Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988 10-24 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 0 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER OCTOBER 24, 1988 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. Hennepin County Community Health Department 7. Recess to EDA meeting 8. Final Plat Approval: *a. Earle Brown Farm Estates Sixth Addition 9. Resolutions: *a. Establishing Water System Improvement Project No. 1988- 23, Accepting Proposal and Approving Contract (Well Reconditioning, Well No. 8) -Well No. 8 is located at Camden Avenue North and Woodbine Lane. b. Establishing Water System Improvement Project No. 1988- 22, Accepting Proposal and Approving Contract (Well Reconditioning, Well Nos. 2 and 3 -Well No. 2 is located at Brooklyn Boulevard and 63rd Avenue North. Well No. 3 is located at 69th Avenue North and Dupont Avenue North. c. Appropriating Funds and Authorizing Purchase of Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) Work Station - Ultimap work station. d. Amending the 1988 General Fund Budget and Authorizing the Contribution of $2,000 to the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- October 24, 1988 e. Authorizing the City of Brooklyn Center to Act as Contractor for a Grant and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement -Crime Prevention Grant from Department of Public Safety. f. Accepting Proposal to Construct Sidewalk on West Side of Humboldt Avenue North from 69th Avenue North to Approximately 180 Feet South (Project No. 1988 -17) 10. Planning Commission Items: (7:30 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 88012 submitted by Dean Arnott requesting special use permit approval to conduct a psychological counseling business in the basement of the residence at 3313 O'Henry Road -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September 8, 1988, meeting. The City Council tabled consideration of this item at its September 19, 1988, meeting. b. Planning Commission Application No. 88017 submitted by Ronald Schnoor requesting special use permit approval to rent trucks at the Brooklyn Service Center at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September 22, 1988, meeting. 11. Ordinances: a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Parking of Commercial Vehicles -This item was first read on July 11, 1988, published in the City's official newspaper on July 21, 1988, and was offered for a second reading on August 8, 1988. The public hearing was opened on August 8, 1988, tabled to the September 19, 1988, meeting, and then tabled indefinitely. This item requires a 4 /5ths vote by the Council. b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring the Parking of Certain Vehicles in Residential Zoning Districts a Public Nuisance -This item was first read on July 11, 1988, published in the City's official newspaper on July 21, 1988, and was offered for a second reading on August 8, 1988. The public hearing was opened on August 8, 1988, tabled to the September 19, 1988, meeting, and then tabled indefinitely. C. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Requirements for Special Home - Occupations Involving the Parking of Certain Vehicles -This item is offered this evening for a first reading. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- October 24, 1988 12. Discussion Item: a. MNDOT Funding for Turnback Improvements to West River Road (Old T.H. 252) from 66th Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North *13. Licenses 14. Adjournment CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/224/88 Agenda Item Number O �/ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES SIXTH ADDITION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *,* *R *** O R *OF PUBLIC WORT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Explanation ® Mr. L. A. Beisner, representative of Shingle Creek Land Company, has applied to the City Council to approve the final plat of Earle Brown Farm Estates Sixth Addition. The property in question is bounded on the northeast by Shingle Creek Parkway, on the southeast by Xerxes Avenue North, and on the southwest and west by Freeway Boulevard. The purpose of the subdivision is to create a 1.2 acre parcel for the development of a two -story office site. Conditions adopted for the preliminary plat by the City Council at its October 10, 1988 meeting are as follows: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinance. ' 3. The owner of the property shall enter into a subdivision agreement prior to final plat approval to cover at least the following items: a. water hookup charges b. existing and pending special assessments c. necessary storm water detention facilities 4. The drainage plan for the plat shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to final plat approval. Conditions 1, 2, and 4 have been met. Recommendation • Accordingly we recommend approval of the final plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Receipt of title opinion from the City Attorney confirming the appropriate parties responsible for signing the plat. 2. The developer shall pay all attorney fees incurred in the review of the final plat prior to release of the final plat for filing at the county. 3. The applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement to cover at least the following items: a. water hookup charges b. existing and pending special assessments C. necessary storm water detention facilities • EARLE BROWN FARM- ESTATES C IO N Lxhibi �. � ��i ADDITIO SIXTH GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 50 100 200 300 BEARINGS ARE BASED ON AN ASSUMED DATU Denotes Iron Monument e • /NOM 't �` \ • l . II • v \ 624 BS s Z � :e r, B L 0 C" 1 �_.. ; � o O. <ro4s .y a � f � :: `� }� . e c A �. y' �� , P a � \ADO � �1 fy +.r?b���1 � ,'� -�.Mef'ee °e V,' '• �`4 / . N6S. 2 /_Q o ..Nm•ao'se'N { 61,x( F CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10; 24188 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -23, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND APPROVING CONTRACT (WELL RECONDITIONING, WELL NO. 8) DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy KNPPP RECTOR OF PUBLIC WOR MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation On October 10, 1988, City Council was given the attached report prepared by the City Engineer related to emergency repairs made to Well No. 8 (located at 7230 Camden Avenue North). In accordance with the report, we have now completed Phase I construction. Approximately 37.5 cubic yards of cement grout was pumped into Well No. 8. All indications are that our preliminary analysis was correct, and that completion of the work as described in that report will provide a permanent solution to the problems which have recurred during the past 4 years. Accordingly, we prepared specifications and received proposals for the Phase II work as outlined for City Council October 10, 1988. The City has received three proposals for the work which will consist of the following: 1,. The grout seal will be drilled through to the top of the obstruction at approximately the 246 foot level. 2. The obstruction will be drilled and bailed out to the bottom of the well at the 316 foot level. 3. The well will be televised to verify the success of the cleaning and bailing operation. 4. The pump will be reinstalled and the well will be test pumped to verify its rated capacity and the well will be returned to service. Recommendation Adopt the attached Resolution Establishing Water System Improvement Project No. 1988 -23 Accepting Proposal and Approving Contract (Well Reconditioning, Well No. 8). q0' Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -23, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND APPROVING CONTRACT (WELL RECONDITIONING, WELL NO. 8) WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported on emergency repairs required for Well No. 8, located at 7230 Camden Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the Phase I work of installing a grouted seal and casing support have been completed under an emergency contract with Layne Minnesota Co., at a total cost of $14,631.25; and WHEREAS, the Phase II work of drilling the seal and cleaning the open hole must be completed; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared specifications and received the following proposals for the reconditioning of Well No. 8: Bidder Bid Amount Layne Minnesota Co, $11,290.00 Keys Well Drilling Co. 19 370.00 Bergerson - Caswell Inc. 28,150.00 WHEREAS, the ro osal of P p Layne Minnesota Co, in the amount of $11,290.00 is the lowest responsible proposal received and the City Engineer has recommended that a contract be awarded to said firm in that amount. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The following project is hereby established: WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -23 WELL RECONDITIONING, WELL NO. 8.. 2. Payment to Layne Minnesota Co. in the amount of $14,631.25 for work and materials used in the completion of Phase I is hereby approved. 3. The proposal of Layne Minnesota Co. in the amount of $11,290.00 for Phase II work is hereby accepted. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said firm in that amount. 4. Payment for all work completed under both phases of this project shall be charged to the Public Utility Fund. RESOLUTION N0, Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. TO: Sy Knapp Director of Public Works FROM: H. R. Spurrier City Engineer DATE: October 6, 1988 RE: Emergency Repairs to Well No. 8 (Located at Camden Avenue and Woodbine Lane) Repairs to Well No. 8 are again needed as a result of a reoccurring problem with blockage of the water producing aquifer at Well No. 8. A history of these problems is detailed below. 1977 - Well No. 8 is constructed and placed in service. Exhibit 1 illustrates the normal conditions expected at this well and at other wells when they are developed. (Total Cost $244,619.51) March, 1979 - The quarterly inspection of the well revealed deterioration of the side walls of the "open hole ". A restriction had blocked 40 percent of the well capacity. A contract to remove the restriction was authorized, the restriction was removed and the well was returned to service in August, 1979. (Total Cost $20,955.70) January, 1985 - During the scheduled reconditioning (e.g. every 6 -7 years, the pump is removed and the pump and well get a complete overhaul) an obstruction was found in the "open hole" of the well, blocking the bottom of the hole resulting in a potential loss of capacity and a danger of pumping sand. Under Improvement Project No. 1985 -01, the obstruction was removed and the well was returned to service in May, 1985. (Total Cost $18,501.25) June, 1987 - During the quarterly inspection of the well, another obstruction (see Exhibit 2) was discovered in approximately the same position as the 1985 blockage. We concluded that it was the same ledge that had obstructed the "open hole" in 1985. Under Improvement Project No. 1987 -17, emergency repairs were made, removing what appeared to be the ledge, and the well was returned to service in August, 1987. (Total Cost $16,322) January, 1988 - The pumping capacity of Well No. 8 dropped substantially. The pump was removed and inspected. The pump was damaged. It appeared to be damage caused by pumping sand. The pump could not be reconditioned. At this time the "open hole" was filled in to the 287 foot level. No work removing sand was needed. Accordingly, the pump was replaced and reinstalled. The well was returned to service in June, 1988. (Total Cost $4,949.00) August, 1988 - The quarterly inspection on August 4, 1988, found an obstruction at the 244 foot level, approximately three to four feet below the end of the casing. The well was monitored for sand and remained available for stand -by service until September 26, when the well was taken out of service. The pump was removed and the well was televised on October 3, 1988. The T.V. camera revealed an obstruction that filled the well to the 244 foot level. On the basis of our current televised observations, we now believe that the 1985 and 1987 obstructions were fragments which dropped from the ceiling of a cavity around the casing (see Exhibit 3) rather than the "moving ledge" which we previously believed to be the obstruction. From available evidence, it appears that those fragments had dropped to a point in the "open hole" where the diameter of the "open hole" narrowed (i.e. the 256 foot level). Today the fragments have apparently filled the "open hole" to the 247 foot level. Based on the appearance of these fragments, they have come from the ceiling of a cavity around the casing pipe (see Exhibit 3). We asked Charles Alberg, Layne Minnesota, (the well drilling company used by the City in 1985 and the company which conducted our current T.V. inspection of the well) how to prevent the fragments from dropping into the "open hole ". Mr. Alberg recommended sealing the area by pumping grout into the void at the base of the casing pipe and creating a bridge that would keep fragments from dropping into the "open hole" (see Exhibits 4 & 5). Accordingly, we have separated the repair into two phases. The first phase would consist of the following work and is intended to corroborate our current diagnosis before proceeding with Phase II work. PHASE I Install Grouted Seal and Support 1. The obstruction will be drilled to confirm that the entire "open hole" is filled with sand so the grouting operation does not plug the water bearing aquifer. 2. A grouting pipe will be installed and sealed in the casing. 3. The casing will be pressure grouted to support the ceiling of the chamber around the casing. This "Phase I" work (see Exhibit 4) is being performed on an emergency time and material basis. It is estimated to involve approximately eight working days at $950 per day ($7600) and the material (the cement grout) is estimated to cost approximately $2000. The total cost is estimated at $9600. After the Phase I work detailed above has been completed, we would prepare proposals for Phase II work (see Exhibit 5). At this point we believe the Phase II work will consist of the following: PHASE II Drill Seal and Clean "Open Hole" 1. The grout seal would be drilled through to the top of the obstruction at the 246 foot level. 2. The obstruction would then be drilled and bailed out to the bottom of the well at the 316 foot level. 3. The well would be test pumped to verify its rated capacity. 4. The pump would be reinstalled and the well would be returned to service. There is no absolute guarantee that the proposed repair will completely correct all of these problems. We are satisfied that it is the best way to prevent rock fragments from filling and blocking the "open hole ". Therefore, we are proceeding with the Phase I work as outlined above, and expect that this work will be completed by approximately October 15, 1988. If after completion of the Phase I work our current diagnosis remains essentially the same as it is now, we should be able to obtain proposals for Phase II work and to submit those proposals to the City Council for their consideration at the October 24 meeting. We now estimate that the Phase II work would cost less than $15,000.00. The work done during Phase I may lead to a different diagnosis of the problem, which is why we have separated the work into two phases. If we must take some other measures, we will outline the work required at the October 24, 1988 meeting. While these costs are substantial, they are small in comparison to the cost of a new well (estimated at $650,000). We believe we have identified the source of the problem experienced at Well No. 8 and we believe that the chances of success are substantially greater than 95 percent. Casl�q �� ZZ . / o b✓Q� /s o{. o ?ei-1 tioie cc;-) fie i�f"e'%u /c�v� qnd mop/ c7 S r' i`�+r /e cic� c: in 1iti� I/ /� ✓o, Sct n c�s�for�e Shale 3 �� _EXHIBIT 1 skf� +'C,< � �:�:1 r:; what' vle, bak "oe Cgs;r�q L�r» es f ohe 227 �i I ' SQ hc/ST0%1E. • 7Ile EXHIBIT 2 EXI2 -7 V, CoNi, T /Dr.l. ,z;pfh Li.r,�esfohe Z Z 7 Cei�i�J o� cavity Saud s�� 3116, 311 EXHIBIT 3 eAl at,93 L -, 7 r'7�iQ:w Casio Li.�esfo�e �� . Z27 Wil�7 h o�-04 hoL is -ril/ed sands e 3/r 31� S h cl /e. EXHIBIT 4 ov -)A&3 CQS /r14 Liir�es�ohe Z27 z5� , Teri // txaie ©u7' Sa h vQ� rl Ct 1 eoUC - �Yd crnef � f5 . EXHIBIT 5 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/24/88 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -22, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND APPROVING CONTRACT (WELL RECONDITIONING, WELLS NO. 2 AND 3) DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WOR MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation On a six to seven year rotating schedule we pull the deep well pump out of the well in each of the City's eight water supply wells in order to inspect the pump and the well. This year we inspected the pumps and wells at Well No. 2 (6242 Brooklyn Boulevard) and at Well No. 3 (6920 Dupont Avenue), in accordance with that schedule. The primary reason we have scheduled this maintenance at a six to seven year interval is because we expect the column to be in need of replacement. The column needs to be replaced because water has worn away the inside of the column. Suitable, economical linings are not available for this of pump and so column replacement is required to recondition the pump. Each pump was dismantled and given close inspection. On the basis of the inspection, it was necessary to recondition both of the pumps and replace the column and shaft that connect the pump to the motor (e.g. see attached detail of reconditioning work required for Deep Well Pump No. 2 and Deep Well Pump No. 3). Sometimes the reconditioning work includes the removal of sand that has sloughed into the bottom of the well. That work is not necessary with Well No. 2 nor with Well No. 3. These two wells are stable and have not accumulated enough sand to warrant mobilizing for its removal. After completing our inspection of the pump and well, we have prepared specifications for the completion of the work which needs to be completed, and we submitted those specifications, with a request for proposal to three reputable well drilling companies. The attached resolution tabulates the proposals which we received for this work. We recommend award of contracts to the low bidder for the work on each well. Recommendation I recommend City Council adopt the attached resolution Establishing Water System Improvement Project No. 1988 -22, Accepting Proposal and Approving Contract (Well Reconditioning, Wells No. 2 and 3). • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -22, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND APPROVING CONTRACT (WELL RECONDITIONING, WELLS NO. 2 AND 3) WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to City Council that it is necessary and in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, to recondition Wells No. 2 and 3; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared specifications and requests for proposals for the proposed work and has received the following proposals: WELL NO. 2 Bidder Bid Amount Keys Well Drilling Co. $5,200.00 Layne Minnesota Co. 5,206.50 Bergerson- Caswell Inc. 7,140.00 WELL N0. 3 Bidder Bid Amount Layne Minnesota Co. $ 9,358.00 Keys Well Drilling Co. 10,640.00 Bergerson - Caswell Inc. 12,706.00 WHEREAS, the proposal of Keys Well Drilling Co., of St. Paul, Minnesota, in the amount of $5,200.00 is the lowest responsible proposal received for the work in reconditioning Well No. 2 and the City Engineer has recommended that a contract be awarded to said firm in that amount; and WHEREAS, the proposal of Layne Minnesota Co. of Minneapolis, Minnesota, in the amount of $9,358.00 is the lowest responsible proposal received for the work in reconditioning Well No. 3 and the City Engineer has recommended that a contract be awarded to said firm in that amount. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The following project is hereby established: WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -22 WELL RECONDITIONING, WELLS NO. 2 AND 3 RESOLUTION N0, 2. The proposal of Keys Well Drilling Co., of St. Paul, Minnesota, in the amount of $5,200.00 for reconditioning Well No. 2 is hereby accepted. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said firm in that amount. 3. The proposal of Layne Minnesota Co., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, in the amount of $9,358.00 for reconditioning Well No. 3 is hereby accepted. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed into a contract with said firm in that amount. 4. Payment for work completed under the contracts above shall be charged to the Utility Fund. 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. -- DEEP WELL PUMP 2 OIL tNRrtItA IEO CONS I Rllf', i ION FFAIURFS r � � ^+ NAT[R.IVRRN:AIf,R ... � I E'ONSIRIN;IION FEATURES ` "� - -I � � � .I w.. «..� »«rte ....w� •..t -- I REPLACE °- - l` tIR IRAN trMyntwipnN 90 FT COLUMN 90 FT LINE SHAFT rNr l unnR;Artn TM• nowt r�r...,.>`: `• �a �./ � ..' - •�'a WAVER tIiRRN:ATEO IIN• Rowt I _ STANOARO ROWE .� __. STANOnnO ROWWt REPAIR PUMP U M P —. — cnnnallcrRlN - - DEEP WELL PUMP 3 Off. IUORICn I to CONS I RUC I ION t t,U URFS c =" W>trtR tuRmcAIm I CONStRUCInN ItAIURtS REPLACE _ �� ' ryN,IyN Ct1NS,RIN IfIN 180 FT COLUMN -r 180 FT LINESHAFT nI INRRW—tn TM nOWt tar now i STANnARn TIOWI A -04 / REPAIR PUMP - - - .. SI�NOMO @ONI cLxlstnlctntt LYr •• /� tin �T... ~� ww w w ..� pw ---� A �; CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 1 n /24 /8A Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF COMPUTER AIDED DRAFTING (CAD) WORK STATION *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP D` ECTO `OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation • During the past two years the City of Brooklyn Center, in cooperation with three other cities, has implemented the use of Hennepin County's Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) system known as the ULTIMAP system. To date that system has been installed for use at the LOGIS office, on a shared -time basis between the four cities. During this same time, two Engineering Technicians have retired from employment with the City, and only one new technician has been hired with the expectation that the ULTIMAP system would allow the City of provide the same level of service and to upgrade that level of service. Experience has shown that the required level of service cannot be provided using one technician and the ULTIMAP system on a shared -time basis. Staff Recommendation ' As shown in the detailed report attached, staff recommends that the City acquire its own ULTIMAP work station for use in the Engineering Division office at a cost of $52,873. It is our opinion that this is the most cost - effective way to provide the needed level of service. City Council Action Required Adoption of the attached resolution which appropriates funds from the Public Utility fund and authorizes purchase of the work station through LOGIS. q� Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF COMPUTER AIDED DRAFTING (CAD) WORK STATION WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines that, in order to provide the needed level of service relating to construction plan development and mapping on the most cost - effective basis, it is necessary to purchase a computer aided drafting (CAD) work station for use by the Engineering Division; and WHEREAS, the City is a member of the LOGIS joint powers organization and is able to purchase the needed work station via LOGIS utilizing their contract procedures at a cost of $52,873; and WHEREAS, the costs to date for initiation and first -phase development of a CAD system via LOGIS have been appropriated from the General Fund; and the City Council finds and determines that the anticipated use of the system will include many applications related to the development, operation and maintenance of the Public Utility system, and that an accounting system should be established to apportion future costs relating to the use of the CAD system between the City's funds on the basis of usage; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The sum of $52,873 is hereby appropriated from the Public Utility Fund for the purpose of purchasing a CAD work station. 2. The proposal submitted by LOGIS to furnish and install an ULTIMAP /CAD work station at a total cost of $52,873 is hereby accepted. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute a contract with LOGIS for this purpose. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN of BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE C ENTER 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: October 19, 1988 RE: Proposed Purchase of On -Site Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) Workstation History In June of 1986 the City of Brooklyn Center, along with the cities of Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove, and St. Louis Park, entered into agreement with LOGIS to implement the use of Hennepin County's Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) system known as the " ULTIMAP" system. Each city contributed $30,000 toward the initial development (i.e., purchase of hardware, software, LOGIS staff support and training) of that system. In early 1987, LOGIS assembled the pilot system and then developed and implemented a training program for the participating cities. Training in basic skills was completed in December, 1987. Training has been an ongoing process as LOGIS continues to develop applications and then trains the technicians from the four participating cities in the use of the applications. During this same period of time, two of the City's Engineering Technicians retired and we have replaced them with one technician while assigning some portions of their duties to the Administrative Aide. This reduction in staffing level was effected with the expectation that the ULTIMAP system would allow us to provide the same level of service previously provided, and to actually upgrade that level of service as a result of increased efficiency (i.e., productivity gains) resulting from the use of the ULTIMAP system. Maintaining and improving our level of service continues to be our goal. Current Observations /Evaluation Following are our current observations of the ULTIMAP system, and an evaluation of our ability to perform work assignments and meet the City's needs. 1. The ULTIMAP system has proven to be a valuable and reliable system which, for our purposes, is superior to any other CAD system available. � z October 19, 1988 Page 2 2. First -phase implementation of the ULTIMAP system has taken nearly 2 years, instead of the 1 year which we had expected. This delay has occurred primarily because of the difficulties which resulted from Hennepin County's decision to market the ULTIMAP system and the uncertainties which occurred during the transfer of ownership in that system. However, most of these problems now appear to be resolved. 3. During this period, the productivity of the Engineering Technician that is assigned to the ULTIMAP system has approximately equalled the productivity which he could have achieved using conventional drafting methods. As noted in the next paragraph, this is considered normal for "Year 1 in the use of a CAD system. However, because we have only been able to achieve a "one- technician equivalency" during these 2 years, we have fallen behind on our established schedule for map updates and have had difficulty in simply keeping up to the needs for construction plan development, utilizing conventional methods. 4. The following is an estimate of "productivity gain" using a CAD system, as documented by studies completed by the City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County and others. Year 1 - production is equivalent to conventional methods Year 2 - production is one and one -half times conventional methods Year 3 - production is two times conventional methods Year 4 - production is two and one -half times conventional methods Year 5 - production is three times conventional methods This estimate of productivity gain is based on the condition where all technicians using the CAD system have unlimited access to the system. 5. Based on our experience to date, continued reliance on the use of a shared workstation would fail to yield the productivity gains described above because of the following factors: a. travel time (minor) and disruption of the technician's schedule (significant) each time he travels to LOGIS to use the workstation; b. limited time availability on the LOGIS workstations (i.e., approximately 750 hours of daytime schedule is available per year to each participating city); C. the need to load and unload the massive ULTIMAP data base each time we use the workstation (time lost is 20 to 30 minutes each time we use the workstation); October 19, 1988 Page 3 d. the technician's reduced ability to perform other tasks during the intervals while the computer processes the work applications, along with a reduced ability to fully utilize the computer's multi - tasking capability (due to the lack of direct access to all needed information); e. when the technician assigned to the ULTIMAP system leaves our office, he is unable to maintain the degree of communication with the City Engineer and other staff members which is often vital to the efficient performance of the assigned duties; f. with the use of remote workstations, only the assigned technician has the opportunity to utilize the system whereas an on -site workstation would provide significant training opportunities for our staff members. Based on these considerations, it is estimated that, with the continued use of the shared workstation at LOGIS, our "productivity gain" will be limited to half of that which we would experience with an on -site workstation (i.e., 1.25 in Year 2, 1.5 in Year 3, 1.75 in Year 4, and 2.0 in Year 5). On this basis, few, if any, construction plan would be prepared with the use of the ULTIMAP system during the next 4 years, and it would take us until Year 5 (1992) to get caught up on our Public Works map update schedule. In addition, little or no time would be available to use the ULTIMAP system to develop work products for other City departments. Accordingly, we regard this alternate as unacceptable. Conversely, with the availability of an on -site workstation, it is anticipated that many construction plans would be prepared with the use of ULTIMAP, we would catch up on our Public Works mapping backlog within 2 years, and many needed and useful new products would be developed for application within the Public Works Department and for other City departments. Recommendation Accordingly, it is recommended that the City purchase an ULTIMAP workstation for installation in the Engineering Division office. We have worked closely with Ted Willard of LOGIS in designing the workstation configuration required to serve the City's needs. It is recommended that the City purchase the required system via LOGIS in accordance with their attached proposal, at a total cost of $52,873. While this cost includes a fully- operational, independent workstation with a small printer, it does not include the purchase of a full -sized plotter which is needed for plotting large scale maps. Because the cost for a plotter is approximately $25,000, and because the amount of time the plotter is used is very small in comparison to the total time spent at the workstation, we plan to continue to utilize the plotter at LOGIS for the foreseeable future. October 19, 1988 Page 4 In addition to the continued reliance on LOGIS for the use of the plotter, we will also need to rely on LOGIS for staff training, support, coordination with other cities, and for maintenance of our system. The following is our analysis of annual total workstation costs, based on the two alternates: ANNUAL WORK STATION COSTS Alternate 1 - Shared Workstation at Alternate 2 - On -Site Workstation LOGIS with 4 other users Located in City offices Maintenance Cost Maintenance Cost LOGIS Hardware Maintenance $ 1,683* LOGIS Hardware Maintenance $ 1,683' Software Maintenance 2,928* Software Maintenance 2,928* City Hardware Maintenance 2,400 LOGIS Staff Support 11.863* LOGIS Staff Support 11,863* Total Maintenance Cost $16,474 Total Maintenance Cost $18,874 *Represents costs that are shared equally by all LOGIS ULTIMAP Users Hardware Cost Hardware Cost None, included in cost of previous Apollo Workstation $52,873 contributions Depreciate Over 4 Years $13,218* TOTAL SYSTEM COST $16,474 TOTAL SYSTEM COST $32,092* * Note: These cost figures provide a "worst case" analysis because they provide no credits for reduced use of the LOGIS workstation which will result from our acquisition of our own workstation. A copy of a May 24, 1988 memo which provides an analysis of " ULTIMAP User Equity" is attached. Essentially, LOGIS is stating that the 4 original members will be entitled to equity credits as other LOGIS members "buy into" this system. Ted Willard advises me that he expects at least one other city and possibly 2 or 3 more cities to initiate use of the ULTIMAP system in 1989. The resulting equity credits will then reduce the "Total System Cost" shown above. While the total annual costs for an on -site workstation are substantial, these costs are still substantially lower than the costs of replacing the second Technician ($30,000 /year base salary x 1.4 = $42,000 /year). And, as noted, the City's ability to produce needed and useful work products will be greatly October 19, 1988 Page 5 increased in the near future. In other words, we will be able to provide a substantially improved level of service at a lower cost. As proposed in your budget message to the City Council, we recommend that funds for the purchase of this system be appropriated from the Public Utility Fund. We believe this is justified because: (1) all of Brooklyn Center's costs to date for implementation of the ULTIMAP system have been charged to the General Fund; (2) a substantial portion of the future usage of the ULTIMAP system will relate to the Public Utility system improvements and mapping; and (3) future staff time and operational costs related to the use of this system can be accounted and apportioned between funds on the basis of usage. A resolution appropriating funds and authorizing the purchase of the workstation is provided for consideration by the City Council. Respegtfully submitted, Sy , cLpp Director of Public Works SK: jn UMWKSBC LOGIS U1.ti.Map Work Station Con.f.iguration Quotation for the City of Brooklyn Center 10/07/88 ULTIMAP CORP DESCRIPTION PRICE DISCNT NET PART NBR 5% WS3500-C6- 19-R-8 Apollo DN3500 Work Station, 19 inch Color Monitor including graphics accelerator with 16 colors, 1024 x 800 resolution; 348 Mb ESDI fixed disc, Sgl 5 -1/4" floppy drive, 3 RS232C Serial Ports 8 Mb Memory, all cables. $24,490 $1,225 $23,266 TCS -3000 Streaming Tape Cartridge 2,850 n/a 2,850 SFW- AEGIS -C Operating System Media 340 17 323 W DD-PCC PC Co- processor 2,500 125 2,375 A- ADD -FPA Floating Point Acceleratr 3,500 175 3,325 SFW- PSK -MED -H Floating Point Acceleratr Software 11 n/a 11 EXATAPE High Density Tape Device for backup system use 6,950 n/a 6,950 PL -QM- 810 -UM Laser Printer with PostScript protocol 5,495 275 5,220 DI-CC -91360 CalComp 36x24 inch Digitizer, all options 5,121 256 4,865 DI -CC -91070 Mayline Power Base for Digitizer 1,262 63 1,199 Freight at actual cost (estimated amount) 400 n/a 400 Installation at act, cost (estimated amount) 800 n/a 800 ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- SUB- TOTAL, ULTIMAP CORP. $53,719 $2_,135 $51,584 LOGIS HANDLING CHARGE, 2-1/2% 1,290 TOTAL PROJECTED COST $52,873 a ifi w'W !"@ wJ aG1 '1 DATE: May 24, 1988 - TO: UltiMap User Group T s FROM: Paul M. Blais - F" El SUBJECT: UltiMap User Investment Equity Introduction The purpose of this memo is to outline the procedures used to determine membership investment equity in the UltiMap project from 1986 to present. A projection of total investment equity for 1988 was also prepared. From this investment equity analysis, we will establish buy -in fees for future UltiMap users. Please review this information and telephone me with your comments, questions and concerns. I will make adjustments or add clarifications for the final copy which will then be submitted to the Executive Committee as a recommendation for policy. Investment Funding Funding for the project has come from two sources. A contribution by the individual cities of $30,000 was matched by the LOGIS membership at large. The following table shows contributions from 1986 through 1989. ULTIMAP PROJECT FUNDING Year LOGIS Members Annual Cumulative Contribution Contribution Total Total 1986 10,186 -0- 10,186 10 1987 19,814 120,000 139,814 150,000 1988 18,820* 40,000 58,820 208,820 1989 -0- 60,500* 60,500 269,320 *NOTE: Estimated totals subject to change and approval. LOGIS' 1988 contributions have been estimated. This money represents expenditures to UltiMap Corp. by the four member cities. 1989 member contributions are based on projected operation costs less anticipated credits from UltiMap Corp. Both estimated funding amounts are subject to approval by the UltiMap User Group and the LOGIS Executive Committee. UltiMap Project Expenditures The following table shows total, actual, and projected project costs from 1986 through 1989. 1 ULTIMAP PROJECT EXPENDITURES Year Total Annual Cumulative Total Year -End Expenditures Expenditures Annual Fund Funding Balance 1986 10,186 10,186 10,186 -0- 1987 96,433 106,619 139,814 43,381 1988 99,149* 205,768 58,820 3,052 1989 60,500* 266,268 60,500 3,052 *NOTE: Estimated totals subject to change and approval. 1986 project expenditures included costs associated with LOGIS staff research and consultant services required to get the project started. No capital expenditures were incurred. These costs were paid from the LOGIS contribution. 1987 project expenditures included office construction, operations charges, capital improvements and considerable system development. Training for each member city was begun in early March and some UltiMap products were produced. 1988 project expenditures include actual costs through the end of March as well as projected expenditures and projected capital improvements. It has ben assumed that a new workstation will be purchased early this summer. It has been estimated that a year average of 80% productivity will be reached. 1989 project expenditures include only operational expenditures. No capital improvements are projected. Actual expenditures will be subject to the addition of new members and final budget approval. Investment Equity Analysis The membership investment equity is defined as the total project expenditures less contributions made by the LOGIS membership at large; less value received directly by individual members. The remaining expenditures represent the development cost of putting the project into production. This total is then divided by the number of members to determine the investment equity of each member. The following table shows the investment equity from 1986 through 1989. 2 ULTII INVESTMENT EQUITY Annual Total Total Annual (- )LOGIS (- )Members (= )Members Members Year Expenditures Investment Value Equity Equity 1986 10,186 10,186 -0- -0- -0- 1987 96,433 19,814 20,948 55,671 55,671 1988 99,149 18,820* 43,000 37,329 93,000 1989 60.500* -0- 60,500 -0- 93,000 *NOTE: Estimated totals subject to change and approval. TOTAL MEMBER EQUITY THROUGH 1989 = $23,250 /MEMBER Calculation of Members Equity: During 1986, all expenditures were paid from the LOGIS membership contribution of $30,000. No member equity was generated in 1986 because no member funds were used. 1987 was the first year member funds were used. During 1987, the remainder of the LOGIS funds were invested. The following is a breakdown of the expenditures for investment purposes: 1987 ULTIMAP INVESTMENT EQUITY Capital Purchases 1987 $63,040 Operations Expenditures 1987 43,570 LOGIS Investment 1987 (19,814) Member Benefits Training @4000 /Member (16,000) Supplies for Member Projects (estimated) ( 4,948) TOTAL MEMBER INVESTMENT EQUITY $55,671 The above table shows that members received $20,948 in benefits and LOGIS paid $19,814. All remaining expenditures for 1987 are considered equity investments made by the members. Individual membership equity in 1987 is $13,918 for each of the four member communities. 1988 includes both actual and projected expenditures. Projections for 1988 include a LOGIS investment to recover the cost of license and support contracts paid to U1tiMap Corp. Projections also include a capital expenditure of $30,000 for the purchase of a second workstation. 3 Estimates for 1988 also include a 20% effort in development of training and applications programs and procedures. This effort has been valued at $7,329 and when combined with the cost of the workstation totals a member's equity for 1988 of $37,329. Preliminary projections 1989 do not anticipate equity investments by LOGIS or UltiMap User Group Members. Total members equity for all years is therefore $93,000 or $23,500 per member. SUMMARY Total UltiMap project expenditures from 1986 through the end of 1989 are expected to total $266,268. The following shows the equity distribution. UltiMap Total Expenditures 1986 -1989 (Protected) LOGIS Members' Equity $48,820 UltiMap Users Equity 93,000 Operations Expenditures Paid by Members 124,448 Total $266,268 It is proposed that the UltiMap users equity serve as a basis for calculating buy -in fees for future members. If we assume that no additional member equity investments are made for 1989, the following would be the buy -in fee structure for new members. 1st New Member $93,000/5 = $18,600 2nd New Member 93,000/6 = 15,500 3rd New Member 93,000/7 = 13,286 4th New Member 93,000/8 = 11,625 As each new member is added, the group buy -in fee is distributed back to the other members. The members may then vote to distribute credits against future charges and /or to reinvest into the members equity pool. As additional capital or development expenditures are approved, these costs will be added to the investment pool. PMB /wl 4 qC 1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1988 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND AUTHORIZING THE CONTRIBUTION OF $2,000 TO THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General Fund Budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and the Municipal Legislative Commission have been working for sometime with the League of Minnesota Cities Coordinating Committee discussing property tax computer analysis capability for the 1990 legislative session; and WHEREAS, the LMC has committed to developing computer analysis capability for the 1990 legislative session and has been negotiating with the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities for development of a property tax reform proposal for 1989, a key element of which, will be retention of the principles of a homestead credit; and WHEREAS, this effort will cost approximately $185,000 for computer data update and proposal development; and WHEREAS, to raise this amount, Minneapolis, St. Paul, the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, the Small City organization, and the Metro Area suburbs are being asked to make contributions; and WHEREAS, large metropolitan suburbs are being asked to contribute $2,000 each to this effort; and - WHEREAS, the data base or information which should result from this one time effort will help assure that the professional staffs of AMM and MLC that represent the suburban cities will be on an equal footing with other city lobbyists in the state during the 1989 session. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to authorize the contribution of $2,000 to the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to amend the 1988 General Fund Budget as follows: Increase the Appropriations for the following line items: City Council Unit No. 11, Dues & Subscriptions Account No. 4413 $2,000 Decrease the Appropriations for the following line items.- Unallocated Expenses No. 80, Contingency Account No. 4995 $2,000 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. s t as ociation of metropolitan munic- palities P R O M P T A C T I O N R E Q U E S T E D September 20, 1988 - - - -_- -. - - - Dear City Administrator /Manager: The Association of Metropo�dtan Municipalities and the Municipal Legislative Commission have been working for sometime with the League of Minnesota Cities Coordinating Committee discussing property tax computer analysis for 1989. The LMC has committed to developing computer analysis capability for the 1990 legislative session but a transition -'year is necessary to be able to react and participate knowledgeably in the 1989 session. The Coordinating Committee has been negotiating with the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities for development of a property tax reform proposal for 1989, a key element of which, will be retention of the principles of a Homestead Credit. Additional background data on the research elements and product are enclosed. This effort will cost approximately $185,000 for computer data update and proposal development. To raise this amount, Minneapolis, St. Paul, the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, the Small City organization, and the Metro Area suburbs are being asked to make contributions. The suburbs share of funding has been targeted for between $35,000 and $50,000, which will be raised voluntarily, not through any type of mandatory assessment by either the AMM or MLC. Thus, a request for financial contribution is being made of all suburban cities. Your city, g 8 P er along with other larger metropolitan suburbs is being asked to contribute $2,000 to this effort. Smaller suburbs are being asked to contribute an amount commensurate with their size and budget constraints. g This financial led a is F g 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227 -4008 i contingent upon two factors: 1) AMM and MLC Boards approvel to proceed with this project, and 2) Sufficient funding from the suburbs to raise the required amount of dollars. It may be imperative for all cities, especially suburban cities to develop a common proposal for the 1989 legislative session. Based on the 1987 and 1988 tax and school funding bills, counties and school districts are committing to a significant effort for additional funding in 1989, probably at the expense of cities. This is primarily possible because of the elimination of Homestead Credit in 1990 in favor of an aid type program. Since the suburbs are at the greatest risk if Homestead Credit is exchanged for aid, it is paramount that a strong effort be made to restore the Homestead Credit. The data base or information which should result from this one time effort will help assure that the professional staffs of AMM and MLC that represent the suburban cities will be on an equal - footing with - - -- other city lobbyists in the state during the 1989 session. Without the availability of this information and a unified position supported by all cities, success in protecting the suburban interest" is in doubt. Please, strongly consider this request with your council and reply using the enclosed pledge sheet or verbally no later than Wednesday, October 5, 1988 to the AMM Office. If you have any questions, call Vern or Roger at 227 - 4008. Respectfully, y Gary Bastian, President Richard Wedell, President Association of Metropolitan Municipal Legislative Municipalities Commission t a t TO: ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION 183 UNIVERSITY AVE., EAST ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 FROM: CITY OF YES, OUR CITY WILL PLEDGE $ IF T�IS EFFORT CONTINUES. NO, OUR CITY WILL NOT CONTRIBUTE. CITY ADMINISTRATOR /MANAGER CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/24/ Agenda Item Number G —_ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION o ITEM DESCRIPTION: AUTHORIZE THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER TO ACT AS CONTRACTOR FOR A GRANT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT DEPT. APPROVAL• Signatu - titl Chie f P MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below/attached pp p SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes The Brooklyn Center Crime Prevention Fund would like to enter into a grant with the Department of Public Safety to purchase promotional materials for the upcoming year. The grant requires it be administered by an organiza- tion with taxing powers. The officer's salary will be allowable as matching funds on this grant. The paperwork should be the only involvement of the city. RECOMMENDATION To approve the resolution authorizing the city to act as contractor and the City Manager to execute the agreement. Member introduced the following is resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER TO ACT AS CONTRACTOR FOR A GRANT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Crime Prevention Fund would like to make application for a matching fund grant from the Department of Public Safety; and WHEREAS, the grant money can only be given to an organization with taxing powers; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Crime Prevention Fund has requested the City of Brooklyn Center to act as contractor for this grant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City is hereby authorized to act as contractor for a crime prevention grant from the Department of Public Safety. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute said agreement. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , P and upon vote bein g taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: October 14, 1988 SUBJECT: Crime Prevention Grant The Brooklyn Center Crime Prevention Fund has again authorized David Grass to apply for the second and final year of the Department of Public Safety's matching fund crime prevention grant. This year's grant does not require a cash match. Officer Grass' salary for time spent on grant projects will count towards our match. Basically, the grant covers the funds needed to purchase materials to promote crime prevention and will include the crime prevention promotional materials for use at the 1989 Kaleidoscope. As in the previous grant, the grant money must be given to an organization with taxing powers. Therefore, the City of Brooklyn Center is the only one authorized to sign the contract. We would again ask that the City act as contractor for the grant. Other than paperwork, there should be no cost to the city. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE FOR COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION APPLICATION FOR FUNDS LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT REQUESTING AGENCY Brooklyn Center AGENCY . _ City of Brooklyn Center NAME Police Department STREET 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy STREET 6301 Shingle Creek Pkw CITY Brooklyn Center CITY Brooklyn Center STATE /ZIP: Minnesota 55430 STATE /ZIP: Minnesota 55430 PHONE # (612) 561 -5440 PHONE # : (612) 561 -5440 COUNTY CONTACT PERSON /PROJECT DIRECTOR NAME David Grass AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL: TITLE Crime Prevention Offic r Gerald Splinter City Manager DATE OF REQUEST: 10-10-88 AMOUNT REQUESTED: $4,678 PURPOSE FOR WHICH APPLICATION FOR FUNDS IS BEING MADE: [x ] Educational Material [x ] Personnel /Related Expenses [ ] Supplies [ ] Other- Explain: C x ] Equipment INTENDED USE OF FUNDS REQUESTED: Please describe, in detail, how the funds requested will a expen e . See attached. TICE: A proposed one -year budget for the project, related to the grant funds, must e ttached. This must include dollar- for - dollar match commitment, and the source of the imatch must be specified. (over) CERTIFICATION S I certify that the information furnished is accurate, to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that the following will be observed: (1) Records suitable for auditing purposes, including appropriate entries and receipts, will be maintained. (2) The status report form will be submitted every three months, detailing the funds received, expenses incurred, and the balance on hand for the period covered. (3) Applicants will furnish the necessary statistical data required under federal and state reporting instructions. (4) Any unused funds must be returned to the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety. SIGNATURE: DATE: Authorized icia AP PROVAL This Application for Funds is hereby approved in the amount of $ SIGNATURE: DATE: Commissioner, Department of u is Safety PUBLIC SAFETY USE ONLY Tran I Vendor Number lype Invoice Number Organization FUNDS L $ o. Suff Dept.P.O./F.O. o. I Object PROJECT START DATE Amount of n w ce Date Sub Act I Task u as Cost /Client Code Fed. Rev. ere by certify that the goods or materia s covered by this claim have been inspected and received or the ser- # vices have been performed, and are in accordance with specifications and are in proper form, kind, amount and quality, and payment, therefore, is hereby-recommended. System Assign Ref. o. Dept. Auth. Signature Y 9 P INTENDED USE OF FUNDS REQUESTED PROJECT 1 Goal Have volunteer help (possibly Explorer Scouts) install 150 vandal -proof crime tips signs, which encourage citizens to report information to our police department, in local business and apartment buildings. Needed Drill and bits to use for installation and many officer manhours to: (1) meet with each business and apartment owner to secure permission and define installation location, (2) organize the installers and schedule times for same, and (3) supervise the installations. HOURS REQUIRED - 28 PROJECT 2 Goal Educate the public on crime - prevention tips and programs through handout materials. Needed Miscellaneous handout materials to give to kids and adults at public expositions such as: Kaleidoscope, Law Enforcement Day booth at Brookdale, Crime Prevention Weekend booth at Brookdale, and a possible police department open house. The materials to be handed out would be those such as: rulers with crime tips printed on them, crime -tip key rings, and crime -tip stickers. We would also like to print up some simple literature encouraging citizen participation in Neighborhood Watch and McGruff House programs. Also needed are officers' hours to not only select and purchase materials but also to distribute them. HOURS REQUIRED - 28 1/2 PROJECT 3 Goal Teach business crime- prevention tips to business employees. Needed Business crime - prevention videos and a portable playback system as well as officers' hours necessary to select and purchase items as well as to show the tape and answer questions. One of the Intended Use of Funds Requested Page 2 videos to be purchased is: Shoplifting - Preventing the Crimes (aims Media). Another video (title undetermined at this time) is �t. The playback d if the rice and funds _ p Y to be urchase permit p p p TV and VCR could be kept at Brookdale as Dale merchants are expected to be the major users of the program; however, the size of the TV is smaller (19" or-20") so that the unit can be easily transported to other businesses. HOURS REQUIRED - 12 NOTE: Police officer wage cost is $34 per hour (city's total cost). Wages will be paid by the City of Brooklyn Center. The City of Brooklyn Center intends to continue all of the above projects for one full year after the federal funds run out. s MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE FOR COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION GRANT BUDGET GRANT YEAR 1988- GRANT LOCAL L EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL FUNDING FUNDING. FUNDING Business Crime Prevention Tape(s) $ 500 $ 500 Crime Prevention Tips handout items 1,000 1,000 SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT 19" color TV 350 350 Video tape playback machine 200 200 Portable TV /VCR cart 140 140 Cordless drill /screwdriver 149 149 Selection and presentation of CP tapes $ 408 408 Organize and supervise sign installation 962 962 Select and distribute CP tips handout items 969 969 TOTALS- $2,339 $2,339 $4,678 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER BUDGET DOCUMENT 1988/89 Personnel Expense for Community Crime Prevention Grant Match Selection and presentation of business crime prevention tapes - 12 hours @ $34 /hr $ 408.00 Organize and supervise sign installation 28 hours @ $34 /hr 962.00 Select and distribute crime prevention handout items - 28.5 hours @ $34 /hr 969.00 TOTAL $2,339.00 APPROVED: OM! NO. 1121 -0113 (EXP111ES St3/tdel ANNUAL PROJECT REPORT PURPOSES I AND 11 CRIME PREVENTION This annual project report form has been designed to obtain information on the activities and performance of state and local Justice Assistance grant. projects. The data will be used by the Bureau of Justice Assistance for program monitoring and evaluation and to Prepare the Bureau's annual report to Congress. The state administrative agency may impose additional reporting requirements. The duration of funding for projects may vary. The information requested in this report should cover a 12 -month period. One year .projects (including projects with 12 -month budgets which may have been extended for a couple months due to late start -up or similar circumstances) should prepare an annual report within 90 days after the expiration of the grant. Projects funded for longer periods such as 18 or 24 months should prepare an annual report after each 12 months of operation and within 90 days after the expiration of the grant. Each continuation grant will be treated as a separate grant with an annual report completed after the expiration of each award. This report should be sent to the state agency which administers the Justice Assistance program. 1.1 State project I.D.# 86DPS -5 1.2 Project title Crime Prevention Grant 1.3 Subgrantee City of Brooklyn 1.4 Contact person David Grass Center 1.5 Phone # ( 612) 561 -5440 1.6 Time period covered by this report 0 9 mom to 0 9 mom 1.7 Is this the first annual report? 1.8 Is this the project's final report? x Yes x Yes No — No on previous report 1.9 Please indicate the status of the 1.10 If the project is an enhancement grant project. or an expansion of an existing program, what year did the original X New project program, start operation? N/A x Enhancement of existing program (New component added by grant) Expansion of existing program (More of some services can be provided) OJP FOP- 4310/2 (4/86) 2.1 How man full time e quivalent (FTE) staff persons e. . 2 staff at half - Y eq ) pe ( g , time _ 1 full time equivalent staff) were assigned to this program. (Note: If the project is an enhancement or an expansion of an existing project, indicate both the grant FTE and total FTE.) . 1 Number of grant funded FTE staff assigned to project. • 1 Total FTE staff assigned to project. 2.2 Did the project use volunteers? X Yes No if Yes, How many volunteers were used? 35 How many volunteer hours were contributed? 80 TARGETING 3.1 What is the target area of the project? Statewide Multijurisdictional /regional County x Municipality Nei ghborhood(s) 3.2 What is the population of the target area? 32 , 000 3.3 For the twelve months covered in this report please estimate the percentage of the project's efforts directed at 33 % Schools 33 % General public % Business 33 % Residential homes x x P* x xVaMt k4MeV XX %XXPdA�h MXftT % Other (specify ) 3.4 Did the project target, during the last 12 months, a particular group for its crime prevention activities? Yes, selected groups) were targeted X No, project was directed toward the public at large If yes, Estimate the percentage of the project's total efforts directed at 10 Children (under 13 years of age) 30 Teenagers (13-18 years of age) % Elderly (60 years or older) % Handicapped 60 Other group (specify public in general ) 3.5 Did the project target specific crimes? X Yes No, project was directed toward crime in general If yes Which crimes were targeted? Forcible rape Robbery Aggravated assault Burglary x Larceny/theft Motor vehicle theft �. Other (specify drug abuse ) ACTIVITIES 4.1 This section seeks information on the types of crime prevention activities undertaken by your project. Many different types of activities are listed, only a few of which may apply to your program. Please place an "X" in column A if the activity listed is a component of your project. If the project is an enhancement or an expansion of an existing program, place an "X" in column B if the activity was undertaken for the first time as a result of the Justice Assistance grant. In column C indicate the level of activity (e.g. number of presentations mode) for each component of Your project. if an activity is not listed, add it in the space provided for other activities. Column B .Column A New Activity Column C Description of Crime Activity in Existing Prevention Activity Performed Program Level of Activity Information Crime prevention presentations before groups (civic school, Number of neighborhood, etc.) Presentations Development of new crime prevention materials Number of (e.g., pamphlets school x publications 11 curriculum, etc.} x developed (See attached) Column B Column A New Activity Column C Activity in Existing Performed Program Level of Activity Number of people Dissemination of crime receiving _. prevention materials X X materials 6,30 Placement of crime prevention ads in the media (radio, TV, Number of newspoper,etc.) media ads placed Number of Security audits /surveys security audits of homes and businesses performed Securing Property Encouraging households to Number of take measures to identify households their property (e.g., identifying operation I.D.) property Installation of better Number of security devices (e.g., households locks in residences at involved project expense) Community Involvement Establishment of block Number of watch /neighborhood watch citizen Patrols groups x established 5 Establishment and identification of block/ Number of safe homes where citizens safe homes can go for help (e.g., identified youngsters who feel threatened) Establishment of citizen Number of patrols (e.g., walkie talkie watch groups or CB communication of established suspicious activity to the police) C Column A Column B New Activity Column C Activity in Existing Performed Program Level of Activity Number of Establishment of citizen persons benefit - escort programs (e.g., ing from escort escorting the elderly) service Organization of neighborhood Number of clean -ups (e.g., trimming person days shrubs, cleaning out spent on lots, etc.) clean ups Environmental Design Development of security standards or incentives Participation by law enforcement in community planning process Traini Training for law enforcement Number of of- ficers trained Number of hours of training Number of volun- Training for volunteers teers trained Number of hours of training Training for citizens Number of people trained Number of hours of training Training for businessmen and Number of professionals people trained Number of hours of training s Column B Column A New Activity Column C Activity in Existing Performed Program Level of Activity Training for school children Number of chil- dren trained Number of hours of training Other Activities ( s pecify Indicate the level of activity pERFORMANCE MEASURES Crime prevention programs vary significantly in scope and activities. The impact these programs have on crime problems are often very difficult to measure especially for programs aimed at the general public in a large geographic area. However, programs which target specific crimes and /or concentrate their efforts in a smaller, define area can often measure program results. For example, neighborhood watch programs have resulted in significant reductions in burglaries in a number of jurisdictions. If the impact of your program or components of your program are being measured please complete the following questions. 5.1 Please provide the number of targeted crimes reported during the period covered by this report and the one year prior to the start of the project. Offense Prior Period Report Period Forcible rape 7 9 ` Robbery 20 28 Aggravated assault 30 49 Burglary 462 3 9 5 Larceny /thef t 1671 1747 Motor vehicle theft 157 243 Al I index crimes 2164 2155 Other (specify 5.2 Was fear of crime in the target area assessed? Yes No If ye How did fear of crime change as a result of the project? Please attach a copy of the results. Increased Stayed about the some Decreased 5.3 Were citizen attitudes toward law enforcement in the target area assessed? Yes — 7 No itles How did attitudes change as a result of the project? Please attach a copy of the results. Improved Stayed about the some Became worse FINANCIAL 0 - 6.1 Will the project be continued? x Yes No (funding unavaiable) No (goals achieved) No (determined to be unsuccessful) If yes, What is the prospective percentage share of funding among the sources listed? % Continuation of Federal grant 90 State general fund 50 % Local government general fund Private funding Brooklyn Center Other (specify Crime Prevention Fund ) 6.2 If continued, will the program services be X About Expanded e some Reduced OTHER '. I a. Has your program used any of the resources available from the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC)? x Yes No b. If yes Please rate the usefulness of the resoures you used. Not very useful Useful Very useful Not used Crime prevention materials developed by NCPC x Computer center which identifies programs and contact people around the country x Resource library which is a clearinghouse of materials developed by programs around the country x How to materials which can assist law enforcement and other agencies in imple- menting new came prevention programs and components x Other (specify ) c. Will you continue to use these resources in your program? x Yes No (please explain 7.2 a. Did you receive technical assistance for your program from the National Crime Prevention Council? Yes x No CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/24/88 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK ON WEST SIDE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH FROM 69TH AVENUE NORTH TO APPROXIMATELY 180 FEET SOUTH (PROJECT NO. 1988 -17) *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: X SY KNAPP VfRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _) Explanation On July 25, 1988, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 88 -127 which • established Project No. 1988 -17, including the installation of a sidewalk on the west side of Humboldt Avenue No. from 69th Avenue to the end of the existing sidewalk, approximately 180 feet south of 69th Avenue. That resolution directed the Engineering Department to review the needed easements and to develop an estimate of the cost for construction of this sidewalk segment. °Following the adoption of that resolution we made contact with the property owner and the lessee to initiate negotiations regarding the needed easement. Little progress was made until this week, when the property owner and lessee both indicated their willingness to approve the easement and advised us that the executed easement will be delivered to us by early next week. Because we believe that the construction of this sidewalk is important to public safety, and because the 1988 construction season is rapidly drawing to a close, we have submitted requests for proposals to two contractors for construction of this sidewalk. We expect to receive those proposals on Monday, October 24, and be ready to submit them to the City Council for consideration at the Council meeting that evening. The estimated cost for this construction is less than $5000. Action Required by City Council If reasonable proposals are received, a resolution will be submitted for consideration by the City Council which would accept the lowest proposal and approve the installation of the sidewalk, subject to the receipt of the required easement. Adoption of that resolution is recommended. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK ON WEST SIDE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH FROM 69TH AVENUE NORTH TO APPROXIMATELY 180 FEET SOUTH (PROJECT NO. 1988 -17) WHEREAS, on July 25, 1988, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 88 -127 which established the following project: CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK ON WEST SIDE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH FROM 69TH AVENUE NORTH TO APPROXIMATELY 180 FEET SOUTH (PROJECT NO. 1988 -17) WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared specifications and received the following proposals for sidewalk construction. Bidder Bid Amount Schmidt Curb Co. Inc. $3,962.50 Arrigoni Bros. Co. 4,271.00 Halvorson Construction Co. 6,062.00 WHEREAS, the proposal of Schmidt Curb Co. Inc. in the amount of $3962.50 is the lowest responsible proposal received and the City Engineer has recommended that a contract be awarded to said firm in that amount; and WHEREAS, the City's ability to construct the sidewalk as planned requires that an easement be obtained from the adjoining property owner, and that owner has agreed to provide the required easement, but has not yet delivered a formally executed easement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Subject to receipt of the required easement, the proposal of Schmidt Curb Co. Inc. in the amount of $3962.50 for this work is hereby accepted. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said firm in that amount immediately after receipt of the required easement, fully executed by the adjoining property owner. 2. Payment for all work completed under this project shall be charged to the Municipal State Aid Fund, Account No. 2611. is 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. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK ON WEST SIDE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH FROM 69TH AVENUE NORTH TO APPROXIMATELY 180 FEET SOUTH (PROJECT NO. 1988 -17) WHEREAS on Jul 25 1988 the City Council adopted Resolution No. Y P z Y 88 -127 which established Project No. 1988 -17; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared specifications and received the following proposals for sidewalk construction. Bidder Bid Amount WHEREAS, the proposal of in the amount of $ is the lowest responsible proposal received and the City Engineer has recommended that a contract be awarded to said firm in that amount. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The following project is hereby established: CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK ON WEST SIDE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH FROM 69TH AVENUE NORTH TO APPROXIMATELY 180 FEET SOUTH (PROJECT NO. 1988 -17) 2. The proposal of in the amount of $ for this work is hereby accepted. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said firm in that amount. 3. Payment for all work completed under this project shall be charged to the Municipal State Aid Fund, Account No. 2611. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION N0. 88012 SUBMITTED BY DEAN ARNOTT REQUESTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONDUCT A PSYCHOLOGICAL COUNSELING BUSINESS IN THE BASEMENT OF THE RESIDENCE AT 3313 O'HENRY ROAD The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the applicant has requested the City Council table consideration of this item indefinitely. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to table Planning Commission Application No. 88012 indefinitely. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8 :40 p.m. and reconvened at 8:56 p.m. 9 -19 -88 -9- w 9 J' X Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Sander and Johnson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. - APPLICATION NO. 88012 (Dean Arnott) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for special use permit approval to conduct a psychological counseling business in the basement of the residence located at 3312 0 Henry Road. He reviewed the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 88012 attached). The Secretary stated there is a public hearing required with this application, that proper notices have been sent to surrounding property owners and the applicant is present to answer any questions. Chairman Lucht asked for clarification of the driveway size. The Secretary stated he was not sure of the actual dimensions, but it is a double wide driveway. The applicant, Dean Arnott, stated he was not sure, but it could accommodate approximately 3 112 cars in length. Commissioner Malecki asked Mr. Arnott what types of people he intended to counsel. Mr. Arnott responded that it would be counseling for people with marital problems and also parent -child counseling. Jack Blackorbay, 33010' Henry Road, stated he objects to the counseling business in a residential neighborhood especially if it is 13 hours a day. He added that this is a residential zoning district and that no businesses of any kind should be allowed. Frank Fignar, 3312 0' Henry Road. stated he has lived in Brooklyn Center for 30 years and at the time the property was platted in 1958 there were certain restrictions or covenants placed on the use of the property in the Garden City subdivision. He noted that these covenants do not say that a business can be conducted in these areas. He stated he and his wife object to any home occupation in their neighborhood. Commissioner Malecki asked if the covenant specifically prohibits home businesses. Mr. Fignar stated that the covenant specifies what type of dwelling is allowed. Chairman Lucht noted that any home occupation must be incidental and not the primary use of the property. The Secretary stated home occupation approval allows an applicant to operate a business from his home on a limited basis. He explained that the ordinance requires the home occupation to be incidental to the use of the dwelling, the owner must live at the residence and no outside employee is to be permitted with this application. He noted no outside employee is requested at this time, however, a maximum of one nonresident employee could be allowed as a special home occupation. The Secretary explained that the residential use has to continue as the primary use, but as long as the Standards for Special Use Permits are met,the City is not in a position to deny the permit only on the basis that neighbors object to it. The City must conclude that the Standards for a Special Use Permit have not been met. Mr. Arnott stated he is new in the counseling business, his sessions would last about 50 minutes, would not be continuous and would not last beyond 8:00 p.m. He stated he plans to seek professional office space as soon as it is economically feasible. The Secretary asked how long he intended to conduct the business from his home. Mr. Arnott responded it would be approximately 1 year. 9 -8 -88 -4- Chairman Lucht asked how large an area Garden City encompasses. The Secretary explained the boundaries for the Garden City Addition. Chairman Lucht inquired as to how many home occupations are in that area. Jack Blackorbay responded that there have been two or three businesses for several years. Randy Blackorbay, a resident of Brooklyn Park, stated he formerly lived in Brooklyn Center. He stated he planned to move back to Brooklyn Center and would also object to a home occupation of this kind. Jack Blackorbay stated he and most of his neighbors have lived in the area for 25 years. He added the area is a residential neighborhood and should remain that way. He asked how many objecting people it takes to have a home occupation denied. Chairman Lucht asked Jack Blackorbay what he felt would cause a problem. Mr. Blackorbay stated noise and a danger to small children in the neighborhood. The Secretary stated there will be no group sessions and questioned what noise or danger the proposed home occupation would produce. Mr. Blackorbay stated the applicant indicated whole families would be involved. The Secretary further explained the importance of the City living by established ordinances for home occupations and the fact that the City has little ability to deny an application of this kind. He noted that beauty shops which have greater traffic impacts than the proposed application have been permitted as special home occupations. Mr. Fignar stated traffic is heavy on O'Henry Road. The Secretary noted that home occupations are granted if the proposed use is an incidental use of the property, if the applicant lives on the premises, no noise, odor, vibrations, light glare are present to exclude it and the applicants abide by any other reasonable conditions imposed on the use. Mr. Blackorbay asked if the applicant bought the property to conduct the counseling business. Mr. Arnott stated he did not and that he gets his referrals from ministers with more severe problems referred to the appropriate programs. Chairman Lucht asked if anyone else wished to be heard. Hearing no one he asked for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sander to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Sander and Johnson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO.88012 Following further discussion on this application, there was a motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 88012 subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is nontransferable. 3. The hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Services shall be rendered on an appointment only basis. 4. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off- street on improved space provided by the applicant. 9 -8 -88 -5- I 5. The counseling area shall be inspected by the Building Official prior to issuance of the special use permit. The applicant shall comply with any recommendations of the Building Official prior to issuance of the permit. 6. Any separate entrance to the lower level shall be constructed with appropriate permits. The City does not acknowledge by the approval of such a permit the creation of a second dwelling unit within the premises. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Sander and Johnson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Johnson asked how an ordinance can be changed. The Secretary stated staff can be directed by the Planning Commission or City Council to draft an ordinance amendment, but it should be understood that the ordinance in question evolved over a number of years. APPLICATION NO. 88013 (Richard Whitley) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel of land at 5403 Bryant Avenue North. He reviewed the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 88013 attached). The Secretary stated a public hearing is scheduled, the proper notices have been sent and the applicant is present to answer any questions the Commission may have. Commissioner Bernards asked for clarification of the property lines. The Secretary stated there is a discrepancy in the property lines as shown on the half - section maps from the County which show the depth of the existing lot to be approximately 105 It is believed that there is a measuring area based on the legal descriptions (which are metes and bounds descriptions) and that the lots lying westerly of this subdivision are measured from the centerline of Colfax Avenue North which would leave the lot in question with a depth of 1361. The surveyor preparing this plat has indicated that the depth of the Whitley lot is 1361. He noted that the County surveyor will have to resolve this matter at the time the plat is filed. He added that half - section maps have contained errors in the past. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant, Richard Whitley, if he had anything to add. Mr. Whitley stated he had nothing further to add. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sander to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Sander and Johnson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 88013 (Richard Whitley) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Bernards to approve Application No. 88013 subject to the following conditions: 9 -8 -88 -6- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 88012 Applicant: Dean Arnott Location: 3313 O'Henry Road Request: Special Use Permit (Home Occupation) The applicant requests special use permit approval to conduct a psychological counseling business in his home at 3313 O'Henry Road. The house in question is the second one east of Beard Avenue North and is bounded on the north by 0' Henry Road, and on the east, south and west by single- family homes. The property is zoned Rl and a psychological counseling business is considered a special home occupation because of the customer traffic associated with it. The applicant has submitted a brief letter (attached) outlining various aspects of his home occupation. The letter states the business will occupy two rooms in the basement, each 9' x 12 The hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. depending on client and counselor availability. The letter notes there is a double wide driveway plus on- street parking in front of the house. There will be no outside employee. The means of ingress and egress are the same - up and down the basement steps and out the front or back door of the house. A fire and smoke alarm is present in the basement counseling area. There is also one fire extinguisher in the basement. Mr. Arnott expects to have one sign of 2.5 square feet. He concludes by stating that state licensure is not required, but that he is seeking it anyway. The main concern we see with this application is on- street parking. On- street parking can be comprehended for special home occupations, but has not been approved for any in the past five years. It would not seem necessary to have on- street parking except in the case of group sessions. A two -car wide driveway should be adequate for this business, allowing for one client to be seen and one waiting at the same time without parking in tandem. The applicant also mentions in his letter the possibility of creating a separate entrance to the lower level at some time. While this may make it safer and more convenient for clients, we are concerned that a separate entrance could lead someday to the creation of a duplex with a second dwelling unit in the lower level. Any permit approving a separate entrance to the lower level should clearly indicate that pP g P Y no separate dwelling unit is acknowledged thereby. In general, the proposed home occupation complies with City ordinances and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is nontransferable. 3. The hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Services shall be rendered on an appointment only basis. 4. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off - street on improved space provided by the applicant. 9 -8-88 -1- 3 d Application No. 88012 continued 5. The counseling area shall be inspected by the Building Official prior to issuance of the special use permit. The applicant shall comply with any recommendations of the Building Official prior to issuance of the permit. 6. Any separate entrance to the lower level shall be constructed with appropriate permits. The City does not acknowledge by the approval of such a permit the creation of a second dwelling unit within the premises. 9 -8-88 -2- 1 MoUND CEMETARY o. man Mm CID APPLICATION N OTT L 88012 cz MANGSTAD PARK HE 1 . 11 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION SEPTEMBER 22, 1988 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Pro tem Mike Nelson at 7:36 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pro tem Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Bertil Johnson and Ellamae Sander. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier and Recording Secretary Mary Lou Larsen. Chairman George Lucht and Commissioner Lowell Ainas were unable to attend this evening's meeting and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8,1988 There was a motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the September 8, 1988 Planning Commission with a correction to the last paragraph on page 4 stating 50 minutes instead of 15 minutes. Voting in favor: Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Johnson and Sander. Voting against: none. Not voting: Chairman Pro tem Nelson as he did not attend that meeting. The motion passed. V APPLICATION NO. 88017 (Ronald Schnoor) Following the Chairman Pro tem 's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for special use permit approval to store and rent up to eight trucks at the Brooklyn Service Center located at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 88017 attached). The Secretary stated a public hearing is required for this application, notices have been sent to surrounding property owners and the applicant is present to answer any questions the Commission may have. Chuck Rogers, attorney for the applicant, stated Mr. Schnoor has had a special use permit for trailer rental in the past and upon notification a special use permit is also required for the truck rental, is trying to comply with that request. Commissioner Sander asked if trucks offering the sale of fish and shrimp will continue to park there. The Secretary explained that those outdoor sales are allowed by an administrative land use permit and are temporary activities limited to a certain number of days and times per year. Commissioner Sander stated that the trucks are unsightly and make it difficult to get in and out of the station. Commissioner Bernards asked if the rental vehicles will be parked there all the time. Mr. Schnoor responded that most of the trucks are one -way rentals for out of town use and he has two trucks that will remain in town. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Pro tem Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Robert Grosshans of 6920 Lee Avenue North expressed his concern of the traffic impact at the corner of the 9 -22 -88 -1- site when trucks are parked in that area as the traffic at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard is very heavy. He also stated since the Post Office located in that area there is even more traffic. He suggested parking behind the building would be more appropriate. Commissioner Johnson stated his concern for visibility at the corner of 69th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary stated a recommendation has been made for the parking of no more than two trucks in the corner of the property. He noted that Brooklyn Boulevard intersects 69th Avenue North at an angle and that this intersection is controlled with a traffic signal. He added that he did not believe there were any visibility problems with respect to traffic on the public streets especially southbound Brooklyn Boulevard traffic seeing eastbound 69th traffic because of these factors. He pointed out that the staff's concern was visibility problems entering and exiting the site and thus the recommendation to prohibit truck parking closest to the access points. He stated the opinion that the best place to park the trucks would be southwesterly of the building. Mr. Grosshans stated parking spaces near Brooklyn Boulevard will cause a visibility problem and traffic congestion. The Secretary stated that these parking spaces are acknowledged, but not encouraged and also, that parking trucks north of the building would cause problems getting in and out of the site. Don Lowry of 6914 Lee Avenue North stated the Brooklyn Service Center abuts his property. He noted that some of the screening slats for the chain link fence installed by Mr. Schnoor have fallen off and also pea rock is filtering into his property. He stated he would like to see the fence repaired and also a condition stating that trucks are not allowed to idle for long periods of time when they are being warmed up in winter. The Secretary stated that it is the responsibility of the owner of the property to provide screening when a commercial property abuts residential property. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Pro tem Nelson then called for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sander to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Johnson and Sander. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Further discussion ensued regarding visibility and parking concerns. The Secretary stated that adding a fifth condition stating no parking is allowed at the corner of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard would be appropriate if the Planning Commission is convinced that such parking is a safety problem. He indicated that parking could be confined to the north of the building and the southwest corner of the property. Chuck Rogers stated there is a safety factor indicated if the yellow trucks are allowed to park at the corner of the site and also it is good advertising for his client. He noted that there is controlled traffic at the corner of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary stated that the Commission's concerns regarding visibility are justified, but the 50 ft. triangle requirement is not violated by parking trucks there. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 88017 (Ronald Schnoor) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend approval of Application No. 88017 subject to the following conditions: 9 -22 -88 -2- I . Special use permit approval of Application No. 88017 supercedes approval of Application No. 68060. Both trucks and trailers may be stored and rented at the site. However, the total of both trucks and trailers shall not exceed eight (8) in number. 2. Parking of vehicles longer than 20' in length is prohibited in the spaces closest to the access drives serving the site and immediately north of the building. 3. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 4. Special use permit approval p p pp oval is for truck or trailer storage and rental. No other special ial use permits are approved by this action. 5. The ro ert owner shall repair p p Y p and maintain the screen fence along the residentially zoned property in an appropriate manner and provide the necessary maintenance to contain pea rock on the applicant's property. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, R Johnson and Sander. Voting against: none. The motion passed. - APPPLICATION NOS. 88015 AND 88016 (John Schulties and Shingle Creek Land Company) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the vacant parcel of land at the southwest corner 0 of Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North. He stated there is a companion application (Application No. 88015), but would prefer to review the preliminary plat application first. The Secretary reviewed the staff reports (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 88015 and 88016 attached). He noted there is a public hearing on the preliminary plat application, notices have been sent and the applicant is present to answer questions. Commissioner Bernards asked if the medical and dental uses are restricted because they increase parking ratio. The Secretary answered in the affirmative and that medical and dental uses require 1 space for every 150 sq. ft. of gross floor area in comparison to one space for 200 sq. ft. for regular office uses. Commissioner Bernards asked if there could be a condition added regarding lighting on the site. The Secretary responded that that would be an appropriate condition. Commissioner Bernards asked if this site was included in the Short- Elliott- Hendrickson traffic study. The Secretary stated that this area was not included in the study as it is on the fringe of the study. Commissioner Sander asked if the larger parcel would be subdivided again in the future. The Secretary stated that it is possible although the staff has seen a sketch for a proposed building utilizing the entire L- shaped parcel. Chairman Pro tem Nelson asked the applicant if he had anything to add. Al Beisner, developer for the site, stated he had nothing further to add. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 88016) Chairman Pro tem Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. 9 -22 -88 -3- x s Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 88017 Applicant: Ronald Schnoor Location: 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to store and rent up to eight (8) trucks at the Brooklyn Service Center, 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by a nonconforming single- family home zoned Cl, on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard, on the south by 69th Avenue North and on the west by the Northwest Residence home for mentally ill adults. Truck rental and leasing is a special use in the C2 zoning district. This site was approved for trailer rental in 1968 under Application No. 68060. However, that approval did not include truck rental which is now being carried on at the site. The central question of this application is simply whether there is adequate available parking on site. The applicant has submitted a site plan without marked parking stalls. We have indicated on the plan the location of 23 possible parking stalls. The parking requirement for the establishment is three spaces per service bay (x 3 = 9), plus one space for each day shift employee (x 4 = 4), plus two for service vehicles for a total of 15 spaces. This leaves a surplus of eight spaces for truck storage. However, some of these parking spaces are marginal and should definitely not be used for storage of vehicles over 20' in length. These would include especially the outer two spaces at the southeast corner of the lot, spaces immediately north of the building, and spaces just inside the northerly entrance off Brooklyn Boulevard. The best location for truck storage would probably be at the southwest corner of the lot, behind and to the southwest of the building. We see no conflicts with the standards contained in section 35 -220.2 (attached) presented by the storage and rental of up to eight (8) trucks. Accordingly, approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Special use permit approval of Application No. 88017 supercedes approval of Application No. 68060. Both trucks and trailers may be stored and rented at the site. However, the total of both trucks and trailers shall not exceed eight (8) is number. 2. Parking of vehicles longer than 20' in length is prohibited in the sppces closest to the access drives serving the site and immediately north of the building. 3. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 4. Special use permit approval is for truck or trailer storage and rental. No other special use permits are approved by this action. 9 -22 -88 ,� � X11 • ��K'7� i�:� ���� .. /1/11111 � 11� '' • !! ,.�, �;. � . LE E �� •� M mmll mills z m u Wd i !son 1 1 -:FRANCE IN I NMI 11 �1�1111 �T .1 1 � �— o �� SE �/�GE �nTlOr� 0 °159 �U. CL• T O DID u c a ✓ Q L T \ �I< ` I f CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Cate 10 -24 -88 Agenda Item Number cL REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Various City Ordinance Amendments Regarding the Parking of Commercial Vehicles *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPRO Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached We have recently been advised that State law has been modified in a manner so as to make some of the proposed ordinance revisions regarding the parking of commercial vehicles in residential zones ineffective and perhaps, inoperable. The State law ® has been changed to allow persons to designate their desired vehicle classification rather than for particular vehicles to be classified uniformly in the various weight classifications. This will create potential enforcement problems based on the language which has been utilized in our draft ordinance proposals, particularly when trying to make determinations on vehicles classified around the G classification. An example would be that a person which would normally have a G classification sized vehicle could now, at his own request, have a vehicle license classification of something lower, such as an E or F classification. The reason might be that the vehicle is used to haul or transport lighter weight items such as popcorn balls in comparison to iron balls. Our intent has been to regulate vehicles on size which would tend to exclude all vehicles of a certain size and weight. We weren't aware of this type of flexibility which again, will lead to enforcement problems if the proposed language is adopted. We have taken a series of slides of a variety of vehicles which we will present to the City Council on Monday, October 24, 1988. We would suggest that the City Council make a determination based on the size (length, height, bulk, etc.) of vehicle which should be prohibited from being parked or stored in residential districts. The staff will then attempt to redraft an ordinance amendment based on those determinations and then present new ordinance language to the City Council for a first reading at an upcoming City Council meeting. `- IM1 ?AT�bly� ON CL��11' ^.ZiZCia�L, (J I��CAt -S uJ tD t� �ESIr)�I n F - - - - -- -- C c Lul �I G T A� � � jLE� 1--� jr2o oK Ly ry 3 , 3 3 � - b 0 0 h A y �� i2 o c: � L`1►U - - ��,a C� R U WWI QaR� - VDok Su 41 3 /'7a-S — - -- - - ----- - - - - -- - - -- - - - -- lgNy Uz>� 0JEr L , 0 L P.,S C-r Al, u) C3 Loorj IAj MO - r2UUKS 00 -t T?- do 70uj'T uc,k- , 00 0-o /-je Qe/4 'ro 1 1 To -7 ) C LAILr -- — c 0-.; n Mav �..4-� ova s c +fie of . - - - -- E 4 b 07 3 PV;-c u , wy 1 e D HE Cz n o 0 UNrJect "L WE t0Ht-JE: JAL UeEAICALS ►JOT UIZ LC. odrZ ---- - - - - -- ___ IN C2 s10 ► � TIr �L flQVota c' F c icy EOt=U 240 ti T ODD �f S MAX -- - �o a l � d c c r ��'���• N A�L o V�Q PP -a12fC Gr o - 7000 1--BS G • U, u). Q b S - 7 o kA e, F p L) o P— o uAX-lty / Na 72uC-4L P u veS5 ALLOL c� ) To n G fff z Pl � O AL t�o"w, T3 1 � b g00 t-i,AX e�•�.w 0 1 14 e RS 2V-6 F� I �IT E � f-IP 7 I \I-000 C�.V . �. O K6 111 bITED K i N V E 7 3 6 k -5 C-r - T A 2 U "T• PR oA� 1 g,T>= 79AIL> =2 (.uT OCr)L Chats P, f�RoNIC� D� ooD L2 C, tit ©SSE 0 �91y N 0 ►AEr`,2T OF GRAVE PST AP VQY o U'fi� . i �1'C g 00D �. S x o SRS azo N 17 � 9c"00 &BALE 441— goOO t_ S > I.�X V)l S!-LFO 1AE 0-x000 ►�\j NF1 3 - 7 89 UP - ro 1 a�AV� o�'i sIQE R�I�-lc1 RA-TI NCr `�U PPLI Z i 0 ¢vr PM M` V67 UGt<q Fob Q s►o��ll1AL_ U5E ARE7 eo,US/VEp,l 1 cntiG c - , N ois E , S H E LL P--7'C. na2tG 1 o f Oda ��S C , �, ut aap SUMS P 2og LEE LN - Ats ('-' L�A2r�C =r-- 512ES OVlc�IrL AR•E c�,as.s i FIr=C) AS AvTb ;2c- dA)Q- spoo �a OaP s o, X33 oss r_ D -t- 3,e. 4 -3 6.7 /o b u)c5T-14 0 uRP,S �e : - ECT 2r!s1 Ewa CITY OFFICES 3g 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE �f EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 -3677 S 11.65 SEC. 11.65. HOME OCCUPATIONS. Subd. 1. Required Conditions. It is unlawful to conduct a home occupation except in the R, R -1 and R.i Dis- tricts, and it is also unlawful to conduct a home occupation except in comDliance with the following regulations: A. A home occupation sha11 be conducted in a dwelling and shall be clearly incidental to the use of the structure as a dwelling. B. A home occupation shall not be conducted in an accessory structure, and t here shal b no storage of eaui2m or supplies in an accessory structure or outside the dwellin - _. C. There shall be no external alteration of the dwelling in which a home occupation is conducted, and the existance of a home occupation shall not be apparent beyond the boundaries of the site, except for a name plate not to exceed 1 square foot. D. This occupation shall be carried on or conducted only by members of a family residing in the dwelling and no more than one non - resident of the dwelling. Source: Ordinance No. 9 -87 Effective Date: 5 -6 -87 E. No motor shall exceed one horse power. F. A home occupation shall not 'create any radio or television interference or create noise audible beyond the boundarie of the sit G. No smoke, odor, liquid, or solid waste shall be emiLL H. Not more than one truck of not more than 3/4 t on c paci and no semi - tra incidental to a ha occupation -shall be kept on t site I. A home occupation shall not create pedes- trian, automobile, or truck traffic significantly in excess of the normal amount in the district. SEC. 11.66. FAMILY CARE HOMES. Subd. 1. Objectives. To provide a high quality of residential opportunities for all people. Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this Section, shall have the meanings stated: 1. • Family• - A family shall consist of not more than six unrelated adults or children who are residing in a 'Family Care Home' under the trained supervision of two or more adults whose expressed purpose is to create a family home environment. A 'Family Care Home' shall be licensed by the State of linnesota, Federal Government, or other governmental licensing agencies, and meet all required conditions of this Section. 362 (9-17 -82) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 8th day of August , 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the parking of commercial vehicles. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE PARKING OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -700. OFF- STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Off- street parking and loading space shall be provided in all districts in accordance with the requirements of this ordinance. There shall be no off - street parking, storage of vehicles nor perimeter parking lot driveway within 15 feet of any street right -of- way and this 15 foot strip shall be planted and maintained as a green strip. In the case of C1 and CIA 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 after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1988. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter). CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 8th day of Auqust , 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. ORDINANCE NO. Ali ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES BY DECLARING ITIIE 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 public nuisance to permit, maintain, or harbor any of the following: 12. The parking and /or storage of a construction vehicle, a farm vehicle or a vehicle with the weight classification G through T inclusive, as specified in Minnesota Statutes 1 8.013, Subd. le, continuously for more than two hours on any property or public street within a residential zoning district. The prohibitions of this subdivision shall not apply to the following: a) Any vehicle described above being used by a public utility, 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 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 rake such pickup or delivery and in excess of the two hour limit shall be unlawful. — — Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1988. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter). CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public: hearing will be held on the day of 1988 at p.m. at the City Pull, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 35 regarding requirements for special home occupations involving the parking of certain vehicles. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons sre- available upon request at least %hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINPNCE PENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING REQUIREiENTS FOR SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATIONS INVOLVING THE PARKING OF CERTAIN VEHICLES Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -406. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATIONS: 10. A special home occupation may include the parking of no more than one vehicle with a weight classification G through T inclusive, as specified in Minnesota Statutes 1 8.013, Subdivision 1 e, provided the following conditions are met: a) the vehicle shall be parked off - street on an improved parking surface of blacktop or concrete; b) the vehicle may not be parked in a front yard or a yard abutting a public street; c) the vehicle rrLst be screened from view by an opaque fence or wall of sufficient height so that the vehicle is not visible from the public street or abutting residential properties at ground level; d) the vehicle may only be parked on the property for which the City Council_ has granted a special use permit and no servicing or repairing (including minor repair and oil changing) of the vehicle may be done on the property; e) the vehicle may not be allowed to idle for more than 10 minutes; f) compliance with any other conditions imposed by the City Council. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. ORDINANCE NO. Adopted this day of " qQ8. Mayor ATTEST: Cleric Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter). CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 10/ Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: MNDOT FUNDING FOR TURNBACK IMPROVEMENTS TO WEST RIVER ROAD (OLD TH 252) FROM 66TH AVENUE NORTH TO 73RD AVENUE NORTH *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: -//;t * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PP 4 *U *RE CTOR OF PUBLIC WO * ** * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached- *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Explanation At the time that MNDOT constructed new T.H. 252, the City and MNDOT executed an • agreement which provided that MNDOT would "...design and reconstruct for turnback to the City present Trunk Highway No. 252 (West River Road) from approximately 67th Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North (the northerly City limits)." That agreement also provided that ..... "By separate cooperative construction agreement encumbering the necessary monies the State will have the following responsibilities: 1. Develop roadway construction plans for turnback of West River Road to the City. 2. Pay for curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway. 3. Pay for overlaying the center 24 feet of the roadway. 4. Pay for storm sewer catch basins and leads on the west side of the roadway. 5. Pay for a berm for sidewalk construction on the east side of the roadway.; and that "In that same cooperative agreement the City will have the following responsibilities: 1. Accept West River Road into its City street system. ® 2. Pay for any costs of widening the road beyond the center 24 feet. 3. Pay for storm sewer catch basins and leads on the east side of the roadway." MNDOT originally intended to proceed with this work in 1986 or 1987. However, • the work was deferred as a result of MNDOT's program cutbacks because of fund shortages. Accordingly, West River Road remains officially under MNDOT jurisdiction. Because the 1988 legislature provided additional funding for highway improvements, MNDOT has now advised us that $500,000 has been budgeted for completion of this work in Brooklyn Center. At the same time, $2,400,000 has been budgeted for similar improvements to the segment of West River Road in Brooklyn Park. While the original agreement provided that MNDOT staff would develop construction plans and specifications for this work, MNDOT has now requested that the Cities hire consultants to develop those plans and specifications, with MNDOT providing reimbursement for its share of these costs. It is my opinion that this is a definite "plus" in that the City will be able to exercise much better control of design details under this arrangement. Staff Recommendation Under MNDOT rules and regulations, the first step in this process is for the City to publish a "Notice of Availability of Contract for Street Design Project" wherein any consultant who wishes to be considered for this project must submit a preliminary expression of interest, along with information regarding the consultants' qualifications, etc. Upon receipt of these preliminary proposals, the City then follows an established selection procedure. Finally, the City would then negotiate a contract with the selected consultant. That negotiated • contract would then be submitted to MNDOT and to the City Council for approval. It is recommended that this consultant selection process by initiated as soon as possible, in close cooperation with MNDOT and with the City of Brooklyn Park (to assure coordination of design, construction scheduling, etc.) as soon as possible. Action Required by City Council No formal action is required at this time. If the Council, by concensus, expresses its concurrence with the process described above, we will proceed accordingly. As noted, the proposed contract with the selected consultant will be submitted to the City Council for consideration after its development in accordance with established procedures and approval by MNDOT. i Licenses to be approved by the City Council on October 24, 1988: ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Boy Scouts/Rick Hartman 8028 Morgan Circle Brooklyn enter Lioness Yn 5324 Oliver Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Lions Club 5907 Halifax Ave. N. Brooklyn United Methodist Church 7200 Brooklyn Blvd. i Harmonettes /JoAnne Williams 3165 Carriage Dr. ? C���CI:� Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Enemy Heating Services, Inc. Route 3, Box 170A Kleve Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. 13075 Pioneer Trail Larson Mechanical 1509 Coon Rapids Blvd. Marsh Heating & Air Conditioning 6248 Lakeland Ave. N. Total Energy HVAC 8455 Center Drive N.E. Building Official (� RENTAL I7VJELI�ZNGS Initial: Eugene Hanauska 6538 Brooklyn Blvd. ELR Systems, Inc. /Bob Kelly 7137 France Ave. N. Renewal: Lang Nelson Assoc. Twin Take North Apartments Paul Hinck 4715 France Ave. N. Khalid Mahmud 5843 Fremont Ave. N. Timothy & Karen Pfingsten 6706 Grimes Ave. N. Delores Hanson 7210 Perry Court E. Delbert P. Burce 4741 Twin Lake Ave. Mrs Paul Enge 4748 Twin Lake Ave. Marlyn & Gale Kruse 2101 71st Ave. N. Q Victor & Jean Huang 3813 72nd Ave. N. 1 R .c- , (u "[_i r , , Director of Planning and Inspection SIGN HANGER Top Line Outdoor Advertising 1493 94th In. N.E. Building Official GENERAL APPROVAL: A D. K. Weeks, City Clerk