked or stored on property zoned residential and being lawfully used as a church, school, cemetery, golf course, park, playground or publicly owned structure provided the equipment or vehicle is used by said use in the conduct of its normal affairs. — e) Any equipment or vehicle described above which is parked or stored on property which is zoned residential and the principal use is nonconforming within the meaning of Section 35 -111 of the City Ordinances, provided such parking or storage is not increased or . expanded after — rd — the effective date of this ordinance. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective June 1, 1989. Adopted this 5th day of December 1988, ATTEST Clerk Date of Publication November 17, 198 Effective Date - June 1, 1989 - (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter). CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 8 -th day of zuctzst 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Mall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the parking of commercial vehicles. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at _least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 - 54LO to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. 88 -21 AN ORDINANCE AMENDITiC CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE PARKING OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -700. OFF- STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Off- street parking and loading space shall be provided in all districts in accordance with the requirements of this ordinance. There shall be no off - street pnrlcing, storage of vehicles nor perimeter parking lot driveway within 15 feet of any street right -of- way and this 15 foot strip shall be planted and maintained as a green strip. In the case of C1 and C1A districts, there shall be no off - street parking nor perimeter parking lot driveway within 35 feet of any major thoroughfare right -of -way and this 35 foot strip shall be planted and maintained as a green strip. [Off- street parking in any residence district may include not more than one commercial vehicle of 25 feet or less in length per dwelling unit if used by the occupant of the premises for transportation to and from his job. It shall be parked off the street on a space adequate for its storage as set forth in this section.] Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective June 1, 1989 Adopted this , day of December , 1988. 4 r -, ATTEST: / Clerk Date of Publication July 21, 1988 Effective Date June 1, 1989 (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter). M & C No. 87 -12 June 17, 1987 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Report on Junk Car, Building Maintenance, and Other Nuisance Complaints -To the Honorable Mayor & City Council: Approximately two months ago the City Council asked me to review and survey the type of refuse, vehicle and unkept property complaints the City has been receiving. As a part of that process I was also asked to review our ordinances to see if staff would recommend any changes. I have reviewed the types of complaints and problems we have been having in these general areas over the last couple of years. The major sources of the complaints relate to the following items. The most prominent complaint we have, in terms of numbers at least, is the storage of vehicles. People complain about "junky looking vehicles" or vehicles stored in back yards or other locations on the property. We also receive a number of complaints about the maintenance of the grounds around these stored vehicles, and sometimes the vehicles are not cars, they are campers, boats, and various of other types of vehicles. It seems most of the complaints relate to the appearance of the situation. If the storage is neat, that is the vehicle is covered with a tarp and maintenance of the grounds around it are neat looking,. we tend not t-o get complaints. On the other hand if the maintenance around the stored vehicle and the vehicle itself looks like an eyesore, then we receive complaints about it. Sometimes the storage situation relates to a.home occupation problem. Sometimes someone is operating a wrecker out of his residence and bringing home junk cars, and occasionally will leave them stored on his own property or adjacent property. We also have problems with people who have repair of cars as a hobby, and we have complaints about storage of parts and storage of vehicles in repair. Another aspect of the complaints we receive relate to where the vehicle is stored. Some people do not object to vehicles, trailers, boats, etc. being stored in the back yard, but some have objection and complaint about side and front yard storage of these type of vehicles. Another aspect of the vehicle storage problem is the number of vehicles and the size of them. Some people have a problem with neighbors who store three, four, five, or six vehicles. We also have less complaints about the storage of vehicles if they are small in size. An example would be someone pulling a 14 foot M & C' No. 87 -12 -2- June 17 1987 fishing boat along the side of his house and storing it is one kind of situation. However, if someone stores a 20 plus foot cabin cruiser along the side of the house or in the front yard, that is more likely to produce complaints. The larger the item stored the more likely we are to receive complaints about it. The next most numerous complaints we receive relate to maintenance of property and grounds. It seems that some properties do not take as much care in the cutting of their grass and the trimming of it as most people in the neighborhood. As a result we will receive complaints about ill kept property. We .also at times receive complaints of lack of grass cover. This usually relates to the fact that someone is storing a piece of equipment or a vehicle on grass and, of course, if it stays there long enough the existing ground cover dies, and it doesn't look as good as the rest of the yard. The next most received complaint of this type is the storage of what most people perceive as "junk." This type of storage is usually behind the house or in the side yard or along a fence. It is usually some type of building material that some people would classify as junk and others would classify as usable or collectible. However, the manner and possibly the location of its storage can give the property a "junky look." This type of storage also produces complaints. As a part of the review of these type of complaints yp and the handling of them, I reviewed the administrative process used by various City departments and which departments within the City organization enforced what ordinances. I found that the enforcement of various aspects of these complaints fell among the following departments: Police, Planning and Inspections, Health Department, Weed Inspection; and the Fire Department. The only time the Fire Department becomes involved is when a fire hazard is apparent and it relates only to fire code enforcement. This represents a very small percentage of the complaints and problems we have in this area. The Police Department, because it supervises the code enforcement officers who enforce a number of our ordinances in the evening and on weekends, becomes involved in such things as junk cars, some junk storage complaints, parking of vehicles, and delivery and serving of notices for other departments. The primary function of the Police Department in these complaint areas relates to the storage of junk or inoperable vehicles. In the spring and the fall the code enforcement officers have a program of systematically driving all the streets in the community and from the street ascertaining whether there are improperly stored vehicles. In the other months of the year most of our work in the area of enforcing the junk vehicle storage ordinances relates to receiving complaints or on routine patrol if they happen to observe an improperly stored vehicle. M & C'No. 87 -12 -3- June 17, 1987 The Health Department enforcement activity generally covers the following areas: Improper storage of refuse or garbage; certain types of outside storage of materials that could create a harborage for rodents; the general area of health hazards; improper storage of junk and materials; and pollution areas such as water, air and noise. Most of their activity is initiated by citizen or City employee complaint, or if they happen to notice a violation during their routine inspections. The Planning and Inspections Department is involved in the following enforcement areas: Building code and new building construction; building maintenance code violations (housing maintenance ordinance); parking of vehicles as per zoning ordinance requirements; commercial uses in residentially zoned areas; off - street parking requirements; boulevard parking requirements; storage of cars and vehicles; and the sale of used vehicles in residential areas. Because our building inspectors are out in the community a significant percentage of their time, they frequently encounter these type of code violations. As you can see by a description of the various enforcement areas handled by individual City departments, there is, indeed, considerable overlap and the opportunity for redundancy and confusion. However, to date this has been the most economical way of handling the enforcement of these regulations because basically we are using existing enforcement personnel and departmental structures. Our process of enforcement is consistent among the departments. Generally speaking, if there is no prior history of problems with a particular property, an oral notice and /or written notice or letter, noting the type of violation at a given location, is given to the ro ert owner. A minimum number of days P Y ys is iven to correct the situation. period This time p iod varies with the type of problem encountered. If after receiving the letter or notice of violation a property owner does not conform to the ordinance and correct the situation, we will most likely issue a tag after additional attempts to work out the problem. There are very few situations where multiple tags are issued. Most all of the problems are taken care of after a notice or letter of violation of a given ordinance has been given to a property owner. We estimate that 90% plus of the violations are handled without consternation at the notice level. If someone has not heeded a notice and a tag is issued, that usually takes care of most of the remaining g problems, and we usually et code y g compliance. If tagging the gg g property owner and paying a fine still has not corrected the ordinance violation, the City Attorney will issue a formal complaint. A formal complaint is basically the same as a tag except it does require the property owner in violation to appear in court. If this step does not solve the problem, there are very infrequent occasions when we, through the City Attorney's office, seek a restraining order in District Court to correct an ordinance violation. * Senior couples 4 ' * Precinct 1 residents These findings suggest that the City should prioritize the s Lynbrook Bowl Area for any development incentive money and rely upon other means, at resent in the 69th-Brooklyn Boulevard P y Area. A successful rejuvenation of the former area might, in fact, increase overall support for the more creative use of development incentives, in general. Oversized Vehicles Brooklyn Center interviewees were asked their opinions about an ordinance and proposal dealing with oversized vehicles in residential areas. The first centered on the problem of commercial vehicles parked on residential streets; the second, with recreational -type vehicles stored on private property. The public erceives a great difference P g in these two situations. First, it was explained and queried: In the Summer of 1989, the City will prohibit the parking of commercial .= vehicles over 21 feet long in residen- tial areas. Do you support or oppose this new ordinance? And do you feel strongly g Y that way? A three -to -one majority favored the ordinance: STRONGLY SUPPORT ..........................38% SUPPORT .........................33% OPPOSE ..................... ..... ......10% STRONGLY OPPOSE ...........................14 DON'T KNOW/ REFUSED .........................5% Groups even stronger in their approval: * Less than one year and 6 -10 year residents * Seniors " * 18 -24 year olds 81 * Professional /Technical and Owner /Manager households * Under $12,500 & $50,000 - $62,500 yearly income households * Precinct 8 residents Groups more strongly opposed: * 45 -54 year olds * Precincts 1, 5, 7 & 9 residents Implementation of this ordinance will be greeted with a wave of relief by the great majority of householders. However, a different picture emerges on a related problem: Would you support or oppose the prohi- bition of the storage of large recrea- tional vehicles, campers, and boats on residential property in Brooklyn Center? And do you feel strongly that way? A two -to -one majority opposes this proposal: STRONGLY SUPPORT ............. .13% . . SUPPORT ...................... ......... . . ..........17% • OPPOSE.. .29% STRONGLY OPPOSE.. .35% DON'T KNOW/ REFUSED .........................6% The voter intensity also is stronger on the opposition side of the question. Groups more in favor included: * Professional /Technical households * Precincts 4, 8 & 9 residents Groups much more opposed: * Less than one year residents * Precincts 1, 5 & 7 residents Until residents see this issue as a serious problem warranting action, the City would be best advised to forego action on the proper storage of recreational -type vehicles. Group Homes The issue of group ome siting g is a highly explosive one in 82 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Dean A. Nyquist, Mayor DATE: May 22, 1989 SUBJECT: Appointment - Council Vacancy We have the issue of appointment of a person to fill the council vacancy. We need to do it at the May 22nd council meeting (or a special council meeting) in order to accomplish it within the 30 day time limit. I would hope that we can get a unanimous vote. I'm, therefore, suggesting that we adopt a process before taking the official vote on the resolution. I would hope that we can get a unanimous vote; although, I'm not sure that we can require that in view of our charter which requires only a majority. I'm therefore suggesting the following procedure: 1. Council members discuss appointment criteria and the three applicants. 2. Preliminary unofficial roll call vote in which we indicate our first and second choice. First choice will be allocated 2 points and the second choice 1 point. The applicant with the fewest number of votes would be dropped from further consideration. The next unofficial ballot will involve a vote on the remaining 2 applicants. 1. If there is a unanimous consensus, proceed to adopting resolution. 2. If there is a majority (3 -1) take a third ballot to give the dissenting vote the opportunity to change or abstain. 3. Proceed to adopting resolution. 4. If there is a 2 -2 tie under item 2, then subsequent ballots will be taken to obtain a majority or unanimous vote. A maximum of ballots will be taken. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO FILL THE VACANCY ON THE COUNCIL CREATED BY THE RESIGNATION OF COUNCILMEMBER GENE LHOTKA WHEREAS, Gene Lhotka has been a member of the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center since January 3, 1977; and WHEREAS, Councilmember Lhotka was last elected at the regular election in 1986 to serve a four -year term until his replacement was elected and qualified in accordance with City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly received the resignation of Councilmember Lhotka effective April 30, 1989; and WHEREAS, a vacancy on the Council exists by reason of said resignation and has existed since May 1, 1989; and WHEREAS, there will not be an intervening general election between the date of this resolution and the end of the unexpired term of Councilmember Lhotka; and WHEREAS, under these circumstances, Section 2.05 of the City Charter rter authorizes the City ouncil to fill the vacancy y on the Council, within 30 days of the occurrence of the vacancy, for the remainder of the unexpired term of the resigning council member by a majority vote of all of its remaining members; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered various candidates for appointment to the City Council to fill such vacancy and has determined that the appointee named below is well qualified to serve as council member of the City and that such appointment is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1 • is hereby appointed as council member on the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to fill the vacancy on the Council created by the resignation of Gene Lhotka, said appointee to serve in said position for the remainder of the unexpired term of former Councilmember Lhotka. 2. This appointment pp intment is effective immediately, provided that the appointee may not enter upon the appointee's official duties or transact any of the business or exercise any of the privileges of said office until the appointee has taken the oath of office required by Minnesota Constitution Article V, Section 6 and Minnesota Statutes Section 358.05. 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. N Licenses to be approved by the City Council on May 22, 1989: AMUSEMENT DEVICE - OPERATOR r United Artists Theatre 5810 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. E ief of Police AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR } B & K Music & Sales 133 Spring Valley Circle r t ief of Police COMMERCIAL KENNEL Childrens Palace 5900 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. Sanitarian FOOD ESTABLISHMENT T Leeann Chin, Inc. 6800 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. t Sanitarian ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Lioness Central Park Betsy Medley Earle Brown Days Parade PT Donuts Earle Brown Days Parade Sanitarian 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. r J. K. Heating Company 1286 Hudson Road Wencl Services, Inc. 5325 West 74th St. Building Official MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Brookdale Ford, Inc. 2500 Co. Rd. 10 Bob Ryan Oldsmobile 6700 Brooklyn Blvd. City Clerk RENTAL DWELLING Initial: Gerald L. McGuire The Village at River West Patricia Doughty 5301 James Ave. N. 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.