Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988 02-08 CCP Regular Session G CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FEBRUARY 8, 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. Recess to EDA 7. Presentation: a. Constitution Bicentennial Committee Chairperson *8. Approval of Minutes - January 25, 1988 — Regular Session 9. Performance Bond Reduction: *a. Brookdale Corporate Center III, 6160 Summit Drive - Reduce from $10,000 to $3,000 10. Resolutions: *a. Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Police Department Remodeling, Phase III, Improvement Project No. 1988 -01, Contract 1988 -A *b. Approving lans and Specifications g p ions and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids to Re roof. and ns I ulate City Garage, Improvement Project No. 1988 -03, Contract 1988- F 11. Ordinances: a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 21 Regarding Public Transportation -This ordinance is offered this evening for a first reading. The amendment g• will provide for the establishment of taxi cab rates by City resolution. b. An Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 87 -15 and Then Vacating Part of a Drainage and Utility Easement Along the Southerly Lot Line of Lot 3, Block 3, Donnay's Brook Lyn Gardens 4th Addition -This item is offered this evening for a first reading. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- February 8, 1988 12. Planning Commission Item: a. Planning Commission Application No. 87027 submitted by Dr. John Lescault requesting a variance from the sign ordinance to allow a 32 sq. ft. freestanding home occupation sign at his residence at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard -The Planning Commission recommended denial of this application at its December 17, 1987, meeting. This item was then considered by the City Council at the January 11, 1988, meeting at which time it was tabled for further staff review and comment. 13. Discussion Items: a. City Engineer's Report Regarding Proposed Street Improvement on Logan Avenue North and North Lilac Drive from 57th Avenue North to 59th Avenue North; France Avenue North from South City Limits to 50th Avenue North; Lakebreeze Avenue North from France Avenue North to Azelia Avenue North; and 50th Avenue North from France Avenue North to T.H. 100. 1. Resolution Establishing Assessment Rates for Street Improvement Projects in Residential Areas in 1988 2. Resolution Receiving Engineer's Report and Calling for Hearing on Logan Avenue Improvement Project No. 1988 -04, France Avenue Improvement Project No. 1988 -05, Lakebreeze Avenue Improvement Project No. 1988 -06, and 50th Avenue Improvement Project No. 1988 -07 b. Recommendation from Park and Recreation Commission Regarding Advisory Commission Bylaws 1. Resolution Amending Article VII of the Advisory Commission Bylaws c. Mayor and Council Salaries d. RFP for Analysis of Issues Relating to Residential Treatment Facility Moratorium e. Minnesota Transportation Finance Study Commission Report *14. Licenses 15. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF BEI& EF,IN AND JHE STATE OF INNES REGM AR SESSION JANUARY 25, 1988 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, HRA Coordinator Brad Hoffman, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Administrative Aid Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Theis. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the Open Forum session this evening. He inquikred if there vas anyone -present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the xegular agenda. items. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Council-members requested arty items renvved from the consent agenda. Councilmember lbotka requested items 9c and 9f be removed, and Councilmember Theis requested items 9h and 9j be removed from the consent agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 11 1988 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the minutes of the January 11, 1988, City Comic iI meeting. The motion passed unanimously. PERFORMANCE BOND RELEASE - BROOKLYN CENTER BAPTIST CHURCH-- 5840 HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to release the performance bond for Brooklyn Center Baptist Church, 5840 Humboldt Avenue North. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 88 -16 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 1 -25 -88 -1- r RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE RJC GRASSFIELD MODEL. AIRPLANE CLUB The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolutions was duly seconded by .member Rich The-is, ax23 tlae motion }sassed ainanimwrdy. RESOLUTION NO-88-17 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPOINTING COMMISSIONER AND ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER TO THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -1$ Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPOINTING COMMISSIONER AND ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER TO THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -19 Member Gene Lhotka introducer) the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE DF ONE (1) DUMP BOX AND HYDRAULICS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -20 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption_ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING METRO HRA SECTION 8 INSPECTIONS CONTRACT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the following list of licenses: BULK VENDOR D & G Vending, Inc. 4313 NE Washington St. CIGARETTE The Gift Shop 2200 Freeway Blvd. FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Best, Inc. 563 Payne Avenue 1 -25 -88 -2- Earle Brown Commons 6100 Summit Drive ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Drc,3aZ4d .Tank- Elementary School 6201 Noble Ave. N- Shar �& Zarlmg +6301 shinsi -e G rk - Tkvy. . NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES American Vending Company P. 0. Box 511 Sears Automotive Brookdale Center ARA Services 2830 North Fairview Northwestern Bell 5910 Shingle Crk. Pkwy. Bill's Vending Service 7317 West Broadway Brooklyn Center Service 6245 Brooklyn Blvd. D. L. Service Co. 2516 83rd Ave. N. Lowell's Automotive 6211 Brooklyn Blvd. Precision, Inc. 3415 48th Ave. N. Twin City Vending Co. Inc. 1065 East Highway 36 Group Health, Inc. 6845 Lee Ave. N. Sears Brookdale Center PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES American Vending Company P.O. Box 511 Sears Automotive Brookdale Center Twin City Vending ro. Inc. 1065 East Highway 36 Earle Brown Farm Tnd. Park 6100 Summit.Drive Highland Superstore 3951 Earle Brown Drive Sears Brookdale C- nter RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Peggy A. White 7013 Emerson Ave. N. Thomas W. Kotila 5430 Morgan Ave. N. Renewal: Rudolph J. 01son 6505 Brooklyn Blvd. Leo Vogel 1513 Humboldt Place John Carnahan 1531 Humboldt Place SPECIAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Norden, Inc. 1325 Brookdale Center The motion passed unanimously. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT - HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESOURCES COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to appoint Jayne Kuhar as chairperson for the Human Rights and Resources Commission. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Urging an Amendment to State Aid for Police Pensions Law. He explained for many years a premium tax of 2% has been collected by the State of Minnesota on all auto insurance premiums, and this tax 1 -25 -88 -3- is distributed to cities and counties to be used for police pension costs. He noted since 1977 cities and counties have been required to rebate any money received over and above the City ar County expenses for employer contributions far police PenslOns. Be stated in the pest A rooklyn Centex has not had to r+ebare 4exc&ss fates to Pfd! City+'r. empemses have always emeeded the total dollar amount received from the State. He stated since insurance costs are rising at a quicker rate than salaries for police officers, this scenario could change in the near future. He added it would be possible for the City to be required to rebate money back to PERA in 1988. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -21 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION URGING AN AMENDMENT TO STATE AID FOR POLICE PENSIONS LAW The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Receiving Report, Establishing Improvement Project No. 1988 -08 (Installation of Pressure Tanks at Wells No. 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8), Accepting Quotations and Approving Contract Therefor. Councilmember Lhotka inquired why the cost of furnishing miscellaneous parts was so much more expensive than the cost of furnishing ive storage tanks_ 'Th e g g Director of Public Works gave a brief explanation of .all -necessary parts which were cowered under the miscellaneous arts section. Councilmember lmember Lhotka inquired if these changes would add to the life of the system. The Director of Public Works responded affirmatively. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -22 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT, ESTABLISHING IMPRU EM= PROJECT NO. 1988 -08, (INSTALLATION OF PRESSURE TANKS AT WELLS NO. 2, 4, 3, 7, AND 8), ACCEPTING QUOTATION AND APPROVING CONTRACT THEREFOR The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving Canada Goose Population Management and Ecology Contract with the University of Minnesota. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if the City Manager has received any response from the cities of Crystal and Robbinsda Y le regarding their interest in this program. The City Manager stated he has received a verbal response from both oth cities and neither of them are interested in participating in the program. Councilmember Lhotka inquired where the three sites are which are noted in the contract. The City Manager r sta g ted the contract covers Centerbrook Golf Course, Central Park, and Palmer Lake. There was a brief discussion regarding the resident who operates the DNR approved wild life refuge at the north end of Twin Lake and whether the Canada Goose Population Management Program would affect this wild life refuge. The Director of Public Works stated the revised contract which would P rovide for annual payments has been received by the City. 1 -25 -88 -4- RESOLUTION NO. 88 -23 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the fallowing resolution and moved its adoption: RRSG1 : T.10N AP.PRDVJNG CANADA C,005$ R0RZ T,AZWN M9ATAr .MIN ADW ,E=.DGY CONTRACT WITH 7HE UNIVfASM fly' RINNESOTA The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Approving a Joint Powers Agreement to form the Hennepin Recycling Group. The City Manager explained the joint powers agreement would, allow the cities to negotiate a contract with haulers for the collection of rubbish and recyclables. Councilmember Theis inquired when the citizens would be notified of the proposed changes. The HRA Coordinator stated a public meeting will be held 60 days after the passage of the original resolution. A brief discussion then ensued regarding the backout provision in the agreement. It was noted the public hearing would most likely be scheduled for the second Council meeting in February. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -24 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO FORM THE HENNEPIN RECYCLI= GROW The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, anti the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving Vacation Leave and Sick Leave for Fire Chief. Councilmember Theis inquired if the hours of vacation leave falls in line with the number of years of service. The City Manager responded affirmatively. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -25 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING VACATION LEAVE AND SICK LEAVE FOR FIRE CHIEF The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 Relating to petty and Theft Related Offenses. He explained this ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening. He noted the amendment would eliminate "justice of the peace" from the ordinance and also make the penalty sections consistent with other such sections of the City ordinances. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 Relating to Petty and Theft Related Offenses and setting a public hearing date for February 22, 1988, at 7 :30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. 1 -25 -88 -5- PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION N0. 87028 SUBMITTED BY MARY KORZENOWSKI ABO USUNG JUQ� EE -- IRACTS - OLD COOK PAINT SITE AT 4800 NORTH LILAC DRIVE THE SITE OF -OM TOOL TO THE EAST AND TWO SMALL VACANT TRACTS IN BETWEEN The City Manager noted this item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its January 14, 1988, meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated this application was originally discussed by the Planning Commission at its December 7, 1987, meeting. At this time it was tabled for additional comment by the City Attorney. He then referred Councilmembers to pages two and three of the January 14, 1988, Planning Commission minutes and the attached informational sheet with those minutes. He briefly explained the application and noted the 27 parking stalls along 48th Avenue would have to be removed because they are a nonconforming use. He stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of this application subject to three conditions which he reviewed for the Council. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 87028 submitted by Mary Korzenowski. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing, no one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There Baas a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Jhotka to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 87028. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilme.mbex Scott to approve Planning Commission Application No. 87028 submitted by Mary Korzenowski subject to the following conditions: 1. The final R.L.S. is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final R.L.S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The applicant shall enter into a restrictive covenant to provide a minimum of 28 additional parking stalls on the K and K Sales site upon a determination b the City th at at such additional stalls are necessar y for the ro e r functioning P p g of the site. Said covenant shall be filed with the title to the property at the County. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the final plat for K and K Sales and Omni Tool Property R.L.S. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn n Center City Council recessed at y y 7:50 p.m. and reconvened at 8.10 p.m. 1 -25 -88 -6- DISCUSSION ITEMS NAME CHANGE OF BROOKLYN CENTER MEDIATION PROJECT Mayor Nyquist stated it has been requested this item be laid over to a hater datee. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF MATERIALS SUBMITTED BY THE COMMUNITY ACTION GROUP OPPOSED TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE BILL KELLY HOUSE The City Manager referred the Mayor and Councilmembers to the large packet of materials prepared by the Community Action Group. Mayor Nyquist stated he thought the materials were well organized. Councilmember Theis stated he believes the Community Action Group has submitted quite a lot of new information, and he believes there is a need to address each item. Councilmember Theis stated during the public hearings regarding the Bill Kelly House, it appears that representatives of the Bill Kelly House made statements to the Planning Commission and the City Council which they felt were necessary to make their position the strongest. He added in some cases it appears the true facts were misrepresented. He concluded by saying he believes the new information warrants taking another look at the permit issued to the group home. There was a brief discussion regarding the rules and regulations and the proper g g g p per motions necessary to reopen the public hearing or reconsider the permit. The City Attorney stated it would appear the proper motion would be to rescind the permit. Rowever, the applicant has -not seen the new - information or had time to respond to it_ He suggested the motion should include reopening of the public hearing, setting a public hearing date, and notifying the applicant of the public hearing and -new information. He stated after the hearing the Council could move to rescind or revoke the rou home permit. Counci emb g P P lm ex Hawes inquired if the motion should be made by someone on the prevailing side of the approval. The City Attorney stated a motion to reconsider should be made b someone who voted on the prevailing side of the issue. However, a motion to rescind could be made by any member of the Council. Councilmember Lhotka inquired of the City Attorney if there was enough new information to allow the City to rescind or revoke the group home's permit. The City Attorney stated the question before the Council appears to be whether the new information submitted is sufficient in kind, nature, and magnitude that it would have changed the Councilmembers' mind if the information had been submitted before the original approval was given. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if a motion to rescind was made and the item then tabled, would the public hearing date be set this evening. The City Attorney stated the sooner the public hearing date is set the more options are left open to the Council. A brief discussion then ensued regarding the new information submitted and the appearance of misrepresentation by the applicant. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to reopen the public hearing regarding Planning Commission Application No. 87012 submitted by Bill Kelly House, to consider new information which has been submitted by the Community Action Group, and setting a public hearing date of February 16, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed with Councilmember Lhotka opposed. Councilmember Lhotka stated he opposed the motion because the possibility of misrepresentation on the part of the applicant was mentioned during the Council's discussion of the motion. 1 -25 -88 -7- i REOUEST FROM YELLOW TAXI SERVICE CORPORATION REGARDING A METER RATE INCREASE The City Manager stated there has been a request from Yellow Taxi Service for a rate „increase. He explained in the current taxicab ordinance it is stated that rates charged may not exceed taxicab rates which are lawful in the City of Minneapolis_ He noted tUs ordina=5e has not been updated for ju to sometxnme and referred the Mayor and Councilmembers to the list of changes suggested by the police department. He stated basically the purpose of this license is to inspect the cabs for all safety features. Councilmember Scott inquired if the Council could approve the fee increase and have the City Manager work with other cities to develop a taxicab ordinance which would be the same throughout the suburbs. The City Manager stated an ordinance amendment would be necessary to approve the fee increase. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis directing the City Manager to prepare an ordinance amendment to change the rate structure for taxicabs and to have these rates set by resolution rather than by ordinance. The motion passed unanimously. AGENDA PACKET MODIFICATIONS The City Manager stated City staff has been reviewing practices of other communities as it relates to their City Council agenda packet formats. He noted he included in this evening's agenda a sample of the City of New Brighton's format. He stated he would like to make it easier for the Council to review the data and materials that are sent out with each agenda -par - eT. Councilmember Scott inquired if the Council would stil'1 receive the additional backup materials along with the brief summary page. The 'City Manager responded affirmatively. He suggested y gg having taff prepare the brief summa for g P P =y pages a few selected items out of each agenda over the next few months. There was a general consensus among Councilmembers that the City Manager should prepare a brief summary page for a few selected items from each agenda over the next few months. PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING ANALYSIS The City Manager stated the preliminary staff work which has been done on a redevelopment policy indicates a need for a thorough analysis of the City's housing stock neighborhood by neighborhood. He stated staff believes the study could be financed with community development block grant funding. He briefly reviewed the areas the study would consider. Councilmember Lhotka inquired Lf the funding from CDBG would be above the current level of funding. The City Manager stated currently the City is not using, all funds available from the CDBG. The HRA Coordinator stated the funding from CDBG is used for the City's rehab grant program. He noted the number of rehab grants has been declining over the past few years. Mayor Nyquist inquired if this study is being suggested because the funding is available or because the study is necessary. The HRA Coordinator stated there is a 4efinite need for a comprehensive study pertaining to the City's housing stock. He noted this study would allow the City to set a timetable for implementing various programs. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis directing staff to prepare a request for proposals for this project and to seek funding approval for this project through the CDBG process. The motion passed unanimously. 1 -25 -88 -8- The City Manager noted after receiving CDBG funding approval staff would return to the City Council for project approval. JAL NORJMU CORRIDOR ROUTE SELECTION - ROCFS$ UpDQTE The -City .Manager briefly reviewed the draft memorandum whioh he had prepared regarding the IRT Northwest Corridor Route Selection. He stated at this time it is questionable if the recommended route will include service to the Brookdale general area. A brief discussion then ensued regarding the proposed system and the impacts on existing services. OTHER BUSINESS Councilmember Hawes stated he had some questions regarding the sanitarian's report pertaining to Quet Viet Restaurant. The City Manager stated he would look into the matter and give a more detailed report to Councilmember Hawes. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9:31 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 1 -25 -88 -9- MEMORANDUM TO: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection FROM: Gary Shallcross, Planner DATE: February 3 1988 SUBJECT: Performance Guarantee The following performance guarantee is recommended for reduction: 1. Brookdale Corporate Center ,III 6160 Summit Drive Planning Commission Application No. 86012 Amount of Guarantee - $10,000 bond Obligor - Ryan Construction Company Utility corrections have been made. All site improvements have now been installed with the exception of permanent curb along the north side of the access drive off Earle Brown Drive. This curbing is to be deferred in lieu of the eventual construction of Phase IV to the north. Recommend reduction from $10,000 to $3,000 to insure completion of this approximately 200' of curb and gutter. Approved y C G✓� f Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection loa, Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT REMODELING, PHASE III, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO 1988 -01 CONTRACT 1988 -A NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the plans and specifications as prepared by Carlson Mjorud Architecture Ltd. (CMA) for the Police Department Remodeling, Phase III, Improvement Project No. 1988 -01, Contract 1988 -A are hereby approved. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish an advertisement for bids for said project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement for bids shall be published as required by law. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE C ENTER 911 February 3, 1988 TO: G. G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works RE: Plans and Specifications for Police Department Remodeling Project and Reroofing and Insulation at City Garage. Carlson Mjorud Architecture Ltd (CMA) has completed preparation of plans and specifications for these two projects. Specifications for work on the City Garage roof provide for three "flat roof" alternatives, as requested by the City Council, i.e.: a "Modified Bitumen" alternate, an "Adhered FPDM" alternate, and an "Attached EPDM" alternate. No substantial changes have been made to the project scope since the Council established the projects. Accordingly, our current estimate of contract costs stands at $60,970 for the Police Department remodeling and at $127,200 for work on the City Garage. Resolutions approving the plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids are provided for consideration by the City Council. Respectfully submitted Sy K ` pp Director of Public Works /Ob Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS TO REROOF AND INSULATE CITY GARAGE, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -03 CONTRACT 1988 -F NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the plans and specifications as prepared by Carlson Mjorud Architecture Ltd. (CMA) for the reroofing and insulation of the City Garage, Improvement Project No. 1988 -03, Contract 1988 -F are hereby approved. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish an advertisement for bids for said project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement for bids shall be published as required by law. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of at P.M. at the City Hall, 6301 A Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance mending Chapter 21 Regarding Public Transportation. 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 21 REGARDING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 21 of the City ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 21 -108 RATES. Every taxicab operated under this ordinance shall display in view of all passengers a rate card setting forth the authorized rates of fare. Rates charged [may not exceed taxicab rates which are lawful in the City of Minneapolis] shall be set forth by City Council resolution The driver of any taxicab shall, upon demand by the passenger, render to such passenger a receipt for the amount charged, either by a mechanically printed receipt or by a specially prepared receipt on which shall be the name of the owner, license number, amount of meter reading or charges, and date of transaction. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) ire CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of at P.M. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Vacating An Easement in Lot 3, Block 3, Donnays Brook Lyn Gardens 4th Addition. 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 REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 87 -15 AND VACATING PART OF A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG THE SOUTH LOT LINE OF LOT 3 BLOCK 3 DONNAYS BROOK LYN GARDENS 4TH ADDITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance No. 87 -15 is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 2. The 15 foot utility and drainage easement along the south line of Lot 3, Block 3. Donnays Brook Lyn Gardens 4th Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the westerly 5 feet and the southerly 5 feet of said easement, is hereby vacated. Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B R OOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE- FIRE 911 MEMORANDUM TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM; H. R. Spurrier, City Engineer DATE: February 2, 1988 SUBJECT; Easement Vacation - Lot 3, Block 3, Donneys Brook Lyn Gardens, 4th Addition The attached ordinance repeals Ordinance 87 -15 and vacates part of a drainage easement at 6501 Unity Avenue (Lot Block 3, Donnays Brook Lyn Gardens 4th Addition). The action is required because Ordinance 87 -15, a vacating ordinance, has an incorrect description and I did not catch it. The easement was called on the north line and was intended to be on the south line. There is no easement on north line so there was no legal problem created by the adoption of Ordinance 87 -15. The attached ordinance should be adopted in order to take the action intended in Ordinance 87 -15. The revised ordinance has the correct description and takes the action intended September, 1987. It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached ordinance. Res ectful y,submitted, Approved for submittal J; R. Spurrier Sy Knapp City Eng � eer Director of Public Works Enclosure: Ordinance Vicinity and Detail Map HNE LA. tH i 66TH. AVE. N. i w r r-- WINCHESTER LA. LOT 3 BLOCK 3 AVE N. I DR. ' tl 4 i z 64 AV N. d VICINITY MAP EASEMENT VACATION o ®OO UO1� U w SCALE IN FEET I D PR EPARED BY U LTI IMAP SHEET 1 OF 2 1 LOT 2 CC-7= 1 I 1 I i 127 a 51 � I . i J I L O T 3 r O C3 0) ^� m I U U ►� U- 1 ' O 1 r 1 1 127 L O 1 i 1 I LOT I I I I I EASEMENT N VACATION DONNAYS BROOKLYN GARDENS 4TH ADDITION LOT 3, BLOCK 3 0 30 60 o C�OO�d �1�1 SCALE IN FEET o R T PREPARED D Y ARE B UL IMA P SHEET 2 OF 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager e FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspectio / ? C-t 6 DATE: February 5, 1988 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Application No. 87027 submitted by Dr. John Lescault The City Council at its January 11, 1988 meeting tabled Planning Commission Application No. 87027 which is a request by Dr. John Lescault for a variance from the Sign Ordinance to have a larger home occupation sign than the 2.5 sq. ft. sign permitted by the Sign Ordinance. This application was tabled so that the staff could review the applicant's claim that State law required the name of the chiropractor as well as the word chiropractor to be on any advertising sign. Dr. Lescault has provided us with a copy of Chapter 2500, State Board of Chiropractic Examiners Board Rules (copy attached). Section 2500.0200 of those rules, relating to professional standards for advertising states in part that "all advertisements, of any nature whatsoever, including office designation and business displays must bear the name of the licensee or licensees." The City Attorney has contacted the Attorney General assigned to the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners regarding this rule, which has been properly adopted and has the effect of state law. He reports that this rule is intended to require chiropractors to include their name on any advertising sign such as the one Dr. Lescault has, or is proposing, and would require both doctors' names if there are two. The Attorney General noted that this rule is enforced primarily on a complaint basis and noted that it is possible that not all chiropractors have their names on their signs (Note: Of the four chiropractors located in Brooklyn Center, two have their names on their signs, while two do not). The bottom line is that the rule does require the doctors' names on the sign, however, the rule does not specify the size of the sign or that the word .chiropractor or chiropractic must appear. It is for the City Council to decide whether or not the size of the sign is appropriate in this case. The business is a home occupation limited to a 2.5 sq. ft. sign and the Planning Commission and staff believe it is an appropriate sized sign. However, it is possible for the Council to consider this situation (State regulation requiring doctors' names on signs) to be unique necessitating the need for a larger sign particularly if another chiropractor's name is required to be on that sign and a variance could be granted. The City Council could also determine that the size of the sign is appropriate and it is up to Dr. Lescault to decide how best to design his sign to meet the State requirements within the 2.5 sq. ft. permitted by City Ordinance. The City Council might also decide that it would be better to consider larger home occupation signs on major thoroughfares and may want to look at the possibility of amending the Sign Ordinance to accommodate such cases. The City Council's attention is directed to the Planning Commission's recommendation which can be found on page 3 of their December 17, 1987 minutes. RAW :mll w �) ;onus °nrr,n /rte' (� / /4,lee n �� •% pIL� U�ry ,�{l Oinnegota Noa of 0iropractic Cxaminerg 2700 University Avenue West, Suite 102, St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 -1089 Telephone: (612) 642 -0591 *1 i t t January 12, 1988 Dr. John Lescault, D. c. 6142 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center, M 55429 Dear Dr. Lescault: Enclosed, you will find Chapter 2500 which we spoke of during the telephone conversation of this afternoon. Hope this helps. If there is a question, please feel free to call this office. arils, ]mh enc. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER NffV.V1 tiV.•►ef.I f�1..t.1� 1VtV CHAPTER 2500 STATE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS I BOARD RULES •O�gI131�C «w f.v ofpt�rROGAAMS=&SECTTO *30.9S0 Id0ILSSfO.%A1L $7^040,+40% /oa w /NtOV^L. AOVLaTISINe— DO\1?0\ /iOG1t^%dAaM10VALCMICAS► � 3340 9.r4ACV CT ANSNL\a+G I:a\ 10001 UNA/MtOriD VIA LXCHA04GL :SOLI No Itt*W OP wTTWOOAUt L 23KOoN ►\OWNTLDADvINTIsa iffm balsa FAW.U019'roca"KT rfTN LbCV A" CGNVwwrfG rab'CATfOff CONTtMtaulG 901ICATIG" 2=11011 litR!"S\ "KICATION ILL \LgNIaiS.tNTL ZIM441010 M+O/Y/OWL AMPOU" LICL-4a IND "a Lim"" 441I001;rATQ.iMr. \C/twAL Lea tot\ W&AV" of Oi /iarrMT OP 270\131011 Cd+TWW9Pfi LDlJcArl $. C'OI61"US! 42 LDYCATION ?m1m AVPWv40 404C^nom MOGaAYs. \\Qt/IiiViNrj ADVERTISING 2500.02130 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FOR ADVERTISING. .. Subpart I. Individual advertising. A chiropractor is licensed under his own same and must not use a false or assumed name in the conduct of his pro(cssioa. All advertisement% of any nature whatsoever. including o(fice designation and -business displays. must bear the name of the licensee or licensees. This standard of pro(essional conduct is inherent in the law. It includes advertising or other solicitation of business. It precludes solicitation at advertising without the assurance to the public given by the name under which the chiropractor is licensed to practice. All advertisements which solicit patronage without disclosing the name or names of the practitioner or practitioasm to the reader so that the public may know who is soliciting their patroaalle are wrongful. Soo;. 2. Isttitntio W advertising. It is to be noted that so- called icWtutiaaal advertisements which bring to the attention of the public the quali(ica::rs of chiropractom generally. and the benefits to be derived from chirp . which an sponsored by chiropractic groups or societies. and do sot solicit ;,a =sage for any particular practitioner or group of practitioners are not within t�- ,Purview of this prohibition. Sts. -=q Authority: MS s 14LOS: 14L10 subd 2500.0309 EMERGENCY ANSWERUNG EXCHANGE It is to • be noted that membership is any answering exchange or other emergency service which is open to ad members of the profession admitted to psaaks is this state on an basis. selects mesnbera on a � respondi rotating basis. and is designed as a public savics rather than for the individual pin of any chiropractor. directly at indirectly. is patmisu%14L Statutory ANdMiAr. MS s 14M. 14L 10 strbd 1 2300.0400 PROHIBITED ADVERTISEMENTS. Advertisements are designed to appeal to and obtain the attention of the �pubGc and arindesigned. paid for. a• published with a view to close agalysis by the reader at whose attention they an minted. y The law prohibits the use a( the terms "cure or •guarantse to cure" or f similar tarns and declases such to be fraudaknt and maleadins to the Z=wat public The use of testimoaial% whether single or is groups. or summaries of types Of treatment or examples of treatment as used in the advertisers office carry with 1671 HUARU KtA.L:. 26uu.1.uu , hcm an impli :aion that the conditions dzscribed in the advertisement have F _cn 0 or will be aired by the practitioner and arc fraudulent and misicading to the gcncral public. The advertising by any means of chiropractic practice or treatment or advice , in which untruthful. improbable, rrisle_dint . or impossible statements are made ; is obviously contrary to the law. i Statutory Authority:_ US s 148.05. 143.10 subd I ; UCEa&i$I,NC AND coNTENW C EDUCATION 2SCO.1000 LICENSE APPLICATION FEE. Applications for licensers must be accompanied by a fee o! 575. i Statutory AatborUr. MS s 14&03: 14&6. 14107 subd I. 14&10 subds 1.J; 214.06; 214.12 250.1100 INDIVIDUAL ANNUAL LICENSE RENEWAL. Subpart 1. Removal notica. Thirty or more days before January l each year. the state board of chiropractic examiners. hereafter board. shall mail to the last address on file with the board a license renewal fee notice to each pcMf6 hereafter licensee. licensed to Practice chiropractic within this state Subp. 2. Renewal fees The licenser of each licensor shall expire it midnight ou December 31 each year. Subject to the terms of part 2500.1200. the board shall renew the unease upon receipt from the licensee of a license renewal fee of 573. plus any applicable penalty fee as set forth in part 250CL I30CL Each licensee shall submit the license renewal fee to the board no later than January I of the year for which the licause renewal is requeaed. Subp. 3. Penalty fees. A liansoe shall submit to the board. is addition to the license runtewal fee, s Penalty fee of $S per month for each mouth or portion of a month for which this license reaswal few is in arrears. {he penalty not to exceed 550. Sta"wory Autbarity: MS s 14&Q3 14&05. 14&07 subd I. 14110 subds LJ. 214.06; 214.J2 LAM= CONTINUING EDUCATION. Subpart 1. Pnrpaw The primary purpose of continuing chiropractic eduction is to assum the consumer of an optimum quality of chiropractic health care by requiring doctors of chiropractic to attend educatioa d classes or w === desisted to advance their Professional *Wls and knowledge. . Subp. 2. Annad as hereinattes requtsreme*t. Except ptovuded, every pessoa l cersed to practice chiropractic in this state shall. as a prerequisite for they antral renewal of his Scout. attend a minimum of 20 bouts during the preceding calendar year of continuing education courses recognized and approved by the board. At least three of such hours shall be devoted to radiographic safety. Nclu ique. and/or iaterpr+etatiote. Subp. 3. Exwmptiea I kessees shall be eu amm fray the preceding continuing education ir+esneats for the calendar Year in which they are initially licensed. . Subp. 4. Sch edttM at requires . bows. During the first calendar year following the year of initial licensum licensees shall attend a total of not less than tm hours of recognized and approved continuing education courses. including at least three hours devoted to radiographic safety. tcchniqure.`1n&or Interpretation. Mweafter. five addition d course bows shall be attended each year until the annual 20 hour minimum requirement is met Statutory Authority: MS s 14&03; 14&05; 14L07 subd l: 148.10 subds 1.3: ` 214.06; 214.12 Z5G.1304 u0AHU I UL1 . � 167 t 2504.1300 APPROVe'r) EDUCATION PROGRAMS. i Subject to continued appro�ai une!er the criteria set forth in part 2500.1500' � =� and except as set forth under ?an 2500.16W, the following continuing education classes are :ppeo•ed by ae board: A. Educational mcetinos of the American Chiropractic Assoei =lion. B. Educational meetings of the Int::aat:onal Chiropractic Association. .•' % C Educational meetings of the Canadian Chiropractic Association. 7 D. Educational classes conducted by any chiropractic college that is accredited by or has accreditation status with the Council on Chiropractic; Eduction. E. Educational classes conducted by any state chiropractic association. Statutory Authoriryr. MS s 148.03: 148.03; 148.07 subd 1; 148.10 subds 214 06; 214.12 2500.1100 OTHF-R PROC SUBJECT TO APPROVAL- Other continuing education programs may be approved by the board upon a - ? written request therefor submitted by the program sponsor to the board executive secretary. All such requests shall be received not Less Cyan 90 days prior to the • r program presentation date Lad shall contain the following information: A. name and address of organ "Uan spoaaoring the course for which. I approval is requested: B. instructors name and credentials: C an outline of Subject, 'matter to be covered; D. the number -a( 60•minute hours o! actual inuru- a aa; E the mechanism of monitoring and certifying attendance F the location at which the course wilt be conducted; G. data the course will be presented; H. tuition roe. Statutory Authority: MS s 14803; 148.03: 14807 subd l; 143.10 subds 1,3; : 1 4.06; 214.12 25 0.1500 PROCRAM APPROVAL CRrrER1A. The board shall employ the following criteria in determining whoa i continuing education program shall be approved and the number of course hours for which approval is granted: .• A. whether ' the material to be' presented -4 likely to cah_ as the practitioners knowWgc cad skin in the practice of ehimpractie . IL whether the instructors or speakers presenting the program are . sufTiciendy goal ned in fire field at their unaucioa. dtbse by pricgwd 1 academic experience or both; C whether the dasses will be held in a suitabk setting which is -•1 conducive to the learning process. . Statutory Authority; US s 14803; 14805: 148477 subd 1. 14x.10 subtfs 1,3; .. 214.06; 214,12 2500.1600 UNAPPROVED PROCRAMS. . � . :• Courses dealing with administrative and economic aspects of practice shalt not be approved for continuing education credit by the board. Statutory Authority: MS s 14803; 148OS; 14807 subd 1. 14810 subds 1,3; 214.06; 214.12 57� BOARD IZLJLZS 2' y X00. I AU i 2500.1700 PROOF OF ATTENDANC 1 ' Subpart 1. NVfitten statement, On or before January 1 al the year for ch renewal of his license is requested, each licensee not initi_Ily licensed in ' �s state during the preceding calendar year sync! submit a written st_tcnent to the board executive secretary . containing the following; A. the name. date. and subject of each cducation_I pro -:am attended durin.- the preceding calendar year, 8. the names of the sponsoring oraznirations: C the number of 60- minute class hours of instruction Offered at each Program and the number of hours actually attended; and D. the name. signature. and current mailing address of the Cuaasee. Subp. 2. Falst evidence, Falsification of any written evidence submitted to the board executive secretary pursuant to parts 2500.1100 to 25002000 Shan be deemed to - be unprofessional conduct and constitute grounds for lice r evcati;on or suspension. Statutory Au&wit� . MS s 148.01: 148.OS; 148.07 subd 1; 14& io subds 1.3; 214.06; 214.12 2500.1800 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONTINUING EDUCATION ttBQUIRF2�tF1VT5,. Tlse board may refuse to renew, or may revoke. suspend. condition. limit. restrict. or quardy the license of amy licensee failing to comply with the requirements of parts 2300.1100 or 2300 2000 and/or may publicly reiniju-nd,. csnsure. and place such person on probation with the board Ststatorp Aatberie r: MS s . ax.- 14&05; N&07 subd 1; 14& 10 strbds 1,3: 21:12 X LICENSE REINSTATEMENT. Tke "'Came of any licensee which is not renewed or which is revoked. i1Spe= 'e-. or reduced in stat by reasan of failure to comply with the contintit:g education requirements of puts 2500.1100 to 2500.2000 may. at the decdOm of the licensee or former licensee. be reinstated or restored to full status by either of the following procedure; A. Submission to the board executive secretary of proof of the snake ' sp of all continuing education course hour and subject matter requirments ; woatd have been necessary for ootttinuous lieensure !roue• the date of such tx:sods IM license renewal or - initial lice nswit. whichever is mor- retxnr, and t Rtbanissioa b the bout!: executive secretary of proof of auendanes at an iddititmai tea bona of board eceogsaised and approved continuing education courses foe cede i n t erven i ng renewal y proof of compliance with the foreZoiag requirements SW be made by written statement in the fcwm prescribed subpart past 2500.1700. snbput 1. and vAjeu a the pt�� of pact 2500.1700, wbpast 2; or S Reexamination by the board at the bane for wbiich it next schedules '"nse etatn nat"Oem No such r+e+etammcme shalt be conducted "a" upon a O'do m apprtcation therefor received by the boned eseeuive seeretney not las *an 30 days prior to the exa mination date. Statmoe7 Authority; JWS s 148.03: 148.05: 14&07 su6d 1; 14&10 sobds 1,3: 114,06; 214.12 2500.2000 BO.:RL) i:::Lc:S 1674 M0.2000 WAIVER OR OUERNICNT OF CONTINUIoNG EDUCATION REQUIRLME \T5. The board shall waive or defer compliance with some or all annul continuing education requirements for any licensee presenting satisfactory written evidence to the board of illness or hardship making it impossible or highly . impractical for the licensee to attend or to have attended a sufficient number of approved continuing education clus hours. ' Statutory .authority: MS s 148.01: 148.05: 148.07 subd l; 148.10 subds I.J: 2/4.06; 214.12 . I APPLICATION NO. 87027 (Dr. John B. Lescault) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for a variance from the Sign Ordinance to allow a 32 sq. ft. freestanding sign at his residence at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the staff report (see Planning Commission Information for Application No. 87027 attached). The Secretary stated there is a public hearing required and that the proper notices had been sent. Chairman Lucht asked what size sign could be obtained if Dr. Lescault's property was zoned commercial. The Secretary responded that under the Sign Ordinance a maximum of 36 sq. ft. would be allowed if the property were zoned Cl. The Secretary stated there have been eight home occupations on Brooklyn Boulevard over the years and that each one had been able to live with the sign ordinance requirements for home occupation signs. Dr. Lescault explained he had contacted a sign contractor and had been told that 32 sq. ft. sign would give the best exposure for his business on a major thoroughfare, but that he was only asking for a larger sign. He stated he was not aware of eight home occupations on Brooklyn Boulevard. He explained that with his special use permit he has the right to bring in another doctor, but has not yet done so and that there would be no room on the existing sign to add a new name. He feels he is in a transitional area and should be allowed a larger sign. 12 -17 -87 -2- Chairman Lucht stated he felt Dr. Lescault is asking for a rezoning of the property from Rl to commercial. He stated if a larger size is granted in this case, all residents with home occupations may ask for the same consideration and that he is opposed to any changes in the Sign Ordinance. A brief discussion ensued regarding the need for a variance. PUBLIC HEARING Chai an Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commis s er Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Nelson, Ainas, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 87027 (Dr. John B. Lescault) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend denial of Application No. 87027 on the grounds that the applicant has not demonstrated that the qualifications for obtaining a variance from the Sign Ordinance contained in Section 34 -180 of the City Ordinances have been met particularly in the following ways: 1. The hardship cited by the applicant is not unusual for a home occupation located on a major thoroughfare. 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are not unique inasmuchas there have been at least eight home occupations along Brooklyn Boulevard which have lived within the restrictions of the Sign Ordinance. 3 A large (4' x 8' ) home occupation sign would be detrimental to the integrity of the R1 district in which the residence of the applicant is located. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Nelson, Ainas, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The applicant, Dr. John B. Lescault, requested that his application be heard at the first City Council meeting in January, rather than the next meeting which is December 28, 1987 because he would not be able to attend the December 28 meeting. DISCUSSION ITEMS The Secretary requested that the Commission review their Neighborhood Advisory Group membership list and notify him of any changes or corrections. He also requested that the Commission review the 1988 Planning Commission meeting dates included in the packet. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Wallerstedt seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Nelson, Ainas, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Chairman 12 -17 -87 -3- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 87027 Applicant: Dr. John Lescault Location: 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests a variance from the Sign Ordinance to allow a 32 sq. ft. freestanding home occupation sign at his residence at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is zoned Rl and is bounded on the north by 62nd Avenue North, on the east and south by single- family homes, and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard. Dr. Lescault possesses a special use permit for the chiropractor's office he conducts in his home. Home occupation signs are limited under the,Sign Ordinance to 2.5 sq. ft. Dr. Lescault presently has a small illuminated sign for his business on Brooklyn Boulevard. Applicant's Arguments Dr. Lescault has submitted a letter (attached) addressing the standards for a sign variance (see Section 34 -180 also attached) . Regarding the standard relating to hardship, Dr. Lescault states that it is his impression that a hardship does exist because, even with his new sign, patients continue to park in the dental building to the south or at Bridgeman's across the street because they do not see the sign. In his second point, Dr. Lescault states that he is located in a transitional area that "is not an R1." He states that usage of the larger sign would be appropriate inasmuchas he is located adjacent to a number of commercial properties. He states that LeRoy Sign Company has indicated to him that for a 40 m.p.h. road, 5" to 6" letters and a sign approximately 4' x 8' or 4' x 7' would be appropriate. In his third point, Dr. Lescault states that he does not see that a sign would affect the value of adjacent property or the neighborhood as a whole. Dr. Lescault concludes his letter by stating that there is justification in the variance request because his clients still have trouble finding him after 11 years of being in business at this location. He states that drivers slowing down to look for the office create a traffic hazard. He also states that he has even had patients attempt to park on Brooklyn Boulevard to enter the office. Variance Standards The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of the Sign Ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the specific property or use under consideration. The provisions of the Sign Ordinance, considered in conjunction with the unique and distinctive circumstances related to the property or uses thereof must be the proximate cause of the hardship; circumstances caused by the property owner or the applicant or a predecessor in title shall not constitute sufficient justification to grant a variance. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: 1. A particular hardship to the owner would result if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out; 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land or the use thereof for which the variance is sought and are not common, generally to other property or uses thereof within the same zoning classification; 12 -17 -87 -1- Application No. 87027 continued 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. Staff Analysis Regarding hardship, the confusion of potential customers has been justification for a variance in the cases of Iten Chevrolet and the old Holiday Inn. These variances were for the height of signs near major freeway interchanges. It should be noted that these variances were granted in the early 1970's, one (the Iten Chevrolet variance) prior to the adoption of the current Sign Ordinance. These variances are not considered to be precedents in this case primarily due to more recent actions on the part of the City Council to deny sign variance requests involving Duke's Standard in 1982 and Russell Viska for the Smoke House Restaurant in 1981. In both of these applications the applicants cited the difficulty potential customers have in finding their establishments and both wanted higher signs to be seen from major thoroughfares. Both applications were denied. Also, in 1982 Universal Sign Company sought a variance for the height of the Budgetel sign. That application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on two different occasions and it appeared that the Planning Commission would recommend denial of the application. It was later withdrawn and not pursued. One thing we are skeptical of is the need for a 4' x 8' sign when the letters only need to be 5" to 6" high. Some of the letters in Dr. Lescault's sign are already almost 5" high ( 4 3/4 for the word Chiropractor) . Other letters are 3" high ( for the words: Dr. John B. Lescault) . It is probably not possible to get the same message into the existing sign with 6 high letters. The sign is 1' x 3' and, therefore, exceeds the ordinance maximum of 2.5 sq. ft. It is our estimate, though we have not designed such a sign, that a smaller sign, more square in shape could accommodate 5 or 6" letters. As to uniqueness, Dr. Lescault's business is not unique on Brooklyn Boulevard. There have been at least eight home occupations located on Brooklyn Boulevard and all have lived within the limits of the Sign Ordinance.- Dr. Lescault's office perhaps generates more customer traffic than some of the other home occupations on Brooklyn Boulevard and so, if there is a problem with identification signery, it may indeed affect more people. Nevertheless, all home businesses would no doubt like greater exposure and if a variance is granted in this ease, the likelihood of additional variances to other home occupations on Brooklyn Boulevard is great, because Dr. Lescault's situation does not appear to be unique. Staff conducted a survey of 17 municipalities regarding their ordinances governing home occupation signs. Ten of the 17 do not permit any signery at all. One community allows a 1 sq. ft. sign; four allow 2 sq. ft. signs; one allows a 4 sq. ft. sign; and one allows a 6 sq. ft. sign. None allow larger signs if the business is located on a major thoroughfare. It, therefore, appears that Brooklyn Center is already more lenient than most cities in regards to home occupation signs. Because of the existence of other home occupations on Brooklyn Boulevard, we would recommend an ordinance change before a variance. However, in light of the survey results, we cannot recommend an ordinance change either. 12 -17 -87 -2- Application No. 87027 continued Finally, as to detriment to the public welfare or injury to other property in the neighborhood, staff would acknowledge that such a sign would not be injurious to the businesses in the neighborhood. But, we do feel that such a sign is inappropriate for the Rl district which includes this property. Dr. Lescault argues that his property is "certainly considered a transitional area and is not an Rl." This may be true in a practical sense, but the legal fact is that this property is zoned Rl, that it is a residence, and that the business conducted is a home occupation. As such it is subject to greater restrictions than if it were an office use in a commercial district. We believe the proposed sign is out of character with the Rl district and with home occupations generally. In that sense it is a detriment to the public welfare. It should also be pointed out that Dr. Lescault had previously sought a similar variance under Planning Commission Application No. 84025 in July and August of 1984. His arguments then are very similar to those being made today. The City Council denied that 1984 application on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance had not been met. Dr. Lescault's zoning status is that of a special home occupation in an Rl zoning district. As such, the home occupation is to be clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the property. Home occupations are not afforded all the rights and privileges of commercial uses in commercial zoning districts. The City has determined that a maximum 2.5 sq. ft. signs are appropriate in residential zoning districts for home occupations, whether they are permitted home occupations or special home occupations. Any changes should be made in the form of an ordinance amendment not through the granting of a variance. Recommendation Based on the foregoing analysis, it is recommended that the proposed variance be denied on the grounds that the applicant has not demonstrated that the Standards for a Variance have been met particularily in the following ways: 1. The hardship cited by the applicant is not unusual for a home occupation located on a major thoroughfare. 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are not unique inasmuchas there have been at least eight home occupations along Brooklyn Boulevard which have lived within the restrictions of the Sign Ordinance. 3. A large (4' x 8 1 ) home occupation sign would be detrimental to the integrity of the Rl district in which the residence of the applicant is located. 12 -17 -87 -3- Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending the Brooklyn Center City Charter and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending the Brooklyn Center City Charter. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 88 -01 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager told the City Council in the near future it will be considering changes to the City's ordinances regarding the fire chief position. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 87027 SUBMITTED BY DR. JOHN LESCAULT REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 32 SO FT FREESTANDING HOME OCCUPATION SIGN AT HIS RESIDENCE AT 6142 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD The City Manager said this item was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission at its December 17, 1987, meeting. He added the applicant requested this item be considered by the City Council at this evening's meeting rather than the December 28, 1987, City Council meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspection proceeded to review the Planning Commission's consideration of Application No, 87027. He referenced pages two and three of the December 17, 1987, Planning Commission minutes and the informational sheet attached to the minutes. He said a public hearing was held and the Commission unanimously recommended the City Council deny the application on grounds the qualification for meeting the e City ordinance have not been met for reasons cited in the Planning Commission minutes. The Director of Planning and Inspection said a public hearing is scheduled this evening, notices have been sent, and the applicant is present. Mayor Nyquist asked if anything about the applicant's home is unique or different from other home occupations on Brooklyn Boulevard. The Director of Planning and Inspection noted the City ordinance regarding signs for home occupations does not refer to the location of the home, so regardless of whether or not it is located on or off of Brooklyn Boulevard, compliance with the sign ordinance must be met. He said he does not feel the applicant's situation is unique. Councilmember Lhotka asked how many home occupations are located along Brooklyn Boulevard, and the Director of Planning and Inspection said there are approximately six. Councilmember Lhotka asked if the location were zoned Cl, would a larger sign be allowed. The Director of Planning and Inspection responded affirmatively; however, because the applicant has a home occupation, he is restricted to the home occupation. ordinance regardless of zoning of the location. 1 -11 -88 -2- Councilmember Scott asked what the size of the existing sign is, and the Director of Planning and Inspection said it is 3 sq. ft. rather than the 2.5 sq. ft. allowed by ordinance. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 87027 submitted by Dr. John Lescault requesting a variance from the sign ordinance. He recognized Dr. John Lescault, who said his land is transitional property and said he has been told by a sign company that a larger sign would be appropriate. In addition, if he brings in another doctor on his staff, the letters on the sign have to be made even smaller to allow both his and the other doctor's names on the sign. Councilmember Scott asked the applicant why he feels it is necessary to put the doctors' names on the sign when all he would need to do is put Lescault Clinic on the sign. Dr. Lescault said under law he is required to post the names of the doctors on the sign and also include the word chiropractor on the sign. Councilmember Lhotka asked the Director of Planning and Inspection if he was aware that the chiropractor and the doctors' names have to be on the sign as required by law. The Director of Planning & Inspection said he was not aware of this. Councilmember Lhotka pointed out that the home occupation ordinance is very emphatic about signs. The City Manager said if any consideration is given for granting a variance, the Council should examine the ordinance to decide whether or not the ordinance should be amended. Councilmember Lhotka agreed with the City Manager. Dr. Lescault pointed out that his business is unique because other home occupations do not have to list the doctors' names on their signs. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 87027 submitted by Dr. John Lescault regarding a variance from the sign ordinance. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to table Planning Commission Application No. 87027 submitted by Dr. John Lescault requesting a variance from the sign ordinance while staff investigates the law that may affect the contents of the applicant's sign; staff is requested to put this item on the agenda when sufficient information has been obtained. Councilmember Hawes asked if another doctor can be employed at the location of a home occupation, and the Director of Planning and Inspection said another employee is allowed. Upon vote being taken on the foregoing motion, the motion passed unanimously. SELECT MAYOR PRO TEM There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to appoint Councilmember Hawes as the Mayor Pro tem for 1988. The motion passed unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Hawes requested item 12h be removed, Councilmember Theis requested item 10d be removed, and Councilmember Lhotka requested item 10a be removed from the consent agenda. s 1 -11 -88 _3- it► Ic ,� �, IL WAR n �11111� �• IF N OW NINE 151 n r r y? + t b, r .M�' qr 1 t .+� %v .5.,". h. d #�``v 'r o t t r ,•" z »^ * ' n �✓S; a< <,S�Zr- is { ,. '+ k�xza 1 ,w x Y �` ".1"" +9� f±` hr's. f yz. pis k' r{"' S+'ry •+'"'c �. z '����> Av'yt 4a g �Yt � �' J ' k � } ar Jf•� � *' Y � 3�# aY' ,��8 � n. � kr { �. � - � �'. ��� d r� y *- w1^;w ,: :H.'^4.,.'wxL <M a+J"'�' ``' �� � v't r. - i lf+ y: . i .S s t r z �, e J✓,rs s r �� �i��'�"se s. E '����,^��.'��"�� >ti� } .',�' � w z w" :. ,r � .� r✓' �+,i � +fi �� ., , �' . I.M 3' •, ,.. ,� �S� kt.E 'y ?. f � � s4 1n'C +. -c+ M i � iii �'r Y;' a arz �fi# sa <�' i p fi� t Ra �i �m M c n 3 � �,�. `+. .c x{ ' . + r�" �'�Kv'_t� +. €.;'d' -#C �"p N+•'.,§'t _?' ' .' 3.� 'zb 1 . " ".� Y"4,`+ .rk 1 z �c p s z q sY Ca ¢ rsf 3 ° f ��GNEER S REPORT c S r s' t }r w.S' dw :x 2 .Q °+,F t L � �� 't ✓ ^u x � � ,ar x � -Y. � sH � i ,r �G`DRGE57T1 .►VENt1R Q 59TH AVENUE° k ROVEMENT � - y w ,� ,�'���. ix _ = ..r.ae ?a, `'s r'1� .� �AYt���r ►lY f� s $ $�� � ��'��� .��� r 's _� s M }+ #.i,,��`7�V.'"' r •Y .c y �� , ¢� s * .'�'�y "'.o.*. Y a. . " µ p sr4 y %�. ,� t � t• � (tom ..a !t � �, +, ? G €.w A cs, .> Y ; �) « rq."3 l4 ^y� ° r ZEN p''v"��d a. +'a 'S"A �' s "^ r '4; � '� t' TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 PRbJEL°"T S R '1'ID1Q AM I.DCATIDN 1 Il INTRODUCTION, DESIGN CRITERIA, DISCUSSION 3 III PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 4 -6 IV STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS 6 -8 V SIDEWALK /TRAILWAY IMPROVEMENTS 8 -9 VI RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION 9 VII LIFT STATION MODIFICATION 9 -11 VIII ECONOMIC EVALUATION 11 -16 IX CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 EXHIBITS VICINITY MAP 2 DEFICIENT ROADWAY CONDITIONS SUMMARY 5 PROPOSED PAVEMENT WIDTH SUMMARY 6 ZONING MAP OF PROJECT AREAS 17 SIDEWALK AND TRAIL MAP 18 TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTIONS 19 -23 FRANCE AVENUE AREA COST ESTIMATES 24 -25 FRANCE AVENUE AREA ASSESSMENT ZONES 26 -27 FRANCE AVENUE AREA CREDIT CALCULATIONS 28 -29 FRANCE AVENUE AREA ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS- 30 -31 LOGAN AVENUE AREA COST ESTIMATES 32 -33 LOGAN AVENUE AREA ASSESSMENT ZONES 34 -35 LOGAN AVENUE AREA CREDIT CALCULATIONS 36 -37 LOGAN AVENUE AREA ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS 38 -39 LOGAN AVENUE AREA STORM SEWER ALTERNATES 40 -43 FRANCE AVENUE AREA STORM SEWER 44 -45 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION 46 -48 LIFT STATION CALCULATIONS 49 -51 ENGINEER'S REPORT LOGAN AVENUE & LILAC DRIVE - 57TH AVENUE TO 59TH AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -04 FRANCE AVENUE - SOUTH CITY LIMITS TO 50TH AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -05 LAKEBREEZE AVENUE - FRANCE AVENUE TO AZELIA AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -06 50TH AVENUE - FRANCE AVENUE TO TH100 STREET IMPROVEMENT .F.ROJECT 390. 19BB -D7 S I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed Street Improvement Project Nos. 1988 -04, 1988 -05, 1988 -06 and 1988 -07 are street reconstruction projects. The work includes storm sewer improvements, 'regrading, sub,grade preparation, installation of concrete curb and gutter, bituminous paving, construction of sidEwalks and bikeways in selected areas, and lift station modifications. PROJECT LOCATION The location of the proposed projects is shown on Map 1 (page 2) and listed below: Street Improvement Project No. 1988 -04. This reconstruction project includes Logan Avenue North from 57th Avenue North (Co. Rd. 57) to Lilac Drive and Lilac Drive from Logan Avenue North to 59th Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1988 -05. This reconstruction project includes France Avenue North from the South City Limits to 50th Avenue North. Street Improvement Project No. 1988 -06. This reconstruction project includes Lakebreeze Avenue North from France Avenue North to Azelia Avenue North. Street Improvement Project No. 1988 -07. This reconstruction project includes 50th Avenue North from France Avenue North to Trunk Highway 100. 1 1 4 1 ��I c1 :: N1,9YE Bi -, Ilr. - vl.. -- � AJtNII•Jl _� � 1 II � € _1�J1 LLi AYE_ � c H. t y•" p '' MA.WII op1�o��fAYE._ E 1 ' fILfE 1 WIN, L p AYE (/� r t t JORAVE o 1E - -�� " a �c y LEYyE P / uN� _ Avt AV - : I A2EE1 ' � 4VE ^ jtSRtl't ti ■[l • n /+ `• tw A y NEI - r C pV y, - �I N. 1 I: Z Y IMQIANA A_YE. ' ✓% „ALnA _ hL ifY /OS DR n t 1,= b ^nt if Me R IN l - � �t 1 #•. �\ /141If4X�� 1 AYE_ i P L ; 1 _ E G ' HiM[S l c :A [vlEw )os i —� 8 ti I J�__M` -y _Dq.� n m `DN ,Mf_ l -� \ / I. ENANfE _ X //7 aa.A.1l Y: ll1 =- En /OS FRANCE i AVE as AVE .,i atA _ Q LRAt \P-., l if �- _••AVE ___ __" n■ a.a ■l .. tt. t.• ' .- ... -__�. AW \wOY FHA i u _ i _ • Y D P FRANC ,�1 €W_N4 Z y AvE N • n II r - tWIN t 1\ 1 F � AVE / E �� J r rD!+lw l � ) tLr"C _ O _ 1!.^. �A. Y R/ �I . ___ — � _ lr �z __ z �f - -Is \ 'i �. V lFt J OHS R ... (cHOWE NJI_ m W Y, b JS'p \c (NCNOW tN - -�. '_/t. _ I � $ _ < - ll 1 O O . S xf j' ti - " t.. __ ! E"'.� " EARQ - _ Ia — ayE. - _ J BE 49 Q__ vow Z I b 1 l.E,�•�(- Ir � qME bQrr L b IF //O tpasEllrr.. E 4. -II [NIiH��A�� /^r y o b n a D l e�n n �1i o._IIIQNIL �IA(LJ �I Z V A. 1 ._ 3 G� N : � r � _ ? MFR.F I I //O 1 .� _. � 3 _ N — ,i•' {' A ` i °ito..♦ ((-NL� vE N Y ^ i �IYINEEN ?�IE E N. n Z .. lo - - 1 VINCENT AVE. N UPTON AVE. ft — ' A 4. i a pU55Ell _AVE. -- C... Z [ II ��•f / q J Y,_Ecnn J �LN J y d RFE� � o _.i- �f1r o NE. lati y — ' t� Oy� Mgac•N _�ly -- AVE - - r 0 1�1y1 gYORyAN� `� A •_ N \\ , i \ _ —�� ` PKN. t �"T e lkwtl -1 -r_ —�l Z O i� L IOG •N -F� nt I I F YnIAI I r IIILI -1 1 I } iltA.A ly O 1 _ XNOx 1 ___ . _ 0.YE... _ EL � Ow�— . / �rn IrIAME$.�E. IN i 0 JA MES JANE c / g I�— _ I �.J o ill �� AVl Id ` EE a..A \ / _ ' —A — ` '� •ie r1UMUU1 D i ... 1 ►A � NUM IDI T J S � 'l -_• % ' � �-�.`- ■tllAllftallA t....•.t.. I /./ A� _l .^.I IL�.Y_ g �1 i I I NLLMUM � I AYE. N..' .. M vlNA9Q c J �n r ( _ c l W Z s m = rPSM I - � _ Co � ' AYE_TL [MFfl50N B LACE. —�L =N Q n = RICC�C p ct 'n' T I _ O - r . QutPQ14:1 is 1• �(iUPNN7 �✓ - < ytlll i.7- QIIRIItI Al [Illt (l Ydnt t as pfa ArA�t �JJ R //ppF �i • ■■ into uAa S _.L S41lfl k pvE \.� ...► - SSt19E. _ _ roro J W �.UHT4NT_�C _ -- AVE AVE H ) T < CAMDEN AVE�N. _ 1' CAMDEN AVE. �- t P � 2 0 yaQ AM N v - - F -� -S� D E_ _ C � TN T N-. � Z l C . `� , Z WEgT rVEa y n 0 � t � '°••` � �� / D i Oct Q „, � , ” l y _ p0 " 4• :�.` �'' HENNE �- WIL 49 1 r J \` �RwERDaEE n3- 1 f ✓. SissrPPi t mry C7 N'Is- p a C J CQ 0 a 3 1'1 FRIO Riv T N Z v r O Engineer's Report 1989 -04, 05, 06 & 07 ', "TI._ 1NTR'ODZTCT'ION The proposed street improvement program concentrates on the Municipal State Aid (MSA) Street System. The MSA Street System is highlighted on Map 1 (page 2) and represents most of the collector streets for which the City has full responsibility. Streets selected for this detailed study consists of the street segments that have had the most severe problems. Except for a segment of France Avenue, south of the Soo Railroad, the streets in this proposed program have deficient pavement structure and serious drainage problems. The purpose of this detailed study is to determine the most feasible resolution of the problems. DESIGN CRITERIA It is recommended that the City fund the eligible elements of this street improvement program with MSA funds and that special assessments be levied to benefitted properties. To be eligible for MSA funding, the street improvements must conform to MSA design criteria for alignment, width, parking, structure, right of way, and drainage. The drainage systems will be designed for a 10 year return period, the city standard for commercial and industrial zones. Proper drainage improves safety and the road structure from damage caused by surface water. The Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission approval is required for the new elements of the drainage system. DISCUSSION Table 1 on page _5 summarizes the major deficiencies identified in this study. Except for one segment of France Avenue, all of the streets in the proposed program have similar deficiencies. None of the streets meet all required elements of MSA design criteria. The greatest problem common to all the streets is poor drainage. Lack of curb and gutter and poor vertical alignment have magnified the drainage problems to a point where these problems are affecting the pavement structure. In most cases, an adequate drainage system was never installed for the roadway. Table 1 summarizes sidewalks and trailway needs which range from repair to new construction. The sanitary sewer lift station on Lakebreeze Avenue needs modifications to allow trailway construction. Acquisition of some additional right of way is recommended, to provide optional parking and trailway facilities. However, these are optional elements which can be eliminated, if necessary, to allow the project to proceed in the event that acquisition of these parcels becomes difficult. II I I Y 3 Engineer's Report 1988 -04, 05, 06 & 07 ZII. RbA17WA'Y 'INlPRMEEMENTS I have estimated the "salvage value" of the existing pavement as a credit against any cost related to roadway construction given routine maintenance. In my opinion, the estimated percentage of pavement value remaining is generous for all of the streets. The pavement has salvage value because of the good maintenance performed by the City. Table 1 (page 5) summarizes the alignment deficiencies identified in the study. The poor alignment accounts for standing water, ice dams and other problems related to poor alignment. Correcting the problem is a major task because adjacent property grades preclude fill options. Cut options mean that the entire road section must be rebuilt at a lower grade to establish the minimum slope required for drainage. France Avenue Area Project Except as noted in Table 1 (page 5), all of the streets in the France Avenue area need realignment to establish drainage, for safety, and to protect the road structure from damage. Realignment is necessary on Lakebreeze to improve grade at the Denny's Restauxant anzxance and to provide .improved geometries at the France Avenue intersection. The proposed realignment would also provide needed improvements to drainage on Lakebreeze Avenue west of Denny's Restaurant. Logan Avenue Area Project g Logan Avenue and Lilac Drive are nearly flat from 57th Avenue to 59th Avenue. Given the constraint of matching property lines, there is no alternative to lowering grade if proper drainage slope is to be established on these streets_ The realignment for proper drainage exposes other problems. The realignment establishes good drainage but it is done at the expense of the existing pavement structure and the expense of the existing shallow storm sewer. The existing pavement has some salvage value as indicated in Table 1 (page 5). The existing storm sewer has no value because it is a liability in the winter, freezing so quickly that it simply is not functional when it is needed most. The proposed pavement widths are listed in Table 2 (page 6). The proposed widths include curb and gutter and conform to MSA design standards_ A more detailed illustration of the street section is in Appendix A (page 19). 4 TABLE 1 TI==ENT ROADWAY OONDTTIONS i LIFT ' Alignment Pavement* Curb and Sidewalk Right I STATION Vertical Horizontal Structure Gutter Drainage Trails of Way I MODIFICATION -- - - - - -- -- --- - -- - -- - -- --- -- - -- -- --- -- - - -- - ---- - - ---- ----- - - - - -- ----- -- - - -- ------ -- ---- A. FRANCE AVENUE NORTH I. South City Limits Not to TH 100 Poor Good 25% Needed Poor Recommended 2. TH 100 to Soo Needed With Needs RR Crossing Good Good 75% Needed Curb /Gutter Trail 3. Soo RR Crossing Needs May be Reqd to 50th Ave No Poor Good 25% Needed Poor Trail For Parking B. LAKEBREEZE AVENUE NO 1. TH 100 to Needs Minor Reqmt Modify Azelia Ave No Poor Poor 25% Needed Poor Trail For Allgnmt or S Lift Sta Replace C. SOTH AVENUE NORTH 1. TH 100 to Needs May be Reqd France Ave No Poor Poor 25Z Needed Poor Trail For Parking D. LOGAN AVENUE NORTH 1. 57th Ave No to Poor at Major Needs Minor Reqmt 59th Ave No Poor TH 100 30Z Needed Problem Repair For Allgnmt Number denotes the salvage value of the existing pavement structure. 5 Engineer's Report g P 1988 -04, 05, 06 & 07 TABLE 2 PAVEMENT WIDTH Project Width Parking Improvement No. 1988 -04 Logan Avenue and Lilac Drive 57th Avenue to 59th Avenue 36 ft. west side only Improvement No. 1988 -05 France Avenue South City Limits to T.H. 100 36 ft. west side only Improvement No. 1988 -05 France Avenue North of T.H. 100 32 ft. none Improvement No. 1988 -06 Lakebreeze Avenue Azeiia Avenue to France Avenue 32 ft. mane Improvement Nn, 1988 -07 50th Avenue France Avenue to T.H. 100 36 ft. south side only IV. STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS There is a dramatic difference in the drainage system needs in the two projects. The Logan Avenue Area Project has overwhelming needs and the France Avenue Area Project has normal needs. The proposed storm water drainage systems were sized in accordance to City standards for commercial and industrial zones. They were sized for a 10 -year return period storm. Bringing existing systems up to current design standards results in the need for reconstruction and relocation of existing drainage facilities and the need for new systems at other locations. France Avenue Area Project Work in this area consists of lateral construction and catch basin relocations. The proposed construction of this drainage system is needed to compliment the roadway realignment. The system must be installed to facilitate curb and gutter construction. A schematic of the proposed drainage system for the France Avenue Area Project is in Appendix K (page 45). 6 Engineer's Report 1988 -04, 05, 06 & 07 Logan Avenue Area ?roject Logan Avenue and Lilac Drive between 57th and 59th Avenue do not have sufficient elevation difference to remove storm water. The problems were detailed previously as roadway deficiencies. None of the grade problems can be corrected without increasing the street slope. Raising the street at one end was not an option because that alternative raised the street above adjacent property. Lowering the grade requires a low point on 58th. While a storm sewer exists at 58th and Logan Avenue, the needed grade adjustment to Logan Avenue puts the street grade below the existing storm sewer. Even if there had been no grade adjustment needed on Logan Avenue and Lilac Drive, the existing storm sewer has numerous deficiencies. It is undersized for the amount of storm water it must collect and is so shallow that it freezes shut even during mild winters. This frequent freeze problem results in ice dams and those ice dams are a hazard. A deeper, higher capacity storm sewer is required to facilitate the proposed revisions to the Logan Avenue Area Project. A deeper storm sewer is the linchpin that makes the roadway work feasible. As noted above, resolution of the drainage system needs for the Logan Avenue Area Project is difficult and expensive. There are two alternatives. One is to do nothing. The other is to build an expensive storm sewer and with - the Logan Avenue Area Project- Resolution of the storm sewer problem is expensive because it serves an area that was never included into the design of the storm sewer systems which surround this area. All of the surrounding systems are too high and lack sufficient capacity to accomodate additional flow from the Logan Avenue Area Project. The "build" alternative has three potential alignments and they are shown schematically in Appendix J (page 40). Alternate A utilizes the system in 59th Avenue. The line has to be extended to Dupont in order to gain sufficient depth to avoid freeze problems. Alternate A has the greatest impact on the existing street system. This alternative necessitates reconstruction of half of 58th Avenue, a street that is in good condition. Alternate B is an "all pipe" alternative and is shown as the recommended alternate. It has a minimal impact on the existing street system and has the potential of correcting other problems in the future. This alternative is located in highway right of way and in the boulevard along Lilac Drive. Only a short segment will damage existing pavement on 57th Avenue. This alternative and the following alternative are the most cost effective in correcting the drainage problems at 57th Avenue intersections east of Logan Avenue. On 57th, storm water ponds at Irving Avenue because of another frost susceptible storm sewer which drains that intersection. Storm water ponds in the other intersections along 57th Avenue, because improvements on 57th, have trapped some of the runoff. A future lateral extension of the currently proposed storm sewer (Alternate B), easterly along 57th Avenue, could correct this problem. 7 Engineer's Report 1988 -04, 05, 06 & 07 Alternate C is similar to Alternate B in alignment and function. This alternate utilizes an open drainage way in the TH100 ditch. This alternative is the least costly from the standpoint of initial cost, but there are long term maintenance factors and functional characteristics that were considered in analyzing this alternative. The open ditch would hold stagnant water during the warm part of the year. The stagnant water would be a nuisance to adjacent property owners and would interfere with ditch maintenance on THIN. This alternative was not recommended because, in the final analysis, it was a resolution of one problem that simply transferred the problem somewhere else. The long term cost difference was calculated to be $6,930 per year over the next 20 years. While the actual maintenance savings does not account for that difference, the aesthetic value and the elimination of the nuisance of stagnant water makes Alternate B a more practical and attractive alternative and it is the recommended alternative. Construction of Alternate B would affect access to business on Lilac Drive and to the golf course. The final plans and specifications for this project will require the contractor to maintain access to the businesses and to the golf course V. "STDEWAIKITRAII.WAY IMPROVEMENTS Sidewalk repair and trail construction is a major element of the proposed program. A summary of the recommendations for sidewalk and trail construction is in Table 1 (page 5). The work along 50th, France, and Lakebreeze Avenues is a Phase I element to the bike and pedestrian trail that would link the southwest corner of the City to the Brookdale area. No sidewalk or bike trail is proposed for France Avenue south of 48th Avenue. The sidewalk /bike trail map is on page 18. France Avenue Area Project An off- street combination bike and pedestrian trail is proposed from Azelia Avenue and Lakebreeze Avenue to France Avenue and 50th Avenue. This 10 foot wide trail would be a part of the southwest link from the Twin Lake area to the Brookdale Shopping Center area. This trail could be extended westerly from Azelia Avenue as an "on- street" facility in the future, since that is a residential area with low traffic volumes. The alignment of a future bike and pedestrian trail north of France Avenue and 50th Avenue would divide. Pedestrians would follow France Avenue to 53rd Avenue then east across Brooklyn Boulevard to Brookdale. The bike trail would run east from France Avenue and 50th Avenue, along 50th Avenue as an off - street facility to Drew Avenue where it would turn-north as an on- street facility along Drew Avenue to 53rd Avenue where it would again be a combined bike and pedestrian trail. At Brooklyn Boulevard the routes would again divide and the bike trail would follow Brooklyn Boulevard to 55th Avenue where it would enter Brookdale, while the pedestrian trail would cross Brooklyn Boulevard at the signalized intersection at the north ramp terminals from TH100. Engineer's Report 1988 -04, 05, 06 & 07 Alignment of the trail along Drew Avenue rather than along France Avenue is preferred because the sidewalk on France Avenue north of 50th Avenue is in good condition and is complete. The bike trail could follow 50th Avenue to Drew Avenue and then with pavement markings be extended to 53rd. Drew Avenue has a dower traffic count north of 50th Avenue. The City would have in place most of the bike and pedestrian trail needed for the southwest link. Logan Avenue Area Project The proposed sidewalk work on Logan Avenue is repair and replacement. The general condition of sidewalk along Logan Avenue is good. There are segments, particularly under driveways, that should be replaced. Those sidewalk segments would be replaced as a part of driveway apron construction. VI. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION It is recommended that additional right of way be acquired from seven parcels in the France Avenue project area, and from two parcels in the Logan Avenue project area. Acquisition of these parcels will allow development of these projects to a higher standard than would be possible without the additional right of way, i.e. development of off - street trailways in leiu of on- street trailways, provision of additional parking, and the improvement of grader in the vicinity • of the lift station on Lakebreeze Avenue. The map in Appendix L (page 46) shows the proposed right of way acquisition and indicates the purpose for taking each parcel. It is noted, however, that both projects can be built to minimum standards without obtaining these easements. Accordingly, the right of way acquisition process would not act as a "roadblock" which could stop the project. VII. LIFT STATION MODIFICATION Lift Station No 6 is a prefabricated, steel shelled sewage lift station located on Lakebreeze Avenue where proposed Grimes Avenue would intersect Lakebreeze Avenue. The City has had plans to modify this lift station by lowering the entrance tube. The work was planned as a part of proposed Grimes Avenue construction north of Lakebreeze Avenue because of a grade differential. The proposed realignment of Lakebreeze Avenue and the proposed bike and pedestrian trail create the same grade differential and require some modification of the lift station entrance. The entrance must be modified if a bike and pedestrian trail is to be constructed along Lakebreeze Avenue. With the constraints noted above, there are three options: 1. Do nothing 2. Do everything 3. Do something 9 Engineer's Report 1988 -04, 05, 06 & 07 We evaluated the current problems at Lift Statinn No 6. The major problems .are listed below: 1. Awkward access to the lift station entrance due to the grade around the entrance. 2. Overhead electrical service is incompatable with surrounding improvements (it is unsightly). 3. The electrical controls have malfunctioned on a three year cycle, when the failure occurs, repair parts must be manufactured. 4. Without the flow from a developed Joslyn site, pumps in the lift station have very short pump run cycles. This results in high electrical consumption and in excessive wear and tear on the pumps and motors. 5. The lift station is 21 years old and its equipment cannot be easily replaced. 6. Any personnel that must enter the existing lift station will be subject to the "confined space entry" requirements as proposed by OSHA. This requirement will result in the need to have a two person crew, instead of a one person crew attend to work on this lift station including work ,on weekends and other off -duty periods. Considering our options, we developed four alternates. One covered the do nothing and one covered the do everything options. Two alternates covered two degrees of doing something and developed alternatives for some minimum action to the maximum effort that addressed all of the problems. Alternate 1 - Do Nothing This alternate has a cost because this type of lift station has greater maintenance cost. That maintenance is more than $2640 per year. The present value of that additional maintenance over 20 years at an interest rate of 7.5 percent is $26,980. Any alternate that leaves the existing lift station in service, has that additional cost. Doing nothing will not correct any of the problems. Detailed calculations of Alternate 1 are in Appendix M (page 49). Alternate 2 - Correct Problems 1, 2 and 3 This is a minimal effort to do something. It does enough work to facilitate construction of the bike and pedestrian trail and improves the aesthetics of the lift station site. The major cost elements of maintenance on the lift station are not corrected. Confined space entry problems would not be resolved. With the additional maintenance, the cost of Alternate 2 is estimated to be $51,160. A detailed estimate is in Appendix M (page 49). Alternate 3 - Correct Problems 1, 2, 3 and 4 This alternate includes all of the work in Alternate 2 and corrects the short run cycle problems by replacing one of the pumps. The new pump would be better matched to the actual flow. This alternate would not reduce the additional maintenance and the confined space entry problems would have to be addressed_ Alternate 3 has an estimated cost of $61,440. A detailed estimate is in Appendix M (page 49). 10 Engineer's Report 1988 -04, 05, 06 & 07 AlternaTte 4 Uorrect all of The problems This is the do everything alternate. It is the complete replacement of the lift station. The system consists of submersible pumps installed in a wet well which is nothing more than a large diameter manhole. It is a simple installation and it is easy to maintain. The City has two other lift stations like the one proposed. (One is located at West Palmer Lake Drive and Urban Avenue; the other is located on Freeway Boulevard at Shingle Creek and serves the new Holiday Inn area.) These stations need much less maintenance because they have fewer components. In addition to the reduced maintenance there are no confined space entry problems related to the normal maintenance of this system. That simplicity adds to the dependability of the lift station. The estimated cost of Alternate 4 is $57,200. Recommendation The do everything Alternate 4 is the recommended alternate because it is the more cost effective. The most important difference is that this alternate corrects the confined space entry problem for Lift Station No 6. VIII. ECONOMIC EVALUATION The proposed Street Improvement Program is divided into four projects, but that division is primarily for MSA accounting. Three of the projects are eligible for MSA funding from the regular account and one (Lakebreeze Avenue) is not eligible because it is not on the MSA system. France Avenue Area Project France Avenue, Lakebreeze Avenue, and 50th Avenue function as a unit serving the France Avenue area. Since there was no logical, practical or feasible division point for these three projects, they were combined for purposes of economic evaluation. A summary of the estimated project cost is shown in Table 3 below. Detailed estimates are in Appendix B (page 24). TABLE 3 ESTIMATED COST FRANCE AVENUE AREA ROAM,'.­;' ',' COST France Avenue (1988 -05) $321,420 Lakebreeze Avenue (1988 -06) 109,920 50th Avenue (1988 -07) 116.140 TOTAL ROADWAY COST $547,480 TOTAL STORM SEWER COST 110.010 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $657,490 TECHNICAL, ADMINISTRATIVE, LEGAL AND CAPITALIZED INTEREST (19 %) 124.920 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $782,410 11 Engineer's Report 1988 -04, 05, 06 & 07 The City's basic policy is to assess 100 percent of street improvement project costs in commercial and industrial areas. For this project, it is recommended that special assessments to commercial and industrial properties, and to properties which are zoned and used as R -4 or R -5 properties, be levied based on two levels of assessments; i.e., Zone A for property that abuts and benefits from the improvement, and Zone B for property that does not abut but benefits from the improvement. For those properties which are currently used as R -1 or R -2 properties, we recommend that the City's current policy for special assessments to residential properties be applied. Note: It is recommended that the assessment rates for residential properties be updated by separate action. (See proposed resolution which is submitted for consideration by the City Council.) R -1 and R -2 assessment areas are shown as "Zone C in this report. A map of the assessment zones is in Appendix C (page 26). There is a substantial amount of the France - Lakebreeze -50th Avenue frontage that cannot be assessed. The frontage is single sided frontage along T.H. 100. Some credit for that frontage is warranted. The credit for the single frontage was calculated by multiplying the single frontage length times the average depth of the lots, here taken as 200 feet. The additional area 1s added to Zone A and used to ;determine the .Zone A assessment rate. The second credit included in the assessment calculation is the credit for the salvage value of the pavement structure_ The credit amount is based on the percentage shown in Table 1 (page 5). Credit amounts are summarized in Table 4 below. Detailed calculations are in Appendix D (page 2B). TABLE 4 ASSESSMENT CREDITS FRANCE AVENUE AREA Pavement Life 75% Credit (24% of Project) $140,830 25% Credit (66% of Project) 129,100 Single Frontage Credit 5.00 acres @ $10,938 /acre 54.690 Total Credit $324,620 12 Engineer's Report 1988 -04, 05, 06 & 07 It is recommended that the assessable cost be divided equally between Zone A and Zone B. The resulting estimated assessment rates are determined as follows: Estimated Total Cost $782,410 Less Total Credit ( _324,620 ) Estimated Total Assessable Cost $457,790 Zone A Assessment $228,895 Zone B Assessment $228,895 Zone A - 20.93 Acres Zone B - 59.19 Acres Assessment Rates Zone A Assessment Rate $228,895/20.93 Acres = $10,938.13 /Acre ($.25110 /square foot) Zone B Assessment Rate $228,89:5/59.19 Acres $3,.867.03 /Acre {$- 08878 /square foot) Zone C Assessment Rate $1325.00 per lot Proposed Assessment Summary Zone A Assessment* $214,030 Zone B Assessment* $223,,570 Zone C Assessment* $ 3.970 Total Assessment $441,570 *Denotes amount collected in each zone. A summary of estimated assessments for all of the properties in the France Avenue area is in Appendix E (page 30). Logan Avenue Area Project All of Logan Avenue and Lilac Drive between 57th Avenue and 59th Avenue are included in the Logan Avenue area. A summary of the estimated project cost is shown in Table 5 (page 14). Detailed estimates are in Appendix F (page 32). The storm sewer construction cost used ($327,400) is the estimated cost of the most probable alignment i.e. Alternate "B" as shown in Appendix J (page 40). If the Alternate "B" storm sewer system is installed, it is recommended that the system be sized to allow its future extension easterly along 57th Avenue, to Humboldt Avenue, to resolve existing minor drainage problems on 57th Avenue. 13 Engineer's Report y 1988 -04, 05, 06 & 07 TAMIM 5 ESTIMATED COST LOGAN AVENUE AREA ROADWAY COST $173,010 STORM SEWER COST 327,400 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $500,410 TECHNICAL, ADMINISTRATIVE, LEGAL AND CAPITALIZED INTEREST (19 %) 95,080 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $595,490 Similar to the France Avenue project, the proposed assessment rates for commercial and industrial properties, and for R -4 and R -5 properties is based on two levels of assessment, i.e. Zone A for property that abuts and benefits from the improvement and Zone B for property that does not abut but benefits from the improvement. Again, for properties which are currently used as R -1, R -2, or R -3 properties, we recommend application of the City's current policy for special assessments to these areas. Accordingly, R -1 and R -2 properties are included in "Zone C" assessment areas and R -3 properties are included in "Zone D " assessment areas in this report. A map of the assessment zones is in Appendix G (page 34). Because there is an area of single frontage an Lilac Drive along TH100, some credit for that frontage is warranted. The credit for the single frontage was calculated by multiplying the single frontage length times the average depth of the lots, here taken as 200 feet. The additional area is added to Zone A and used to determine the Zone A assessment rate. The second credit included in the calculation is the credit for the salvage value of the pavement structure. The credit amount is based on the percentage shown in Table 1 (page 5). In my opinion, it is not feasible to construct the Logan Avenue street improvements without providing a positive resolution of storm drainage problems which have existed in this area since its original development; i.e. no adequate trunk system was ever extended to this area. By comparison the drainage system for the France Avenue area is 21 percent of the roadway cost. If the Logan Avenue area had similar costs the storm sewer cost would be $36,030. The amount, while being somewhat artificial, represents a reasonable cost for storm sewer. The proposed credit for storm sewer would be the difference between the estimated cost and $36,030. Credit amounts are summarized in Table 6 (p age IS Detailed a ' sled calculations are in ) Appendix H (page 36). 14 Engineer's Report 1988 -04, 05, 06 & 07 TA'SLE 5 ASSESSMENT CREDITS LOGAN AVENUE AREA Pavement Life 30 Percent Credit $73,650 Single Frontage Credit 2.112 Acres @ $15,374.80 32,470 Storm Sewer Credit ($389,610 - $36,030)* 349,980 Total Credit $456,100 *Total storm sewer cost of $389,610 includes an additional 19% for technical, administrative and capitalized interest costs. The assessible cost has been apportioned so that the assessment rate for frontage benefit Zone A is 2.5 times the assessment rate for g ( ) general benefit g (Zone B). Zone A and Zone B assessment rates are shown below: Estimated Total Cost $595,490 Less Total Credit ( 456,100 Total Assessable Cost $139,390 Assessment Rates Zone A Assessment Rate = $15,375.03/Ac ($.3530 /square foot) Zone B Assessment Rate = $ 6,150.01 /Acre ($.1412 /square foot) Zone C Assessment Rate = $ 1,325.00 /Lot Zone D Assessment Rate — $17.60 x Assessable Frontage s $649.80 No. of Residential Units Proposed Assessment Summary Zone A Assessment* $ 89,430 Zone B Assessment* 8 2.7.000 Zone C Assessment* $ 3,970 Zone D Assessment* $ 5,200 TOTAL $125,600 *Denotes amount collected in each zone 15 Engineer's Report 1988 -04, 05, 06 & 07 A summary of estimated assessments for all of the property in the - Logan Avenue area is in Appendix I (page 38). Funding Summary In addition to the special assessments as recommended above, it is recommended that the City request reimbursement of project costs from its Regular Municipal State Aid fund (2613) to the full extent that those costs are eligible for MSA participation. Together with the utilization of the City's Local MSA fund (2611), all project costs would be covered. Following is a summary of the proposed funding for these projects: Table 6 Revenue Summary France Ave Logan Ave Lift Station Area Project Area Project Modification Total Estimated Project Cost Summary $782,410 $595,490 $ 57,200 $1,435,100 • Estimated Revenue Summary Special Assessments $441,570 $125,600 $ 567,170 Regular MSA (Fund 2613)* 587,970 377,430 965,400 Local MSA (Fund 2611) ** ( 247,130) 92,460 ( 154,670) Utility Fund _ $ 57,200 57,200 TOTAL REVENUE $782,410 $595,490 $ 57,200 $1,435,100 *Note: The estimated cost participation from regular MSA funds is based on a preliminary estimate of the eligibility for MSA funding of various elements of the proposed projects. Final eligibility for MSA funding will be determined when construction plans, specifications, and cost estimates are submitted to MNDOT for approval. * *Note: Local MSA fund participation will vary, depending on actual project costs, changes in special assessments, and eligibility for funding by the use of regular MSA funds. IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The improvements as described above are feasible under the conditions outlined and at the costs estimated. It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution i this report and calling for a public hearing on these projects. • 16 _ -- __ -`_' - ___ -__4• i2 �h EARLE O 1 9 GRANDVIEW � BRDWN PARK 4DHOOL C2 R R3 5 o c� vQY CSAri r N0. 40 ---- ---- - --- --" Z z = z z z W a DRiVE w W > j > a 1771 a p p z ' 0 P o z m a w P ` ERICON of Y w i I ZONING MAP OF LOGAN AVE AREA HOLLOW .0 W 3 W PARK�� SHO S ^ '1 2 Z w o \ R,yQ /� w R 0 TH a VE. N. 'IN O -f r ~ =` :� .I2 0�P W 1 N. LE) _ - KE BREEZE AVE. _ a� 12 ' w W J w a 48TH AVE. N. o \ p LAKESIDE AVE. - 47TH Q E. N. IN LAKE (RYAN LAKE, St / � --- r1rY fi n& OF ROBB/NSDAL E Z MAR OF FRANCE AVE AREA RESIDENCE COMMERCE RI-ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE CI-SERVICE /OFFICE R2 -TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE CIA- SERVICE I OFFICE R] -MV NTWLE FAMILYRESIDENCE C2- COMMERCE ..wsa a•rioc. •nnluawIsl R4 -MUFTI L f FAMILY RESIDENCE INDUSTRY • a�o•sl II- INDUSTRIAL PARK AS- MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Iry s 1 12- GENERAL INDUSTRY RG- MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE I. RT- MULTIPLE • FAMILY RESIDENCE 1a atM�la M WMI 17 . •• -W __ __ In M M MM ■ on • • MW ME CS4�4 ®��, s� X1111 �_ ii ..■.■! j Ingo■■■ rr am liginsin I � III ■��?• •. %� ./� .r' own n1111111 - ♦ i� 1 /II11n11111�: �1Dj ��u `� wi ■ moll an I Min oil � 11 , X88 -04 WEST SIDE EAST SIDE C L 33 33 36 � 10' 12 14' 13'' EXISTING t SIDEWAL PA RKING ONE SIDE LOGAN AVENUE NO. A rx} 20 ....: x�, N , 88-05 R/W WEST EAST R/W 33' 33' 36' 5' 6' 7' 16' 16 21' 4' 7 i II 10' S /W- TRAIL .' CONSIDERATION FOR PARKING NORTH OF T_ H. 100 UTILIZING F STREET BIKEWAY R G T-O -WA O RIGHT-OF-WAY R1GHT -OF NO PARKING R/W WEST EAST RAW 33' 33' 36' 1 I' 10' 12' 14' 19 SOUTH CITY LIMITS TO T.H. 100 PARKING ONE BIDE FRANCE AVENUE A ND. 21 I, 88-06 L -�- SOUTH N 0 R T.H ----s 33' 33' 32 16' 16' 7' 10' VARIES NO PARKING L A KEBREEZE AVENUE NO. q 22 I 88-07 - SOUTH NORTH --� 33' � 3 3' II 36' 19 10 12' 14' 10 8� OFF STREET BIKEWAY PARKING ONE SIDE 50TH AVENUE NO. A 23 �- -�'S t r._ 4 H' t .d;lnlS �F:L APPENDIX B FRANCE AVENUE AREA COST ESTIMATES • 24 France Avenue North Lakebreeze Avenue 50th Avenue (1988-05) (1988 -06) (1988 -07) Item Unit So. City Lmts-TH 100 tH 100-Soo Line Soo line -50th France-AZeiia France-TH100 Total total # Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Quantit Amount Quantity Amount .... ............................ ....... .._ ..... ........... ....... --- ....I... - ...... ...... -_.._. 1 MOBILIZE /DEMOBILIZE LS $3,000.00 1 $3,000.00 1 $3,000.00 1 $3,000.00 1 $3,000.00 1 $3,000.00 5 $15,000.00 2 CLEARING EA $100.00 6 $600.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 8 $800.00 14 $1,400.00 3 GRUBBING EA $50.00 6 $300.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 8 $400.00 14 $700.00 4 REMOVE CONCR CURB & GUTTER LF $4.50 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 20 $90.00 150 $675.00 0 $0.00 170 $765.00 5 REMOVE MISC. CONCR STRUCTURES SF $10.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 100 $1,000.00 100 $1,000.00 6 REMOVE CONCR PAVEMENT SY $4.50 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 10 $45.00 75 $337.50 210 $945.60 295 $1,327.50 7 REMOVE BIT. PAVEMENT SY $3.00 3,100 $9,300.00 3,960 $11,880.00 4,110 $12,330.00 2,810 $8,430.00 2,770 $8,310.00 16,750 $50,250.00 8 SAWCUT CONCRETE PAVEMENT LF $4.00 5 $20.00 35 $140.00 20 $80.00 20 $80.00 122 $488.00 202 $808.00 9 SAWCUT CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER EA $40.00 0 $0.00 5 $200.00 2 $80.00 11 $440.00 4 $160.00 22 $880.00 10 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LF $2.50 130 $325.00 685 $1,712.50 510 $1,275.00 220 $550.00 265 $662.50 1,810 $4,525.00 11 COMMON EXCAVATION CY t8.00 1,200 $9,600.00 945 $7,560.00 1,900 $15,200.00 1,765 $14,120.00 2,180 $17,440.00 7,990 $63,920.00 12 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 TN $8.00 1,385 $11,080.00 1,825 $14,600.00 1,582 $12,656.00 1,160 $9,280.00 1,440 $11,520.00 7,392 $59,136.00 13 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR MIX TN $175.00 25 $4,375.00 35 $6,125.00 30 $5,250.00 24 $4,200.00 30 $5,250.00 144 $25,200.00 14 BASE COURSE MIX TN $17.50 450 $7,875.00 621 $10,867.50 537 $9,397.50 434 $7,595.00 540 $9,450.00 2,582 $45,185.00 15 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK GL $2.00 682 $1,364.00 946 $1,892.00 820 $1,640.00 658 $1,316.00 820 $1,640.00 3,926 $7,852.00 16 AC TN $175.00 20 $3,500.00 27 $4,725.00 24 $4,200.00 19 $3,325.00 23 $4,025.00 113 $19,775.00 17 WEARING COURSE MIX TN $20.00 304 $6,080.00 415 $8,300.00 358 $7,160.00 290 $5,800.00 360 $7,200.00 1,727 $34,540.00 18 DRIVEWAY PATCH SY $20.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 44 $880.00 0 $0.00 44 $880.00 19 15" RCP LF $ 15.00 172 $6,020.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 16 $560.00 118 $4,130.00 306 $10,710.00 20 18" RCP LF $38.00 405 $15,390.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 51 $1,938.60 456 $17,328.00 21 21" RCP LF $42.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 d $0.00 0 $0.00 270 $11,340.60 270 $11,340.00 22 24" RCP LF $47.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 641 $30,127.00 641 $30,127.00 23 18" FLARE END EA $425.00 2 $850.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 2 $850.00 24 24 FLARE END EA $650.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 d $0.00 0 $0.00 1 $650.00 1 $650.00 25 CONST. M.H. ON EXIST 18" RCP EA $1,500.00 0 $0.00 2 $3,000.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 2 $3,000.00 26 MANHOLE STORM (STANDARD) EA $1,200.00 3 $3,600.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 7 $8,400.00 10 $12,000.00 27 C.B. EA $950.00 3 $2,850.00 0 $0.00 d $0.00 1 $950.00 3 $2,850.00 ? $6,650.00 28 CASTING ASSEMB. (ALL DESIGNS) EA $300.00 6 $1,800.00 0 $0.00 d $0.00 4 $1,200.00 10 $3,000.00 20 $6,000.00 29 INSTALL CASTING ASSEMB. EA $75.00 6 $450.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 2 $150.00 10 $750.00 18 $1,350.00 30 ADJUST FRAME AND RING EA $400.00 3 $1,200.00 4 $1,600.00 3 $1,200.00 6 $2,400.00 2 $800.00 18 $7,200.00 31 ADJUST WATER VALVE EA $200.00 3 $600.00 3 $600.00 4 $800.00 6 $1,200.00 3 $600.00 19 $3,800.00 32 4 CONCRETE SW SF $2.00 1,960 $3,920.00 0 $0.00 850 $1,700.00 3,775 $7,550.00 168 $336.00 6,753 $13,506.00 33 CONCRETE STEPS-TREAD AREA SF $10.00 0 $0.00 0 50.00 d $0.00 0 $0.00 32 $320.00 32 $320.00 34 CONCRETE CURBS & G B -612 LF $10.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 306 $3,000.00 44 $440.00 20 $200.00 364 $3,640.00 35 CONCRETE CURB & G B-618 LF $7.50 1,250 $9,375.00 1,625 $12,187.50 1,606 $12,000.00 1,500 $11,250.00 1,370 $10,275.00 7,345 $55,087.50 36 6" CONCR. D/W PAVE SY $27.50 198 $5,445.00 215 $5,912.50 574 $15,785.00 400 $11,000.00 465 $12,787.50 1,852 $50,930.00 37 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS $600.00 1 $600.00 1 $600.00 1 $600.00 1 $600.00 1 $600.00 5 $3,000.00 38 SODDING W /4" TOPSOIL SY $2.75 1,635 $4,496.25 1,400 $3,850.00 2,147 $5,904.25 1,985 $5,458.75 2,680 $7,370.00 9,847 $27,079.25 . ............ ............. ........ - ---- -- - - - - -- .......... ............. ROADWAY COST $83,055.25 $95,752.00 $113,392.75 $99,927.25 $105,579.00 $497,706.25 CONTINGENCY (10 %) 8,304.75 9,578.00 11,337.25 9,992.75 10,561.00 $49,773.75 TOTAL ROADWAY COST $91,360.00 $105,330.00 $124,730.00 $109,920.00 $116,140.00 $547,480.00 STORM SEWER COST 30,960.00 3,000.00 0.00 2,860.00 63,185.60 $100,005.00 CONTINGENCY (10 %) 3,100.00 300.00 0.00 290.00 6,315.00 $10,005.00 ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. TOTAL STORM SEWER COST $34,060.00 $3,300.00 $0.00 $3,150.00 $69,500.00 $110,010.00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $125,420.00 $108,630.00 $124,730.00 $113,070.00 $185,640.06 $657,490.00 TECHNICAL, ADMINISTRATIVE ,LEGAL,CAPITALIZED INTERST (19%) 23,830.00 20,640.00 29,700.00 21,480.00 35,270.40 $124,920.00 ............. ............. ------------- ............. ............. N TOTAL PROJECT COST $149,250.00 $129,270.00 $148,430.00 $134,550.00 $220,91d.00 $782,410.00 APPENDIX C FRANCE AVENUE AREA - ASSESSMENT ZONES 26 CL Lu IV ASSESSABLE PARCELS t/ J un ° INSET FRANCE, LAKERREEZE, 50TH AVENUES ` PROJECTS 88-05,06,01 ILL, SCAL& I INCH r 100 FEET r ZONE A - 200FT ASSESSA13LE DEFTN[M ZONE B ZONE C I I nssF99ARRO -V APPAs N 1 I A Y 1 50114 AVt. N. p�0 �r vt R lam 7 37 I Y rt / �- SEE INSET ABOVE 49 viol FAMU 1 N w "Cn 1 � . 1 1 Y i 1 t$ IDtt�# - " SOO ft R a (tNf V R4j(R0g0 1 0 E v 1 F FEDERAL L14M A p 1 AID® n 1 1 , L ------------ t�riF EB R E-E E- -A -V - N --- - -- --------- - - - - -- ' --------------- - - - - -- is ----- ---- --- --- -------- ------ / w Ing i u .......................... . - ------------------- - -y.._ i pA IRroor tMOa4o Et (ZWOR uq AS4E44A0.E �® p A 1 SdLF •Itl r D N v ' 47(H AVF. N. ZONE C A 2 0 N 4 ( A L Are n F r AV RYAN I ,,,, R.NEUENFELDT /ULTlMAP /13JAN8 ' N APPENDIX D FRANCE AVENUE AREA - CREDIT CALCULATIONS 28 CREDIT CALCULATIONS FRANCE AVENUE AREA FRANCE AVENUE, SOD 'TO -MOD 2S 2AA OF TRWECT USE 75% SALVAU"E VALUE 0.24 (0.75) (PROJECT COST) = CREDIT 0.24 (0.75) ($759,490) _ $136,710 REMAINDER OF PROJECT 66% OF PROJECT USE 25% SALVAGE VALUE 0.66 (0.25) (PROJECT COST) = CREDIT = 0.66 (0.25) ($759,490) _ $25,320 SINGLE FRONTAGE SINGLE FRONTAGE LENGTH 1,089 FEET USE 200 FEET DEPTH AREA = 1,089 (200)/43,560 - 5_OD ACRES MULTIPLY TIMES ASSESSMENT RATE FOR ZONE A 29 APPENDIX E FRANCE AVENUE AREA - ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS 30 FRANCE RUENUE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TOTAL TOTAL PROPERTY fl ZONE B ZONE A ZONE B ZONE INDICOM RESIDENTIAL TOTAL ADDRESS PID PROJECT AREA AREA ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT 3725 47th Ave N 10 11B- 21- 42-0024 FRANCE 30,524 $7,664.73 $7,664.73 $7,664.73 3707 50th flue N 10-118 -21- 13-0062 FRANCE 15,000 $3,766.57 $3,766.57 $3,766.57 3715 50th Ave N 10 118 -21 -13 -0063 FRANCE 16,636 $4,177;38 $4,177.38 $4,177.38 3721 SOth Ave N 10-118-21 -13 -0064 FRANCE 13,364 $3,355.77 $3,355.77 $3,355.77 3616 50th Ave N 10 FRRNCE 20,250 $5,084.88 $5,084.88 $5,084.88 3607 50th Ave H 10 118 -21- 13-0059 FRANCE 21,800 $5,474.09 $5,474.09 $5,474.09 3616 50th Ave N 10 118 -21- 13-0060 FRANCE 15,000 $3,766.57 $3,766.57 $3,766.57 3701 50th Ave N 10 -118- 21-13 -0061 FRANCE 15,000 $3,766.57 $3,766.57 $3,766.57 5001 Drew Ave H 10 118 - 21-13-00033 FRANCE 20,250 $5,084.88 $5,084.88 $5,084.88 5001 Ewing Ave H 10 -21- 13-0042 FRRNCE 19,954 $5,010.55 $S,D10.55 $5,010.55 4748 France Ave N 10 FRANCE 26,279 60,963 $6,598.79 $5,411.98 $12,010.77 $12,010.77 4911 France flue N 10 -21 -24 -0003 FRANCE 91,000 172,000 $22,850.54 $15,269.28 $38,119.82 $38,119.82 4906 France Ave N 10-118 -21 -13 -0066 FRANCE 18,000 11,497 $4,519.89 $1,020.65 $5,540.54 $5,540.54 4900 France Ave H 10 118 -21 -13 -0067 FRRNCE 6,555 $1,645.99 $1,645.99 $1,645.99 4902 France Rue N 10-118 -21- 13-0068 FRANCE 17,735 6,967 $4,453.35 $618.49 $5,071.84 $5,071.64 5001 France flue N 10 -21- 24-0002 FRANCE 36,600 147,681 $9,190.44 $13,110.37 $22,300.81 $22,300.81 5000 France Ave N 10-118-21 -13 -0006 FRANCE 19,954 $5,010.55 $5,010.55 $5,010.55 4837 France flue N 10-118 - 21-23-0004 FRANCE 22,000 1,561,842 $5,524.31 $130,652.37 $144,176.68 $144,176.68 4823 France flue N 10-118-21 -31 -0027 FRANCE 81,883 24,000 $20,561.23 $2,130.60 $22,691.83 $22,691.83 4912 France five N 10-118 -21- 13-0065 FRANCE 18,000 16,BB4 $4,519.89 $1,496.88 $6,018.77 $6,018.77 4715 France flue N 10- 118-21 -31 -0015 FRANCE 14,000 14,182 $3,615.47 $1,259.01 $4,774.48 $4,774.48 • 4010 lakebreeze Rue 10-118-21 -31 -0008 FRANCE 88,994 61,285 $22,346.84 $5,440.57 $27,787.41 $27,787.41 3650 lakebreeze five 10- 118 -21 -31 -0028 FRANCE 67,206 47,161 $16,875.76 $4,186.71 $21,062.47 $21,062.47 3901 lakebreeze Ave 10-118-21-31 -0024 FRANCE 50,911 30,144 $12,784.01 $2,676.03 $15,460.04 $15,460.04 4001 lakebreeze Rue 10-118 -21 -31 -0029 FRANCE 105,456 216,373 $26,480.53 $19,208.49 $45,689.02 $45,689.02 4800 Lilac Drive N 10-118 -21 -42 -0002 FRANCE 147,427 $13,087.82 $13,087.82 $13,087.82 4639 France Ave H 10- 118 -Z1 -31 -0009 FRANCE 22,000 22,286 $1,325.00 $1,325.00 4645 France Ave N 10-118 -21 -31 -0016 FRRNCE 17,200 17,423 $1,32S.00 $1,325.00 4629 France Ave N 10 -118- 21-31 -0005 FRANCE 20,000 20,260 $1,325.00 $1,325.00 FRANCE TOTAL 911,551 2,578,375 $214,029.58 $223,571.25 $437,600.83 $3,975.00 $441,575.83 1 FRRNCE RUENUE ASSESSMENT SLMflRY ; 1 ZONE A ASSESSMENTS $214,029.58 ; 1 ZONE B ASSESSMENTS $223,571.25 1 1 ZONE C RESIDENTIAL (SINGLE FAMILY) $3,975.00 ; 1 TOTAL ASSESSMENTS $441,575.83 1 31 APPENDIX F LOGAN AVENUE AREA - COST ESTIMATES i 32 ROADWAY COSTS ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE LOGAN AND LILAC: 57TH 'TO 59TH 'PROJECT NO. 19BB -04 Item # Contract Item 'Unit Quantity Unit Prire Amount ---- ---- -------------- ---------- --- -------- - ------ --- -- --------- 1 MOBILIZE /DEMOBILIZE IS 1 5,000.00 $5,000.00 2 REMOVE CONCR CURB & GUTTER LF 375 4.50 1,687.50 3 REMOVE BIT PAVEMENT SY 5,600 3.00 16,800.00 4 SAWCUT CONCRETE PAVEMENT LF 20 4.00 80.00 5 SAWCUT CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER EA 11 40.00 440.00 6 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LF 490 2.50 1,225.00 7 COMMON EXCAVATION CY 900 8.00 7,200.00 8 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 TN 2,025 8.00 16,200.00 9 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR MIX TN 58 185.00 10,730.00 10 BASE COURSE MIX IN 1,010 17.50 17,675.00 11 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK GL 915 2.00 1,830.00 12 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE TN 35 185.00 6,475.00 13 WEARING COURSE MIX IN 510 20.00 10,200.00 14 DRIVEWAY PATCH SY 175 20.00 3,500.00 15 ADJUST FRAME AND RING EA 5 400.00 2,000.00 16 ADJUST WATER VALVE EA 4 200.00 800.00 17 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK SF 500 8.00 4,000.00 18 CONCRETE CURB & G B -618 LF 3,000 7.50 22,500.00 19 6" CONCR D/W PAVEMENT SY 210 24.00 5,040.00 20 8" CONCR D/W PAVEMENT SY 366 28.00 10,248.00 21 SODDING WITH 4" TOPSOIL SY 2,600 2.75 7,150.00 22 TRANSPLANT TREES (6" AND <) EA 10 150.00 1,500.00 23 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 5,000.00 5,000.00 SUBTOTAL $157,280.50 CONTINGENCY 15,729.50 TOTAL LONSTRUGTION COST $173.010.00 173,010 00 TECH, ADMIN, LEGAL & CAP INT 32,870.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $205,880.00 SEWER STORM COSTS STORM SEWER ALTERNATES ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE PROJECT NO. 1988 -04 A B C LOGAN AND LILAC: 57TH -59TH (SHINGLE (SHINGLE (DUPDPT 1U'LIMAN) tREEK TO LOGAN) 'CREEK TO IOCAN) Ieem Unit ! Lontract Item Unit Price Q-'t7 Amount Quantity Amount. Quantity Amount 1 MOBILIZATION LS $10,000.00 0.66 $6,.600.00 0.66 $6,600.00 0.75 $7,500.00 2 36 INCH RCP LF 48.00 2,495 119,760.00 950 45,600.00 3 33 INCH RCP LF 46.00 3,300 151,800.00 A 27 INCH RCP ,LF 45.99 530 24,380.00 530 24,380.00 5 24 INCH RCP LF 44.00 60 2,640.00 60 2,640.00 6 21 INCH RCP LF 42.00 700 29,400.00 600 25,200.00 600 25,200.00 7 18 INCH RCP LF 35.00 100 3,500.00 100 3,500.00 8 15 INCH RCP LF 28.DO 210 5,880.00 210 5,880.00 9 STANDARD MANHOLE EA 1,200.00 8 9,600.00 14 16,800.00 12 14,400.00 30 CATCH BASIN EA 1,000.00 20 20,000.00 3 3,000.00 3 3, DOO.DO 11 RECONSTRUCT MANHOLE 'EA 2;000.00 1 2,'O5D.OD - 12 36 INCH FLARED END EA 1,000.00 1 1,000.00 1 1,000.00. 13 REMOVE i REPLACE CHAIN LINK LF 20.00 400 8,000.00 400 8,000.00 14 REMOVE BITUMINOUS SURFACE SY 3.00 11,000 33,000.00 1,700 5,100.00 1,700 5,100.00 15 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB L GUTTER LF 4.50 660 2,970.00 500 2,250.00 500 2,250.00 16 REMOVE CONCRETE SIDEWALK SY 2.50 55 137.50 55 137.50 17 3-624 CONCRETE CURB [ GUTTER IF 8.75 500 4,375.00 500 4,375.00 18 B -618 CONCRETE CURB [ GUTTER LF 7.50 660 4,950.00 19 4 INCH CONCRETE SIDEWALK SF 2.00 500 1,000.00 S00 1,000.00 20 2331 BITUMINOUS BASE IN 17.50 1,200 21,000.00 475 8,312.50 475 8,312.50 21 2341 BITUMINOUS WEAR IN 20.50 900 18,450.00 150 3,075.00. 150 3,075.00 22 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR MIX IN 185.00 130 24,050.00 38 7,030.00 38 7,030.00 23 GLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE IN 8.00 3,600 28,800.00 750 6,000.00 750 6,000.00. • 24 SODDING WITH TOPSOIL SY 2.75 3,000 8,250.00 900 2,475.00 900 2,475.00 25 SALVAGE FLARED END EA 250.00 2 500.00 2 500.00 26 SEEDING WITH TOPSOIL i MULCH AC 2,300.00 1.75 4,025.00 1.75 4,025.00 27 DITCH EXCAVATION IF 3.00 1,500 7,500.00 " SUBTOTAL 360,870.00 261,040.00 192,880.00 CONTINGENCY 69,430.00 66,360.00 48,120.00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $430,300.00 $327,400.00 $241,000.00 33 APPENDIX G LOGAN AVENUE AREA - ASSESSMENT ZONES 34 i x,400 SouARE FEET 1 O 1 �- LOGAN AVE. 8 N. LILAC DR 5 AVE. NO. TO 60TH AVE. NO. PROJECT 83 -04 SCALE I INCH - i00 FEET SELL R rp; 700 ' ADD. / i ( 1 I ZONE A ASSESSMENT (ZOO FT. DEPTH) r - -; r , ------ - ----------- - - - - -- ZONE BASSES aNT / r , OJ O o AV - +— — . r t Z ONE c. -R --1 r , Z O 14 E D -R- 3 58TH. AVE. N. JAMES L.LUNDOUIST 5711 LOGAN AV NO DARN it LUTZ - z 5740 LOGAN AV NO S7EVEM J. LOEDUR - L 9.36 L AN 06AN AV NO j -L► / > G. d GN ETERSD 4 S'32 LO AV NO JUD7T N A. r' G m 5726 LOGAN AV F NO NO y WILLIAM P. KELLEY Q O 5721 LOGAN AV NO / PATRICIA C. DENNIS 5720 LOGAN AY. NO n ` PAUL d SJSUN C161Y i 2 0. 5716 LDCAN AV NO NORTN9RODY. ESTATES Lu AP E T. X .. O Z _ Y D R' N R t0 iE ' ° -- -- --- -- -- --"---- N. R7! NC`UH.FEL AVE. — — — N = — 35 e APPENDIX H _ LOGAN AVENUE AREA - CREDIT CALCULATIONS 36 CREDIT CALCULATIONS LOGAN AVENUE AREA SALVAGE VALUE = 30% OF PROJECT COST BASED ON NORMAL STORM SEWER ROADWAY $205,880 STORM SEWER 39,630 TOTAL $245,510 CREDIT = 0.30 ($245,510) _ $73,650 STORM SEWER ALTERNATE B STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION COST = $327,400 TECH, ADMIN, LEG & CAP INT = 62.210 TOTAL - $389,610 • NORMAL STORM SEWER 0.208 TIMES ROADWAY COST • 0.208 ($173,010) _ $36,030 TECH, ADMIN, LEG & CAP INT = 3,600 TOTAL - $39,630 CREDIT = $389,610 - $39,630 = $349,980 37 APPENDIX I • LOGAN AVENUE AREA ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS 38 L06RH RUENUE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TOTAL 'ZONE T ZONE D PROPERTY R ZONE 8 ZONE R ZONE B ZONE IND /COM RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL TOTAL ADDRESS PID PROJECT AREA ARER ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT 02-118-21- 13-0025 L06PH 14,930 32,704 $5,321.86 $4,612.21 $9,934.07 $9,934.07 02 -118- 21-14 -0007 LOGAN 9,256 $3,299.34 $3,299.39 $3,299.31 1900 57th Ave N 02- 118 -21- 13-0029 L06AN 20,052 $7,147.62 $7,147.62 $7,147.62 5840 Lilac Drive No 02-118 -21 -14 -0019 LOGAN 32,332 $11,524.88 $11,524.88 $11,524.88 5800 Logan Ave H 02-118 -21 -14 -0025 LOGAN 51,210 $18,254.02 $18,254.02 $18,254.02 5710 Morgan Ave H 02-118 -21- 13-0026 LOGAN 19,763 77,361 $7,044.60 $10,910.14 $17,954.74 $17,954.74 5712 Morgan Ave H 02- 118 -21 -13 -0024 LOGAN 103,346 81,385 $36,838.12 $11,477.65 $48,315.77 $48,315.77 5716 Logan flue N 02- 118-21 -14 -0107 LOGAN 3,965 $649.80 $649.BO 5744 Logan flue H 02- 118 -21 -14 -0100 LOGAN 3,965 $649.80 $649.80 5724 Logan Rue H 02- 118 - 21-14-0105 LOGAN 4,455 $649.80 $649.80 5720 Logan flue N 02-118-21-14 -0106 LOGAN 4,455 $649.80 $649.80 5728 Logan Ave N 02- 118-21 -14 -0104 LOGAN 4,455 $649.80 $649.80 5732 Logan Rue N 02-118 -21-14 -0103 LOGAN 4,455 $649.80 $649.80 5740 Logan Rue H 02- 118 -21 -14 -0101 LOGAN 4,455 $649.80 $649.80 5736 Logan Ave t1 02- 118 -21 -14 -0102 L06RH 4,455 $649.80 $649.60 1 BOB 37tfi flue H 02- 118-21- 14 -DD04 LOGAN 9,917 $1,325.00 $1,325.00 • 5712 Logan Rue N 02-119 -21 -14 -ODDS L06RH 9,917 $1,325.00 $1,325.00 5706 Logan Rue N 92- 118 -21- 14-0092 LOGAN 9,917 $1,325.00 $1,325.00 LOGAN TOTAL 315,300 191,450 $89,430.44 $27,600.00 $116,430.44 $3,975.00 $5,198.40 $125,603.84 1 1 LOGAN RUEHUE ASSESSMENT SL1MMflRY 1 1 ZONE R ASSESSMENTS $89,430.44 1 1 ZONE B ASSESSMENTS $27,000.00 1 1 ZONE C RESIDENTIAL (SINGLE rRMILY) $3,975.00 1 1 ZONE D RESIDENTIAL (TtUJNHOME5) $5,198.40 1 1 1 1 TOTAL RSSEHMENTS $125,603.84 1 • 39 APPENDIX J LOGAN AVENUE AREA - STORM SEWER ALTERNATIVES i I I ' 40 ` y V b 4-4 ° 24' UL tt 3 , f � 3 r I y F m H N.: 7C 77• . -. 36 . 7q• . � _ 42 76' �^-e j k • r ; rr < �{ TOR T RUCTI 'N L- C -4- D 'Oft 4%j0 U SO 3 ei , TT f E ( < } ; S Y f r z , , + ►� E _ - €z }s ; r 7 ALTERNATE -, ` CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS 11!/ 52ND AVE.N CITY OF NOT RECOMMENDED ) si ST AVE. N B R 0 0 K L Y N 1 7 i AVE. N. C E N T E R 49TH AVE. N. 0 soo 1000 2000 3000 4000 6 TH 41 - SCALE IN FEET 1 a ry _ i a C '., .fl ; e� 4 � � Z i t .• 3 � � d r F N.: 30 33. _. .. Si : 3K 42' 36' ? TFU ON Jim** ll=z; m 3a► t ¢ 3, a o , r I !'. ^ ,_,W. : ,..,,.� ..K 't2�" : '_ . 12' _. b2' ° - �f9' . '.3i• • W • ^ m ^ 3 o : ALTERNATE � 52ND AVE.AI CITY OF MIIVIV E APO LIS nBn . ( RECOMMENDED ) CITY OF 51 ST AVE. N B R 0 0 K L Y N 1 0H AVE. N T Ii T E R 49TH AVE. N. 0 so0 1000 2000 4000 d < - N RT T SCALE IN FEET N i - f " w " N µ N � c ."!� ,.r r 3`.8' =" M1 66' CO'S iEft, •, 2 1' y � r � 1 �r z r T _. < }--- �, II .. 2t' 30' •e 33 36' 38` .' m 42' �. .a36. .° STO 1 n x } STRUC t ' c l D1TCt-I/ A2 i ;b a c 1 y i i. w f i .r __........tea ,.... ,.., ,.., i 2 � �• �. r W � O ALTERNATE !/ 52NOAVE. :. CITY OF M /NN EAP Al ` 0L /S c II ( NOT RECOMMENDED ) CITY OF 51 STAVE. N 46 - nl OTM AVE. N. BROOKLY N CENTER 49TH AVE, N. 0 500 1 000 2000 4000 N R T �+ hK SCALE IN FEET .............. ; _ '. . ......... ............. . 5 ; 5 5 \ - -- - _ L 5 �!. L 1 { \.....t����............. - 1 . \; t FRANCE AVE AREA STORM SEWER 45 APPENDIX L RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION • 46 Z i .Z= e LRANDVIEW BROWN — �.,0 h e�'� �� PARK \ SCHOOL CSAH NO 10 nHi �-------- - - - E DRIVE a _ w LOGAN AVE AREA Q 51 ST. AVE. N. O = HAPPY HOLLOW SO O U w w ,j. _ \PARK,, Y 1 x • l 1 ` Ne LL x t� l R4 Q R � p TH Q AVE N. O 'IN i ` 3 N <E 0 49TH a N L I I AV£_ N. w w a 6 5 BREEZE J w W 1 W W I 0Q 48TH ,E Y \� MPLS. � LAK£swe rme . , E 47TH 4Vf. I , 1 IN LAKE w BEACH PARK *BRYAN LAKE', W C /TY < OF ROBBINSDAL E FRANCE AVE AREA ACQ UISITION Vk IGHT�OF�WAY 47 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION ACQUISITION SUMMARY TRACT TYPE OF RECOMMENDED STANDARD ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM STANDARD NUMBERS RIGHT OF WAY WITH RIGHT OF WAY WITHOUT RIGHT OF WAY 1,2 Street right of way Curve radii are increased on Street constructed within Lilac Drive to increase sight existing right of way with distance. recommendation that road be posted at lower speed at curves. 3 Pedestrian bike trail easement Allow installation ed bike Eliminates boulevard and may i s ins tion of p / Y trail with standard boulevard. dictate "on- street" bike trail. Allows optional parking within Eliminate possibility of boulevard area. optional parking. 4 Pedestrian /bike trail easement Allows installation of ped /bike Eliminates boulevard and trail with standard boulevard. dictates an "on- street" bike trail_ 5 Utility and pedestrian /bike Provides space for the construc- Eliminates boulevard and trail easement tion of a ped /bike trail and for dictates an "on- street" bike • the lift station modifications. trail. Requires the location of the lift station away from current access. 6 Pedestrian /bike trail easement Allows installation of ped /bike Eliminates boulevard and trail with standard boulevard. dictates an "on- street" bike trail. 7 Construction easement Driveway apron would conform to Driveway would conform to City standard for entrance minimum MSA Standards. design. S Utility and drainage easement Length of storm sewer outfall Storm sewer would be lengthened would be shortened by crossing to connect to culvert on Ryan unoccupied property to Ryan Creek. Creek. • 48 AFFFNDIX. M • LIFT STATION COST CALCULATIONS 49 ,LIFT STATION MODIFICATIONS .LIFT S=1DN ND_ 6 Alteraaarc 1 Zo Nothing Annual cost $2,646.87 includes additional maintenance, material, and equipment for existing system versus a submersible pump system. Present worth at simple interest with a term of 20 years at an interest rate of 7.5 percent. PW = $26,983.54 Alternate 2 Correct Problems 1, 2, and 3 Item Control Panel $ 7,500 Lower Entrance Tube 4,500 Lower Wetwell 1,500 Excavation and Landscaping 2,130 'Temporary and Permanent Electrical 3,000 Subtotal Construction $18,630 Contingency (10 %) 1,860 Tonal Construction $20,490 Technical, Administrative & Legal Services (18 %) 3,690 Total Cost of Work $24,180 ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE 26,980 TOTAL $51,160 Alternate 3 Correct Problems 1, 2, 3, and 4 Alternate 2 work $18,630 Replace pump 7,920 Subtotal Construction $26,550 Contingency (10 %) 2,650 Total Construction $29,200 Technical, Administrative & Legal Services (18 %) 5,260 Total Cost of Work $34,460 ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE 26,980 TOTAL $61,440 i 5p Lift Station Modifications (Continued) Alternate 4 Correct All of the Txo - blems Wetwell Construction $ 8,000 Pump Installation 15,000 Piping and Valves 6,060 Electrical Controls 10,500 Restoration 4,500 Subtotal Construction $44,060 Contingency (10 %) 4,410 Total Construction $48,470 Technical, Administrative, & Legal Services (18 %) 8,730 TOTAL $57,200 51 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: pti n. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ASSESSMENT RATES FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN 1988 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 85 -34 established residential assessment rates for street reconstruction projects; and WHEREAS, the residential assessment rate should be adjusted to correspond to changes in the cost of construction; and WHEREAS, the Construction Cost Index for Minneapolis in the Engineering News Record reflects the changes in the cost of construction; and WHEREAS, the residential assessment rate should be adjusted annually to be effective January 1; and WHEREAS, the annual adjustment should be equal to the annual change in the Construction Cost Index for Minneapolis for the preceeding Month of December; and WHEREAS, City Engineer has reported to the City Council that the change in Construction Cost Index as published in the Engineering News Record from December, 1986 to December, 1987 was an increase of 2.0 %; and WHEREAS, the R -4, R -5, R -6 and R -7 zoned districts should be assessed based on an evaluation of project cost and project benefit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of Lk: City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The residential assessment rates for street reconstruction shall apply to properties in R -1, R -2 or R -3 zoned districts. These rates shall also be applied to parcels of property in other land - use zones when such parcels (a) are being used as one - family or two- family residential sites at the time the assessment role is levied; and (b) could not be subdivided under the then - existing Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The residential rate for street reconstruction shall be adjusted annually to be effective January 1. 3. The annual adjustment of the residential assessment rate for street reconstruction shall be equal to the annual change in the Construction Cost Index for Minneapolis as published in the Engineering News Record for the year preceeding and ending in December. RESOLUTION NO. 4. The residential assessment rates for street reconstruction effective January 1, 1988 shall be as follows: Land Use 1988 Assessment rate R -1 zoned, used as a one family site that cannot be subdivided $1,325 per lot R -2 zoned, or used as a two - family $17.60 per front foot site that cannot be subdivided with a minimum $1,325 per lot R -3 zoned Assessable frontage x $17.60 Number of residential units 5. The residential assessment rates for street reconstruction shall not apply to R -4, R -5, R -6 or R -7 zoned districts. The assessment rates for street reconstruction for R -4, R -5, R -6 and R -7 zoned property shall be based on an evaluation of the project cost and the project benefit for each project. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND CALLING FOR A HEARING ON LOGAN AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -04, FRANCE AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -05, LAKEBREEZE AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -06, AND 50TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -07 WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 87 -225 a report was prepared by the City Engineer for the improvement of the following: LOGAN AVENUE FROM 57TH AVENUE TO LILAC DRIVE AND LILAC DRIVE FROM LOGAN AVENUE TO 59TH AVENUE (STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 - -04) FRANCE AVENUE FROM THE SOUTH CITY LIMITS TO 50TH AVENUE (STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -05) LAKEBREEZE AVENUE FROM FRANCE AVENUE TO AZELIA AVENUE (STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -06) 50TH AVENUE FROM TRUNK HIGHWAY 100 TO FRANCE AVENUE; and (STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -07) WHEREAS, the.area benefitted by these improvements is described in said report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The Engineer's Report, as submitted by the City Engineer, is hereby received and accepted. 2. The Council will consider the improvement in accordance with the report and the assessment of benefited property as detailed in the report for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statute Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $1,435,100. 3. A public hearing shall be held on the proposed improvements on the 14th day of March, 1988, in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 7:30 p.m., local time and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk RESOLUTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i /3b MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Geralyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator DATE: February 4, 1988 SUBJECT: Advisory Commission Bylaws Once again, the city council is being asked by the park and recreation commission to consider a resolution amending article VII of the advisory commission bylaws. Following is a sequence of events on this matter to date (minutes of the council and commission meetings are attached for reference on this). September 15, 1987 - Park and recreation commission expresses dissatisfaction over existing language in article VII of the advisory commission bylaws. October 27, 1987 Park and recreation commission recommends to the city council an amendment to article VII of the bylaws. November 9, 1987 - City council directs staff to prepare a resolution amending the bylaws as recommended by the park and recreation commission. November 23, 1987 - City council tables the resolution amending article VII of the bylaws and sends it back to the park and recreation commission requesting more appropriate language. The council also asks for input from the city attorney. November 25, 1987 - City attorney prepares alternate language for the bylaws (letter attached). January 26, 1988 Park and recreation commission returns its original proposal to the city council. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING ARTICLE VII OF THE ADVISORY COMMISSION BYLAWS WHEREAS, the City Council, upon recommendation of the Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Commission, deems it appropriate to revise Article VII of the City's advisory commission bylaws regarding general provisions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Article VII of the City's advisory commission bylaws is hereby amended as follows, where underlines indicate new matter and brackets indicate matter to be deleted. Article VII. General Provisions No member of the Commission or its Committees shall be authorized to speak on behalf of the Commission publicly, unless the Commission has first [considered and approved such statements] discussed the subject and said member is communicating the ideas or issues agreed to by the Commission BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this article does not prevent any commission member from speaking for or on behalf of himself or herself. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER COMMISSION BYLAWS Adopted June 22, 1987 Pursuant to the following resolutions relating to and providing for the establishment, appointment, organization and responsibilities of the Brooklyn Center Housing, Human Rights and Resources, Park and Recreation, and Planning Commissions, the City Council does hereby adopt these bylaws and rules for the conduct of their affairs. Commission Resolutions Housing 73 -140, 75 -97, 77 -22, 87 -131 Human Rights and Resources 68 -44, 69 -35, 71 -211, 74 -68, 87 -132 Park and Recreation 73 -25, 77- 52,87 -133 Planning 87 -87, 87 -134 and Ordinance 35 -201 Article I. Officers Section 1. Personnel The officers shall consist of a Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson. Section 2. Duties The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings and shall appoint Ad Hoc Committee members and Ad Hoc Committee Chairpersons. The Vice - Chairperson shall be appointed annually by the Chairperson and shall perform such duties as may be assigned by the Chairperson, and shall assume the Chair in the absence of the Chairperson. Article II. Meetings The Commission shall hold regular meetings. Special meetings may be called at any time by the Chairperson upon sufficient notification to all Commission members. Article III. Quorum A quorum shall consist of a majority of the members of the Commission. Article IV. Attendance Three consecutive unexcused absences from duly called Commission meetings or unexcused absences from a majority of duly called Commission meetings within one calendar year shall constitute automatic resignation from office. Article V. Minutes Minutes of each regular meeting, in writing, g g, g, shall be provided to each Commission member prior to the commencement of the succeeding regular meeting. Article VI. Ad Hoc Committees Section 1. Structure The Commission may create Ad Hoc Committees to investigate those areas where problems relative to the Commission's purpose are recognized. Section 2. Membership Each Ad Hoc Committee shall consist of at least two Commission members. Section 3. Duties of Ad Hoc Committee Chairperson Each Ad Hoc Committee shall have a Chairperson, who shall provide regular interim reports on the progress of the Ad Hoc Committee. A final report to the Commission must be submitted. Article VII. General Provisions No member of the Commission or its Committees shall be authorized to speak on behalf of the Commission publicly, unless the Commission has first considered and approved such statements. Article VIII. Parliamentary Authority Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall be the governing authority for all meetings of the Commission and for its committees. Article IX. Amendments These bylaws may be amended by a four - fifths vote of the City Council. PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION handicapped. He added there is a joint venture with the cities of Plymouth and Crystal for working with older mentally retarded citizens and said some things are being done, but more probably could be done. OTHER BUSINESS Councilmember Hawes asked if a decision has been made on which ice rinks will be open this winter. The Director of Recreation said the same ones as last year will be open, and he will report back to the commission next year on the usage of these rinks. There was some discussion on the use of rinks during 1986/1987, and the Director of Recreation said because last winter was not an average Minnesota winter, the City is waiting one more year to review the usage statistics. Chairman Sorenson referenced the letter he received from the city manager regarding the Twin Lake parking area. He felt the City was very negative on the request. He added that it is a little late now to do any more, especially since a feasibility study will be conducted for the area next year. Commissioner Propst laid three baseballs on the table and announced that this is an example of what is happening in his neighborhood from the Little League Park; that is, baseballs are being hit out of the Little League field into his yard. He wondered if the city council talked about the problem, and Councilmember Hawes said the council did talk about it but took no action. Commissioner Propst said the traffic problem occurs mostly during the Little League games and a blind corner is created. He said a City monitor was out looking at the area after the Little League season was completed instead of during -the season. The Recording Secretary said she will bring this to the attention of the Administrative Traffic Committee. The Director of Recreation said he knows the area was monitored during the Little League season. The Recording Secretary will ask the Administrative Traffic Committee to review the "Stop" sign request and the problem with baseballs. Chairman Sorenson asked if anything had been decided regarding 69th Avenue North, in particular, the issue of taking part of the Palmer Lake trail system when 69th Avenue North is reconstructed. The Recording Secretary said she will inform the Administrative Traffic Committee that the Park and Recreation Commission wishes to be consulted if and when 69th Avenue North is reconstructed, particulary in relation to what will happen with the southwest part of the Palmer Lake area and its trails. Chairman Sorenson referenced the action the city council took to amend the resolution and bylaws of the commission. He feels there still remains a direct conflict with subdivision 6 in the resolution regarding the chairperson and article VII of the p bylaws. There was some discussion on the limits laced on the 9 -15 -87 -6- PARK & RECREATION COPMMISSIO14 commission by article VII and Commissioner Propst asked for clarification of the chairman's concern. Chairman Sorenson said he feels the bylaws restrict him as chairman. Commissioner Peterson said he agrees with the Chairman n and feels the language should be more specific. pecific. Commissioner Propst again asked the Chairman to clarify what precisely the problem is and to prepare alternatives that would be more satisfactory. Chairman Sorenson said he feels if he is asked a question at a city council meeting while representing the commission, he would have to go back to the commission for an answer before responding to the council. The commission requested t ' his item be laced on the next agenda. P g a. In the meantime, the commissioners should think of other proposals that would respond to Chairman Sorenson Is concerns. Commissioner Peterson said the commission may need to get an attorney to say exactly what it wants to say. Councilmember Hawes said this is not necessarily true. Chairman Sorenson suggested the commission may wish to delete article VII completely, and Commissioner Propst said he p would like to look at this more closely. This item will be further discussed at the next meeting. The Director of Recreation reported on the past year's activities for Entertainment in the Parks. He felt the program was a big success this year and reported the attendance doubled from the previous year. The City has obtained a grant for partial funding for 1988, although this will be the last year a grant will be available from the Metropolitan Council. The Director of Recreation added the Lions Club, the Rotary Club, and the city council have been very generous to the Entertainment in the Parks program. Chairman Sorenson said this has been a great program. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Propst and seconded by Commissioner Peterson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed. The Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Commission adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Chairman 9 -15 -87 -7- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION OCTOBER 27, 1987 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Chairman Sorenson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Sorenson, Commissioners Peterson, Propst, Burnes, and Skeels. Also present were Councilmember Bill Hawes, Director of Recreation Arnie Mavis, and Recording Secretary Geralyn Barone. Commissioners Manson and Krefting were excused from this evening's meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 15 1987 There was a motion by Commissioner Burnes and seconded by Commissioner Peterson to approve the minutes of the September 15, 1987, Park and Recreation Commission meeting. The motion passed. FACILITY NEEDS Chairman Sorenson tabled this item to the next Park and Recreation on meeting. RESOLUTION /BYLAWS Chairman Sorenson referred the commission to article VII regarding authorization to speak on behalf of the commission. Commissioner Peterson said there is too much ambiguity in this article. Chairman Sorenson said his problem with this article is that the commission must first consider and approve any statements, so in essence, commissioners are prohibited from speaking. Commissioner Propst asked if anyone was able to prepare an alternative to this article, and no one responded. Councilmember Hawes suggested Chairman Sorenson may be reading too much into the article. Chairman Sorenson responded saying the article says in plain English that statements must be approved. Councilmember Hawes said no one will condemn a commissioner for speaking on behalf of the commission, and the intent in the article is clear. Chairman Sorenson agreed the intent is clear, but the wording does not say this. Commissioner Propst asked if Chairman Sorenson wants members to feel free to express their individual opinions. Chairman Sorenson said members have this right regardless. What bothers him is any statement must be approved by the commission. There was some discussion on alternative language for the article. Commissioner Burnes suggested the following language "No member shall speak on behalf of the commission unless the commission has first discussed the subject and said speaker is communicating the ideas or issues 10 -27 -87 -1- PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION [ agrd ee to by the commission." Commissioner Skeels noted the iginal intent of the bylaws was to allow members to speal P by giving the position of the commission. Commissioner opst suggested the proposed language may be too restrictive. ere was a motion by Commissioner Peterson and seconded by mmissioner Skeels to recommend to the city council an amendment article VII of the advisory commission bylaws as suggested by mmissioner Burnes. The motion passed unanimously. The Recording cretary said this item will appear on the November 9, 1987, city uncil agenda. REVIEW OF GENERAL ORDINANCES RELATED DIRECTLY TO PARKS Chairman Sorenson said he feels the ordinance related to beer and alcohol in the parks is too restrictive. The Director of Recreation said he feels there are no problems now and the ordinance is working well. Chairman Sorenson said because there have been a few abuses, everyone should not be restricted. He pointed out a problem with the current ordinance, which says the director of parks and recreation issues permits, when in fact there is no longer a director of parks and recreation. Commissioner Propst asked who the permits are issued to now, and the Director of Recreation said civic groups which meet certain qualifications are eligible to obtain permits.. Commissioner Propst said there should not be alcohol in the parks because it is not a good environment for a park. He feels no one should be able to get a permit and would be happy if the police enforced the ordinance as it currently. exists. t Commissioner Peterson said he does not feel it is practical to have a family obtain a permit to have beer in the park. He said he cannot see why there should be a requirement except for organized groups. Commissioner Propst said there can be problems with beer in the parks. Chairman Sorenson said he would like others besides civic groups to be able to-get permits, and he would go along with a compromise of issuing permits to some groups. Commissioner Skeels wondered if the current ordinance is loosened, under what basis could the City stop someone from obtaining a permit; he feels it would be an administrative nightmare for the recreation department to administer this. The Director of Recreation said someone would have to be hired just to handle all the issuance of permits. Commissioner Skeels said he would not have a problem with prohibiting alcohol in the parks altogether with no permits issued. Commissioner Skeels also suggested if the police department is involved in monitoring and controlling certain events, a permit for alcohol may be acceptable. Chairman Sorenson said he prefers the process to allow groups to obtain permits. Commissioner Propst said he sees problems with this because it would be chaos. He prefers to limit access of beer to situations where licenses have been issued and the events are controlled by the police. 10 -27 -87 -2- CITY COUNCIL said he would like the Director of Finance to review and prioritize the proposals for the City Council. He also said on page two, item 7 of the request for proposals, the word "all" should be inserted before "Minnesota municipal clients." There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to direct staff to proceed to collect requests for proposals for the annual financial audit and to direct staff to prioritize these proposals for the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION TO AMEND THE ADVISORY COMMISSION BYLAWS REGARDING ARTICLE VII WHICH ALLOWS COMMISSION MEMBERS TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION Councilmember Theis said he felt since the wording in the bylaws and the proposed revised wording were both appropriate, he would like to see the Council change the bylaws to include the proposed wording. Councilmember Hawes said'the wording has been a real hangup with the commission, especially the chairman and some of its members who feel they are muzzled by the current wording in the bylaws. These members feel they should have the ability to speak on behalf of the Park and Recreation Commission instead of being stymied. The City Manager said he does not believe the current wording does this. Councilmember Lhotka asked the City Attorney for his opinion on this, and the City Attorney said both the existing and proposed language would be fine. Councilmember Theis said he is willing to agree with the change recommended by the commission to make the volunteers feel more Y y receptive b the City. There P was some discussion regarding the concerns of the Park and Recreation Commission. Mayor Nyquist asked if there has been a problem for the commission with the existing _ g and Councilmember Hawes said there have been no problems, but the commission feels the language is restrictive. The Personnel Coordinator reiterated the feelings of the commission as already expressed by Councilmember Hawes. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to direct staff to prepare an amendment to the bylaws with the language identical or similar to the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation for Article VII of the Advisor Commission bylaws. Advisory la s. The motion passed unanimously. y p imously. DESIGNATION OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER AS NATIONAL SCENIC RIVER The City Manager said this information is being passed on to the Council at the request of Grey Cloud township. Councilmember Scott said she does not see a problem with the bill because it does not look like the federal government is trying to take y g control of the 'v ri er. She said the bill seems to do more to protect local overnment and she does not t understand the position taken by Grey Cloud township. After some brief discussion, the City Council decided not to take any action on this request. GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS The City Manager said for the last four to five years the City has been involved with Hennepin County's bidding system for health insurance plans for employees. He said this year Hennepin County eliminated coverage for PHP and Med Center, and the City is looking at ways to retain these two options for its employees. 11 -9 -87 -11- CITY COUNCIL Councilmember Hawes expressed concern about the insulation, and the Director of Public Works said it would not be a problem. He stated further the architects have a good deal of experience with these structures and he is going on the recommendation of the architects. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -220 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT REGARDING REHABILITATION OF WELL HOUSE NO. 5 AND 6 (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1987 -20) AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RELATING TO THE PREPARATION OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION OF PROJECT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of a 3/4 Ton Cab- Chassis for the Public Utilities Department. He said this is a replacement vehicle and the memorandum in the agenda packet describes the equipment. Councilmember Lhotka asked why this is not considered during the normal budget process, and the City Manager noted the Public Utilities Department is not part of the City's budget. RESOLUTION N0. 87 -221 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A 3/4 TON CAB - CHASSIS FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT l The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Quotation and Authorizing the Purchase of a Mid Size Pickup for the Public Utilities Department. He noted this request is similar to the previous one. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -222 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATION AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A MID SIZE PICKUP FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. r The ith City Manager presented a Resolution Amending Article VII of the Advisory ommission Bylaws. Mayor Nyquist said he requested removal of this from the onsent agenda because the more he read the amendment, the more he had problems it. He feels it is dangerous as proposed, and the previous language is easonable. 11 -23 -87 -5- CITY COUNCIL There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to table the Resolution Amending Article VII of the Advisory Commission Bylaws and to send it back to the Park and Recreation Commission requesting more appropriate language. The City Manager said this will also be reviewed with the City Attorney. Upon vote being taken on the foregoing motion, the motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS The City Manager said a hearing on a Resolution of Intent to Organize Collection of Refuse within the City of Brooklyn Center is scheduled for this evening. He pointed out that a number of communities are passing resolutions similar to this. He said the resolution would require the City to look at recycling goals during the next 90 days, and it may require changes in the way refuse is handled in the City at this time. The City Manager said there are three alternatives: have the existing haulers organize their collection process; bid out the collection to one contractor; or hire our own personnel. He said the latter option is the least attractive, and the bidding process has some disadvantages, especially because it limits competition; the preferred choice is to negotiate with the existing haulers. He said the best of all worlds would be to keep costs close to what they are now. The City Manager said the cities of Brooklyn Park, Crystal, and New Hope are interested in participating in a joint powers agreement with Brooklyn Center and the existing haulers. Staff recommends this alternative. Mayor Nyquist asked if the City Manager thinks municipalities could achieve their goals at the estimated cost. The City Manager said this is an estimate and pointed out the City of Champlin is providing service for less than proposed. He proceeded to review the costs involved. Councilmember Theis asked if under any of the proposals the residents would have a choice of haulers. The City Manager said they would not. He added a large percentage of waste is from yards and recyclables, and it would take separate vehicles to collect the various types of waste. He said it would not be a good idea to have three different haulers a week coming to a residence in addition to having a variety of vehicles coming up and down the streets all week servicing other residences. Councilmember Theis expressed concern over the costs and said he would like to see them regulated if possible. The City Manager said some cities are using one contractor and said this is fine if you do get a good contractor; however, there can be problems associated with this also. He pointed out because a contract would be negotiated with the haulers and a contractual relationship is established between the City and the consortium of haulers, the quality of service can be controlled through the contract. Councilmember Theis asked about the billing process for refuse service, and the City Manager said some cities do the billing and others have the contractors do it. He noted there is better control over the service if the City bills the users, but then the City receives all the complaints. Councilmember Theis pointed out if the City does not get involved in service, the homeowner would have no one to go to if there is a problem with the contractor. The City Manager said ultimately a resident would complain to the City because of the 1 contract with the haulers. His point was if your name is on the bill, you would 11 -23 -87 _6_ LeFevere Lefler KenncdN O'Brien k llraivz a Professional Association 2000 First Bank Place West November 25, 19 8 7 Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Telephone (612) 333 -0543 Telecopier (612) 333-0540 Mr. Jerry Splinter Clayton L. LeFevere City Manager Herbert P. Lefler 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway J. Dennis O'Brien Jahn E. Drawl Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 David J. Kennedy Joseph E. Hamilton Re: Advisory Commission Bylaws Amendment John B. Dean Glenn E. Purdue Richard J. Schieffer Dear Jerry: Charles L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler III James J. Thomson, Jr. At the last council meeting there was some discussion Thomas R. Galt about an amendment to Article VII of the Advisory Dayle Nolan Commission Bylaws relating to circumstances in which John G. Kressel Steven B. Schmidt members of the Commission may speak on behalf of the James M. Strommen Commission. Aftd H. Batty W P. Jordan R. Skallerud The apparent purpose of the provision is to limit cases Rodney D. Anderson in which any member of a Commission is authorized to Corrine A. Heine speak for the Commission, presumably to avoid David D. Beaudoin Paul E. Rasmussen unauthorized statements or misstatements of the policy or Steven M.Tallen position of the Commission. It should be noted that the Mary Frances Skala existing policy does not prevent a member from speaking Christopher J. Harristhal any p g Timothy J. Pawlenty for or on behalf of himself or herself. It only limits Rolf A.Sponheim speaking as an official representative of the Commission. Julie A. Bergh It is my understanding that it has been argued that the rule is unnecessarily restrictive, and a suggestion has been made to change the language to authorize statements to be made on behalf of the Commission if " ... the Commission has first discussed the subject and said member is communicating the ideas or issues agreed to by the Commission." Although this language is probably better than no restriction at all, it does allow any member to speak on behalf of the Commission whether the Commission has authorized that person to speak or not. Incidentally, it seems that my advice to the City Council on this matter was understood to mean that there was no difference between the original language and the proposed amendment. However, what I intended to communicate to the council was that there was no legal difference between the two. That is, that either one would be Mr. Jerry Splinter November 25, 1987 Page 2 legally acceptable. Therefore, a decision as to which of these versions to adopt for the Commission bylaws is primarily a policy rather than a legal matter. As a middle ground, the Commission and Council might consider language which is less restrictive than the existing provision but more restrictive than the proposed amendment such as: No member of the Commission or its Committees shall be authorized to speak on behalf of the Commission publicly, unless the Commission has first either considered and approved such f z������5 s - t- andards by motion or has adopted a motion which identifies the member who is authorized to speak, the time and place at which the member is authorized to speak, and the ideas, issues, facts or policies which the member is authorized to communicate. Such authority may be rescinded by the City Council at any time. If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please feel free to give me a call. Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL:rsr MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JANUARY 26, 1988 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Chairman Sorenson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Sorenson, Commissioners Skeels, Krefting, Peterson, Burnes, and Propst. Also present were Councilmember Bill Hawes, Director of Recreation Arnie Mavis, Mayor Dean Nyquist, and Recording Secretary Geralyn Barone. Commissioner Manson was excused from this evening's meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 27 1987 Commissioner Krefting referred to discussions in the minutes regarding the ordinance related to grills in the parks. He expressed some concern about some issues that had not been discussed related to this. The recording secretary asked if these concerns were actually discussed and not included in the minutes, or if they were new concerns not previously discussed. Commissioner Krefting said these were issues that needed to be discussed and the minutes were all right as is. There was a motion by Commissioner Peterson and seconded by Commissioner Burnes to approve the minutes of the October 27, 1987, park and recreation commission meeting. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 17 1987 There was a motion by Commissioner Burnes and seconded by Commissioner Krefting to approve the minutes of the November 17, 1987, park and recreation commission meeting. The motion passed u im usly. RESOLUTION /BYLAWS The recording secretary said the park and recreation commission's recommendation for a change to article VII of the advisory commission bylaws was presented to the city council. The council requested the commission to once again review the bylaws and prepare alternative language for an amendment if one is still desired. The recording secretary distributed a letter regarding alternative language received from the city attorney, and the commissioners reviewed the letter at this time. Chairman Sorenson said if the city council wants to leave the article of the bylaws as it originally is, the council is shooting itself in the foot. He said if that is what they wish to do, then so be it. Commissioner Krefting said he does not 1 -26 -88 -1- D EM 0 PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION dike the alternative language suggested by the city attorney. Commissioner Peterson said he is willing to go along with the city council. Commissioner Burnes said he feels the language suggested by the city attorney is too restrictive, but the language in the existing bylaws is too vague. Commissioner Propst said he feels the revised recommendation sent to the city council from the park and recreation commission is a good one and feels the language suggested by the city attorney is too restrictive. Councilmember Hawes expressed the concerns of the city council and said he is not sure which is the best way to go. Chairman Sorenson said there is a discrepancy between the enabling resolution and the bylaws; the chairperson is required to represent the commission, yet the language in the bylaws is very restrictive. Mayor Nyquist expressed his satisfaction with the existing language, and he and Chairman Sorenson proceeded to discuss their differences. Chairman Sorenson said he felt every statement by a commissioner must be approved by the commission, and Mayor Nyquist asked if that is not what the City should want. Commissioner Propst said the proposal presented to the city council is good because it eliminates the vagueness while allowing the restrictions to still be imposed. Councilmember Hawes said he would like to see the language more in line with what the park and recreation commission has already recommended to the city council. Commissioner Propst said individuals not speaking on behalf of the commission should still be able to represent their own views. There was a motion by Commissioner Peterson to leave the original bylaws as they are and refrain from making any recommendation to the city council. The motion died for a lack of a second. There was a motion by Commissioner Propst and seconded by Commissioner Krefting to resubmit to the city council the original recommendation regarding the change to article VII of the advisory commission bylaws. Commissioner Burnes asked if the language would allow commissioners to speak their own individual views when not representing the commission. There was discussion on whether or not such a statement should be added to the bylaws. There was a motion by Commissioner Propst and seconded by Commissioner Krefting to amend the previous motion to insure the meaning of the bylaws will allow commissioners to speak as individuals on issues. The motion passed with Commissioner Peterson voting against it. Commissioner Skeels asked Mayor Nyquist what his personal feelings are, as it appears the city council does not think this change is needed. Mayor Nyquist said he does not see a problem with the existing language and feels individuals already can speak on behalf of themselves without this being clarified. 1 -26 -88 -2- D 0 0 M PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION Commissioner Skeels said the article in the bylaws appears to be . contradictory. Mayor Nyquist said he does not understand what the big problem is. Upon vote being taken on the amended motion to reaffirm the recommendation and include language that says the provision does not prevent any member from speaking for or on behalf of himself or herself, the motion passed with Commissioner Peterson voting against it. Mayor Nyquist pointed out in the letter from the city attorney the word "standard" should be "statement." TRAILWAYS The director of recreation said he had received a request to have the trail system plowed in the winter months. There was discussion of the problems associated with plowing, including costs, liability, and the problem of wind blowing over the plowed trailways. Mayor Nyquist said he agreed that there is a liability concern if the trail system is plowed. Commissioner Peterson asked if Minneapolis plows its trails, and the director of recreation responded affirmatively. Councilmember Hawes asked if the City has the same liability if someone falls on a sidewalk that has been plowed by the City. Mayor Nyquist responded affirmatively, but said there is a question of reasonableness which would apply. The director of recreation told the commissioners the may receive hone calls from e Y Y P people requesting the trailways be plowed. Commissioner Propst asked if the trailways are not plowed, is the City liable. Mayor Nyquist said if the trailways are not technically open, then people proceed at their own risk. Chairman Sorenson requested the director of recreation to re re a P P for the next meeting an estimate outlining the cost of winter maintenance of the trailways. The director of recreation said there may have to be a choice of maintaining the skating rinks or plowing the trailways, because there may not be enough resources to do both. _Commissioner Propst requested a legal opinion be obtained to determine what the City's liability is if a tr ' Y Y ailwa Y is not P lowed. REVIEW OF GENERAL ORDINANCES RELATED DIRECTLY TO PARKS Chairman Sorenson asked if there was any interest in changing section 13 -103 of the ordinance, and there was none. The commissioner proceeded to discuss section 13 -102 regarding the curfew in the parks. Chairman Sorenson said with the 6 a.m. curfew, there are violators of the curfew during the summer months. There was discussion over what would be acceptable hours to change the curfew. Commissioner Propst said in reality, if someone is jogging through the park after curfew, the police probably will not stop them unless there is trouble being 1 -26 -88 -3- association of metropolitan municipalities ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARY SURVEY Compiled by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities June 9, 1987 w .. �../ U CITIES WITH POPULATION UNDER 2.500 PAGE ONE POPULATION 1987 REG. MTG. ANNUAL SALARY OF MAYOR ANNUAL'SALARY OF CNCLMBRS. PER MUNICIPALITY METRO COUNCIL PER MONTH 1987 1986 1985 1987 1986 1985 Bethel 280 1 S* S* S* S* S* S* Birchwood Village 1,059 1 600 600 600 300 300 300 Carver 697 1 180 360 360 120 240 240 Centerville 1,017 2 1,800 1,800 1,800 600 600 600 Coates 198 1 500 500 * 300 300 Cologne 603 2 600 600 600 480 480 480 Dellwood 784 1 No Salary No Salary Elko 296 1 360 360 360 240 240 240 Gem Lake 410 1 1,400 1,400 1,400 600 600 600 Greenfield 1,504 1 1,200 1,200 1,200 600 600 600 Greenwood 653 1 2,400 540 540 1,200 300 Hamburg 488 1 600 600 600 480 480 480 Hampton 320 1 * 400 * * 300 Hilltop 810 1 * 2,100 * * 1,800 Lakeland 1,995 1 1,650 1,200 960 1,200 960 720 Lakeland Shores 185 1 360 360 * 300 300 Lake St. Croix Beach 1,180 1 960 960 480 720 720 360 Landfall Village 653 1 1,800 900 900 1,200 600 600 Lauderdale 2,231 1 2,013 2,013 1,650 1,128 1,128 924 Lexin ton 2,280 2 1,260 1,260 1,260 1,020 1,020 1,020 Lily 480 1 1'* 1,200 1,200 540 492 500 CITIES WITH POPULATION UNDER 2,500 (continued) PAGE TWO POPULATION 1987 REG. MTG. ANNUAL SALARY OF MAYOR ANNUAL SALARY OF CNCLMBRS. PER MUNICIPALITY METRO COUNCIL PER MONTH 1987 1986 1985 1987 1986 1985 Long Lake 1,955 2 3,000 2,400 2,400 2,400 1,800 1,800 Loretto 345 1 600 600 600 400 400 400 Maple Plain 1,622 2 2,400 1,200 1,200 1,200 600 600 Marine on St. Croix 550 1 1,250 1,000 500 500 400 200 Mayer 389 1 480 360 360 360 240 240 Medicine Lake 420 1 180 90 180 120 60 60 Mendota 230 1 Miesville 176 1 480 420 420 360 300 300 Minnetonka Beach 580 1 New Germany 370 1 360 360 360 240 240 240 New Market 311 1 540 540 540 300 300 300 New Trier 120 1 Norwood 1,286 1 720 720 * 480 480 Pine Springs 310 1 No Salary No Salary Randolph 357 1 600 600 600 360 360 360 Rockford 2,408 2 1,080 1,080 1,080 840 840 840 Rogers 670 2 960 960 960 720 720 720 St. ll aonifacius 1,053 2 ` O 1,200 1,000 1,200 1,000 1,000 St. } ancis 1,810 2 1,200 1,200 100 900 900 75 CITIES WITH POPULATION UNDER 2,500 (continued) PAGE THREE POPULATION 1987 REG. MTG. ANNUAL SALARY OF MAYOR ANNUAL SALARY OF CNCLMBRS. PER MUNICIPALITY METRO COUNCIL PER MONTH 1987 1986 1985 1987• 1986 1985 St. Mary's Point 350 1 600 * * 300 Spring Park 1,474 2 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,200 1,200 1,200 Sunfish Lake 356 1 No Salary No Salary Tonka Bay 1,436 2 1,000 800 600 600 600 420 Vermillion 520 1 480 * 480 360 * 360 Victoria 1,998 2 1,200 800 800 950 600 600 Watertown 2,085 2 960 960 840 840 840 720 Willernie 670 1 600 600 600 480 480 480 Woodland 500 1 40 40 40 20 20 20 Young America 1,361 1 600 * 600 480 CITIES WITH POPULATION FROM 2,500 TO 10,000 PAGE FOUR POPULATION 1987 REG. MTG. ANNUAL SALARY OF MAYOR ANNUAL SALARY OF CNCLMBRS. PER MUNICIPALITY METRO COUNCIL PER MONTH 1987 1986 1985 1987 1986 1985 Afton 2,570 1 1,200 $1,200 $1,200 780 $ 780 $ 780 Arden Hills 9,162 2 2,900 2,100 2,100 2,300 1,500 1,500 Bayport 2,820 1 1,680 1,680 1,680 1,200 r 1,200 1,200 Belle Plaine 3,091 2 1,200 1,200 1,200 900 900 900 Chanhassen 7,849 2 3,600 3,600 3,600 2,400 2,400 2,400 Chaska 9,582 2 3,600 3, 000 3,000 3;000, 2,400 2,400 Circle Pines 4,653 2 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,125 1,125 1,125 Corcoran 4,802 2 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,200 1,200 1,200 Dayton 4,176 2 1,800 1,200 1,200 1,500 900 900 Deephaven 3,671 2 2,400 2,400 2,400 600 600 600 East Bethel 7,541 2 2, 700 * 2,160 2,400 * 1,800 Excelsior 3, 671 2 1, 200 1,200 600 600 600 420 Falcon Heights 5,412 2 4,500 3,780 3,780 3,600 3,000 3,000 Farmington 4,780 2 2,460 2,460 3,120 2,460 2,460 2,460 Forest Lake 5,360 1 1,500 1,200 1,200 1,200 900 900 Ham Lake 8,875 2 2,750 2,750 2,750 2,200 2,200 2,200 Hugo 3,976 2 600 600 600 480 480 480 Independence 2,684 2 900 900 900 600 600 600 Jordan 2,871 2 960 960 960 480 480 480 CITIES WITH POPULATION FROM 2,500 TO 10,000 (continued) PAGE FIVE POPULATION 1987 REG. MTG. ANNUAL SALARY OF MAYOR ANNUAL SALARY OF CNCLMBRS. PER MUNICIPALITY METRO COUNCIL PER MONTH 1987 1986 1985 1987 1986 1985 Lake Elmo 5,935 2 2,400 2,400 2,000 1,800 1,800 1,500 Lino Lakes 6,766 2 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,100 2,100 2,100 Little Canada 8,231 2 4,080 3,780 3,600 3,180 2,880 2,700 Mahtomedi 4,291 2 1,140 1,140 1,140 900 900 900 Medina 2,867 2 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,200 1,200 1,200 Mendota Heights 8,195 2 3,600 2,400 2,400 2,400 1,800 1,800 Minnetrista 3,446 2 840 840 840 600 600 600 Mound 9,742 2 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,200 1,200 1,200 Newport 3,526 2 2,400 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,500 1,500 North Oaks 3,121 1 180 180 180 120 120 120 Oak Park Heights 3,400 2 2,400 2,400 2,400 1,800 1,800 1,800 Orono 7,172 2 3,300 3,300 3,152 2,640 2,640 2,524 Osseo 2,801 2 900 900 1,200 720 720 900 Prior Lake 9,710 2 4,200 3,000 3,000 3,000 2,400 2,400 Rosemount 6,548 2 3,600 2,400 2,400 3,000 1,800 1,800 St. Anthony 5,312 2 3,960 3,960 3,960 2,160 2,160 2,160 St. Paul Park 4,797 2 2,700 2,400 2,100 2,400 2,100 1,800 Savage 6,400 2 3,900 3,900 3,900 3,120 3,120 9 3,120 Sholsood 4,788 2 *400 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,200 1,200 0 0 # CITIES WITH POPULATION FROM 2,500 TO 10,000 (continued) PAGE SIX POPULATION'1987 REG. MTG. ANNUAL SALARY OF MAYOR ANNUAL SALARY OF CNCLMBRS. PER MUNICIPALITY METRO COUNCIL PER MONTH 1987 1986 1985 1987 1986 1985 Spring Lake Park 6,647 2 3 2,100 2,100 2,400 1,800 1,800 Vadnais Heights 8,090 2 3,000 3,000 3,000 2,100 2,100 2,100 Waconia 2,900 2 2,200 1,800 1,500 1,200 Wayzata 3,654 2 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,200 1,200 1,200 CITIES WITH POPULATION FROM 10,000 TO 20,000 PAGE SEVEN POPULATION 1987 REG. MTG. ANNUAL SALARY OF MAYOR ANNUAL SALARY OF CNCLMBRS. PER MUNICIPALITY METRO COUNCIL PER MONTH 1987 1986 1985 1987 1986 1985 Andover 11,281 2 3,600 $3,000 $2,700 3,000 $2,700 $2,400 Anoka 15,950 2 4,200 4,200 4,000 3,570 3,570 3,400 Champlin 11,642 2 3,000 3,000 3,000 2,400 2,400 2,400 Eden Prairie 26,214 2 6,000 4,800 3,600 4,800 3,600 2,400 Hastings 13,825 2 3,000 3,000 3,000 2,400 2,400 2,400 Hopkins 15,211 2 4, 500 4,500 2,900 3,000 3,000 2,100 Inver Grove Heights 19,549 3 3,300 3,300 3,300 2,900 2,900 2,900 Lakeville 17,865 2 5,400 4,500 4,080 4,320 3, 420 3,060 Mounds View 12,928 4 3,000 3,000 2,400 2,700 2,700 1,800 North St. Paul 12,210 1 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,800 1,800 1,800 Oakdale 14,168 2 4,932 4,320 3,960 4,188 3,660 3,360 Ramsey 11,395 1 4,200 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,000 3,000 Robbinsdale 14,212 2 6,000 4,000 2,400 4,800 3,200 1,800 Shakopee 11,236 2 4,200 4,200 4,200 3,600 3,600 3,600 Shoreview 21,140 2+ 4,800 4,680 4,500 3,720 3,600 3,420 Stillwater 13,116 2 4,800 3,600 3,600 3,600 2,400 2,400 West St. Paul 18,134 2 3,000 3,000 3,000 2,400 2,400 2,400 Woo *y 14,520 2 000 2,970 2,700 2,400 1,980 800 C '> CITIES WITH POPULATION OVER �0 000 PAGE EIGHT POPULATION 1987 REG. MTG. ANNUAL SALARY OF MAYOR ANNUAL SALARY OF CNCLMBRS. PER MUNICIPALITY METRO COUNCIL PER MONTH 1987 1986 1985 1987 1986 1985 Apple Valley 28,538 4 5,400 $5,400 $5,400 4,800 4,800 4.800 Blaine 34,632 2 6,744 6,300 6,000 4,944 4,620 4,400 Bloomington 84,289 4 15,000 15,000 12,000 10,000 10, 000 9,000 Brooklyn Center 30,267 2 6,480 6,480 6,480 4,140 , 1 4,140 4,140 Brooklyn Park 51,424 2 9,000 6,600 6,600 6,000 4,800 4,800 Burnsville 42,583 2 6,000 6,000 4,800 4,200 4,200 3,600 Columbia Heights 20,029 2 10,200 10,200 10,200 6,000 6,000 6,000 Coon Rapids 42,900 3 7,600 5,200 4,200 6,600 3,600 3,600 Cottage Grove 20,753 2 6,600 6,600 5,400 4,800 4,800 3,600 Crystal 24,690 2 7,068 6,200 5,800 5,358 4,700 4,450 Eagan 35,311 2 4,500 4,500 4,500 3,600 3,600 3,600 Edina 45,523 2 5,850 5,850 5,850 3,900 3,900 3,900 Fridley 29,423 3 7,200 6,900 6,600 5,250 5,025 4,800 Golden Valley 21,541 2 6,820 6,820 6,200 5,115 5,115 4,650 Maple Grove 30,969 2 6,600 6,000 4,800 4,800 4,200 3,000 Maplewood 28,775 2 4,800 4,800 4,500 3,900 3,900 3,600 CITIES WITH POPULATION OVER 20,000 (continued) PAGE NINE POPULATION 1987 REG. MTG. ANNUAL SALARY OF MAYOR ANNUAL SALARY OF CNCLMBRS. PER MUNICIPALITY METRO COUNCIL PER MONTH 1987 1986 1985 1987 1986 1985 Minnetonka 42,636 3 7,200 6,000 6,000 5,040 4,200 4,200 New Brighton 23,310 2 5,220 5,220 5,220 4,020 4,020 4,020 New Hope 22,770 2 6,393 6,325 4,888 4,901 4,476 3,705 Plymouth 41,207 3 6,600 6,600 6,000 4,800 4,800 4,200 Richfield 36,891 2 6,700 6,700 6,000 5,200 5,200 4,500 Roseville 35,178 2 6,000 6,000 6,000 4,800 4,800 4,800 St. Louis Park 42,713 2 7,200 5,400 5,400 4,800 3,600 3,600 South St. Paul 20,489 2 7,200 7,200 6,000 4,200 4,200 3,000 White Bear Lake 22,726 1 4,152 4,320 3,960 3,120 3,300 2,976 * NO RESPONSE M & C No. 88 -08 February 4, 1988 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER SUBJECT. RFP for Analysis of Issues Relating to Residential Treatment Facility Moratorium To the Honorable Mayor & City Council: As the Council will recall, late in October of last year you passed a moratorium on residential treatment facilities in Brooklyn Center. Attached is a RFP draft developed by Ron Warren, Director of Planning and Inspections. Also attached is a memorandum you previously received from Pete Koole, City Assessor, covering the cost of a property value impact analysis of these type of facilities. Please understand that the proposed RFP relates only to our current ordinance and the standards contained therein. The property value analysis would be a separate study, and we have not developed a draft RFP. At this time we have not completed any detailed cost analysis of either of these studies, but our preliminary estimates range in the area of $10,000 to $15,000 for the property value impact analysis and in the area of $20,000 to $25,000 for the zoning ordinance and land use standards analysis. We would like to discuss with the City Council the extent and type of analysis you would like to have completed on this general subject and give staff direction. If you approve, our next step would be to finalize a RFP for one or both studies and return it to you for final approval and substantiated cost estimates. The costs would have to be financed out of the contingency fund Respectfully submitted, Gerald G. Sp l nter City Manager f February 4, 1988, H Gentlemen: The City of Brooklyn Center requests you to submit a concise proposal to provide consulting services for a study of planning and land use issues relating to residential facilities within the City of Brooklyn Center. Your submittal should be made in accordance with this Request For Proposal (RFP) . Five (5) copies should be submitted to Mr. Ronald Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection, prior to Introduction The City Council has adopted a resolution authorizing a study to be conducted pertaining to the regulation of adult half -way houses, community -based residential facilities and similar facilities and has adopted an interim ordinance establishing a moratorium on the development of such uses pending the completion of a study and the possible adoption of any amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance. The moratorium is in effect until October 27, 1988 and may be extended by the City Council if necessary to complete the study and adopt any necessary regulations. Enclosed herewith are the following related documents for your review and consideration: -City of Brooklyn Center Ordinance No. 87 -16, adopting an interim ordinance for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the community, and regulating and restricting the development of adult half -way houses, community -based residential facilities and similar uses within the City, adopted October 26, 1987. -1- -City of Brooklyn Center Resolution No. 87 -201 authorizing a study to be conducted pertaining to regulation of adult half -way houses, community -based residential facilities and similar facilities and placing a moratorium on the development of such uses, also adopted October 26, 1987. -An October 23, 1987 memorandum to Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager from Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection regarding a study of planning and land use issues relating to residential facilities. The City Council .Heil has directed that proposals be accepted for the conduct of a study based on the above information. Brooklyn Center Information Information which is available for purposes of the study includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following: -The current Comprehensive Plan for the City of Brooklyn Center. Miscellaneous maps including basic City maps, zoning maps, etc. - Existing land use data and land use projections. -The current Zoning Ordinance for the City of Brooklyn Center. -2- -Files and miscellaneous information relating to the City's current adoption of moratorium ordinance and resolution authorizing the current study. -Any other information the consultant may feel necessary for the conduct of the study. Scope of Study In general, the study is to determine how uses such as adult half -way houses, community correctional facilities, residential facilities, community -based residential facilities and the like should be regulated within the City. The study should include, but is not limited to the following: 1. The proper definition and classification of the above mentioned uses; 2. The particular zoning districts in which such uses should be allowed as either permitted uses or special uses; 3. The population density of clientele that such facilities should serve in the various zoning districts; 4. The concentration and density of such uses in the City and its neighborhoods; 5. The effect of such uses on other uses in the surrounding area. -3- The October 25, 1987 memo referenced above gives additional detail regarding the scope of the study. Upon completion of the study, these matters will be considered by the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation to the City Council. The final report should be presented in a format which would allow the City to use this study as a basis for making amendments to City ordinances,if necessary. Proposal Contents The following will be considered to be minimum contents of the proposal: 1. A work plan detailing your proposed scope of services and time schedule. 2. An identification of the City's participation in the project and the responsiblities, if any, expected to be assumed by the City. 3• An outline of your background, personnel, experience and references; specifically as they apply to this proposed study. Also, please identify the key personnel who would be assigned to this project. Noted If your firm is selected for this study, we ask that no change in your key personnel assignments be made without the consent of the City Manager. 4. An estimate of labor hours and a cost estimate. -4- Note: As a part of your cost estimate, please include the fee, on a "per meeting" basis for attending Planning Commission or City Council meetings. 5. A brief description of your ability to assist the City in proceeding with subsequent phases of the study (i.e. - revision of the Comprehensive Plan and /or Zoning Ordinance if necessary). 6. Any other relevant information you feel is necessary for the City to make its determination. Proposal Evaluation Proposals will be evaluated by the City staff. In the event staff determines there is a need to clarify questions relating to y -.)ur proposal, you will be contacted to set up a date to meet with us. The staff intends to select and recommend approval of one proposal to the City Council by It is anticipated that the selected consultant should proceed immediately to complete the project in a timely fashion in accordance with the guidelines established in the interim ordinance. Should you have any questions concerning this RFP, please contact me. Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager -5- CITY OF BROOK :yN M. Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will �i_1 be held on the 26t'1 day of October, 1987 at a p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Park:•ray, to consider An Interim Ordinance for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and the Health, Safety, and Welfare of the Residents of the Community, and Regulating and RestrictLrg the Devel opment of Ad,:lt Half:%ray Houses, Cctmmu7ity Based Residential Facilities and Similar Uses within the City. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact t-he Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. 87 -16 INIERIM ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRO'TECT'ING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE COPM=, AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING ME DEV= —T :D + OF ADULT HALFWAY HOUSES, CONIIUNITY- �?�SED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES A`iD SIT�LAR USES WI= THE CITY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Backarcurd 1.01 The City has received a special use perrtit application from Bill Kelly House of Kelly rznrtcn p Inc to operate a State licensed residential treatment facility for mentallV ill and chemicall de ent adults in an R5 Zoning District. As a result of the review process of that application it has become ap anent that dinance does not contemplate or adequately address the classification of such uses 1.02 The City's Zoning ordinance is unclear as to whether uses such as "adult halftiray houses" "community correctional facilities" "residential facilities" and "communit -based residential facilities" should be classified as "nursir care homes" Cr "boanlira care homes" or whether a new classification should be adopted. — 1.03 In addition to the xxoper zcnincr classification of such uses there are a number of significant planning and land use issues pertaining to the regulation of such uses includLng the - 0 1. . The ?articular zoning districts in which such uses should be allowed as either permitted uses or special uses. ?• The population density of clientele that such facilities should serve in the varicus zonircr districts. 3. The concentration and den sit of such uses in the Cityand its neighborhoods. ORDI:AN= NO. 87 -16 4.• T'ne effect of such uses on other uses in the surrcundi area. 1. C4 There is a reed fcr a stu' h the , cy �o be conducted sot t �... e C ' tS,• can adcct a set of comprehensive plans and land use zoning regulations terta to such uses. Such a study will address the lard use and zoning issues includinct those referm --ced. above. 1.05 There is a reed for an interim ordi -ance to be adoloted for the ur cse of iorctec-ting the planninq process and the Health safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City and to ensure that the City and its citizens retain the benefits of the Ci 'P s c =retensive nlan and zoninq ordinance until such a studv has been co,roleted and any modifications to the Ci`y's zoning and land use regulati are accomplished 1.06 The City Council has directed that such a study be undertaken 1. 07 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355, subd 4 (Act) permits the adoption of inter m, zoning ordinances during the planning process. Section 2. Determination. 2.01 Durincr he period +.hat this interim ordinance is in effect no property within the City may be_ developed, redeveloped nor shall any site plan approvals rezonings licenses (other than renewals , ,. lat s or r_ lat.. s land dives' �' p p lnq ions or consolidations, special use permits or building permits be issued by the City for any uses defined by State regulations or otherwise, as adult halfway rouses community correctional facilities commune -based residentc 1 fac' ili ties � or tv residential facilities. 2.02 Notwithsta_nding any provision of this ordinance to the contrary, any use that meets the definition of a residential facility as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 245.782 subd. 6 and as regulated by Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357 subd. 7 and subd. 8 is not affected bv this ordinance. 2.03 This ordinance shall remain in effect fora riod of twelve months from its effective date or such earlier date as ma be adopted by the City Council provided that if the study and _planning process have not been completed within that twelve no nths period this ordinance may be extended for such addi:ional_reriods as deemed necessary by the City Council not to exceed an additional period of eighteen rtanths as permitted by the Act. ORMLANCE NO. 87 -16 Secticn 3. This ordinance acnlies to any apclicaticns fc. site clan approvals, rezoninc{s, licenses, clattiras or reclattLngs, lard di.visic -.s or consolidations special use permits or buildin permits that have not recei��ed prel approval by the City Council before October 26 1987 Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and 'a thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this 26th day o f October 1987. NIayQ ; i ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication October 15, 1987 Effective Date November 14, 1987 (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted,) Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: r r 1 RESC=ON NO. 87 -201 P.ESOI=ON AUTHORIZING A STUDY To BE CCNDUCI�z._,D PFR'I'A=G TO REGUTATICN OF AIATLT HALMAY HOUSES, COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES AND SIMILAR FACI LITIEG AND PLACITZ A MORATORIUM ON THE DEVELOF= OF SUCH USES WHEREAS, the City's zoning ordinance does not clearly specify how uses such as adult half% -ray houses, community correctional facilities, residential facilities, and commrinity -based residential facilities should be regulated within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary for study to be conducted to determine how such uses should be regulated within the City and deems it desirable to place a moratorium on the development of such uses until the study has been completed and any amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance are adopted: NOW' THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the Council finds and determines that the adoption of the following is necessary to protect the ongoing planning process in the City and to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Brooklyn Center: 3- 1. A study is authorized to be conducted and consultant be selected to conduct a study to determine how uses such as adult halfway houses, community correctional facilities, residential facilities, and community -based residential facilities should be regulated within - the City. The scope of the study should include, but is not limited to, the following: a. the particular zoning districts in which such uses should be allowed as either permitted uses or special uses; b. the population density of clientele that such facilities should serve in the various zoning districts; C. the concentration and density of such uses; and d. the effect of such uses on other uses in the surrounding area. 2. Upon completion of the study the matter is to be considered by the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation to the City Council. 3. A moratorium on the development of adult halfway houses, residential facilities, cammunity- }used residential facilities, and community correctional facilities is hereby adopted pending completion of the study and the adoption of any amendments to the City's zoning ordinance. No license (other than renewals), special use permit, or building permit may be issued for such uses during the moratorium period nor may any rezonings, plattings or replattings, or land divisions or consolidations be granted by the City or such uses tY during the moratorium ratori tun period. The moratorium period shall expire on - RESOLUTION NO. 87 -201 October 27, 1988 or such earlier date, as may be further adopted by a resolution of the City Council. The moratorium period may be extended for a reasonable period of time, as determined by a resolution of the City Council, that may necessary to complete the study and adopt any necessary amendments to the City's zoning ordinance. 4. The moratorium shall not apply to any use that meets the definition of a residential facility as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 245.782, subd. 6 and which is regulated by Minnesota Statutes, Section 245.812, subd. 3 an 4 and Section 462.357, subd. 7 and 8. October 26, 1987 /; J Date May,' 1 � ATTEST •,' �� ? ,'__ _► ,y Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly one, y passed and adopted. MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspectip6 DATE: October 23, 1987 SUBJECT: Study of Planning and Land Use Issues Relating to Residential Facilities You have requested me to elaborate further on the various planning and land use issues that need to be studied if the City Council decides to adopt an interim ordinance establishing a moratorium on certain residential facilities. The interim ordinance, which is scheduled for a second reading and public hearing on October 26, 1987, lists reasons and areas of study. Section 1.02 of that ordinance points out that our Zoning Ordinance is unclear about how certain uses are classified and whether or not there is a need for a new classification. Much of the classification issue is based on what the state has defined in Minnesota Statutes 245.782, Subdivision 6, as a "residential facility" and how this relates to our Zoning Ordinance classification of uses. State Statutes at 245.782, Subdivision 6, defines a residential facility as: 11 ... any facility, public or private, which for gain or otherwise regularly provides one or more persons with a 24 hour per day to substitute for care, food, lodging, training, education, supervision, habilitation, rehabilitation, and treatment they need, which for any reason cannot be furnished in the persons own home. Residential facilities include, but are not limited to: state institutions under the control of the Commissioner of Human Services, foster homes, residential treatment centers, maternity shelters, group homes, residential programs, supportive living residences for functionly impaired adults, or schools for handicapped children." Our Zoning Ordinance does not define residential facility, nor make reference to the State definition. Under our Zoning Ordinance classification of uses, we list as either permitted uses or special uses in certain zoning districts "nursing care homes (at not more than 50 beds per acre), maternity care homes, boarding care homes and child care homes, provided that these institutions shall, where required by state law, or regulation, or by municipal ordinance, be licensed by the appropriate state or municipal authority." This classification is listed as a special use in the R4 and R5 multiple residence zoning districts and as a permitted use in the Cl and C1A service /office zoning districts. This classification of uses is not referenced in any other zoning district. The area needing further study, with possible amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, is the proper definition and classification of uses already included in our ordinance and other uses, such as those listed in Section 1.02. Do all of the uses listed have similar land use characteristics and land use impacts on surrounding properties, to classify them in the same manner? Memo Page 2 October 23, 1987 Section 1.03 of the proposed interim ordinance lists four subareas in need of further study that are related to planning and land use issues and regulation. No. 1 of Section 1.03 lists "the particular zoning districts in which such uses should be allowed as either permitted uses or special uses" as an area in need of further review. Presently, State Statues, at 245.812, Subdivision 4, mandates that a licensed residential facility (as defined above) serving from 7 through 16 persons shall be considered a permitted multiple - family residential use of property for the purposes of zoning. A municipality may require a conditional use or special use permit in order to assure proper maintenance and operation of a facility, provided that no conditions shall be imposed on the facility which are more restrictive than those imposed on other conditional uses or special uses of residential property in the same zones, unless such additional conditions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of the facility. This means that in our multiple - family residential zoning districts (R3 through R7), the City must allow a licensed residential facility with 7 through 16 clients. The state has apparently determined that these residential facilities, provided they are licensed and have Limited occupancies, have land use characteristics compatible with all multiple residential zones and must be permitted. No determination has apparently been made by the state that licensed residential facilities housing 17 or more clients are compatible with all multiple - family residential zones and have similar land use characteristics with other multiple - family residential zoning districts. This is apparently something than can be determined locally. As mentioned previously, the classification of "nursing care homes, maternity care homes, boarding care homes and child care homes" is listed in our Zoning Ordinance as a special use in the R4 and R5 multiple - family zoning districts and as a permitted use in the Cl and ClA service /office zoning districts. It is because of this classification that we are currently required to consider residential facilities, particularly residential facilities with 17 or more clients as special uses in the R4 and R5 zoning districts. Northwest Residence with 14 clients and the Bill Kelly House with 23 clients fall under this classification. Currently, the City would not have to process a special use permit, nor allow, a licensed residential facility with 17 or more clients in the R3, R6 or R7 zoning districts because such classifications of use are not listed in those particular zoning districts. Again, licensed residential facilities serving 7 through 16 clients are mandated by the state as permitted uses in our R3, R6, and R7 multiple residential zoning districts and would have to be allowed. In the C1 and C1A zoning.districts, nursing care homes, maternity care homes, boarding care homes, and child care homes would be allowed as permitted uses (no special use permit required). One might assume that a licensed residential facility of any number might also be considered a permitted use in the Cl and C1A zoning districts; although this is not clear. It is inconsistencies such as these that lead to the need to further study and clarify not only the definitions and land use classifications contained in our Zoning Ordinance, but also land use characterics such as parking needs, traffic Memo Page 3 October 23, 1987 generation, density and other land use impacts that make these uses similar or dissimilar, and what appropriate land use districts should this uses be allowed in? Are these uses similar and /or compatible to each other and similar and /or compatible with uses already allowed in particular zoning districts? Is there a need to establish a separate land use district, and district regulations, for these uses? Point No. 2, of Section 1.03 of the interim ordinance questions "the population density of clientele that such facilities should serve in the various zoning districts." Does the number of clients in a particular residential facility or in a nursing care home, boarding care home, etc. have an affect on land use considerations such as parking? Again, the state only mandates that licensed residential facilities serving 7 through 16 be considered a multiple- residential use of property. Do facilities with more than 16 clients cause different, or negative impacts on surrounding properties? Does the type of treatment being provided, or the type of clientele being admitted, create different land use related impacts that warrant different or separate regulations or considerations? As an example, does a residential facility providing treatment for 18 mentally retarded teenagers have a substantially different zoning impact than a residential facility housing 24 chemically dependent exconvicts? Do all residential facilities have the same land use charactistics? Does the number of clients housed in a facility cause different zoning related concerns? No. 3, under Section 1.03, relates to "the concentration and density of such uses in the City and its neighborhoods." In 1984 the State Legislature adopted legislation to promote the dispersal of residential facilities from highly concentrated areas. The highly concentrated areas exist primarily in the central cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The legislation defined "highly concentrated" as " . having a population in residential facilities serving 7 or more persons that exceeds one half of one percent of the population of a recognized planning district or other administrative subdivision." Brooklyn Center, which is an inner ring suburb aka, can expect to see relocations of residential facilties into the area, due to, among other things, its close proximity to the central cities. Brooklyn Center must be concerned as well that it does not become overconcentrated with residential facilities to the point that we begin experiencing the same kinds of problems experienced by the central cities that have become highly concentrated with residential facilities. Specific regulations need to be studied for possible adoption to prevent overconcentration of residential facilities in our community. Is i+ possible to establish, as a zoning regulation, the maximum population allowed in terms of residential facilities for the City? Can the City's "neighborhoods" be used as a "recognized planning district" to avoid overconcentration in these areas as well. No. 4, in Section 1.03, relates to planning and land use concerns regarding the need to study the effect the location of residential facilities may have on surrounding properties. Do any of the broad category of residential facilities have an adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of surrounding properties? As an example, do residential facilities for former child abusers create unwarranted safety concerns for neighborhood children, or children attending a nearby school? It does not appear that all of the various types of residential facilities have the Memo Page 4 October 23, 1987 same impact on nei hborhood safety. fety. Lbes the type of clientele, or the type of treatment being offered, adversely impact neighborhood safety or neighborhood property values? These are the types of questions that need to be addressed in a major study regarding residential facilities. It must determine if our ordinances appropriately classify and distinguish between potentially similar and dissimilar uses and the need for special regulations and considerations in dealing with residential facilities from a planning and zoning perspective. N : . CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B :FROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTE R EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 MEMORANDUM Date: August 11, 1987 To: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager From: Peter M. Koole, City Assessor rK Subject: Impact Analysis - Proposed Bill Kelly House You have asked me to consider whom we might retain if the City were to undertake a study of the impact on property values the proposed Bill Kelly House would have in the neighborhood. Considerations in this area are: 1. The product or report, itself, must stand on its own and be substantial and believable. 2. The author of the report must come across well, and without question bring with him or her the authority of their experience and qualifications. 3. The author must be able and experienced in presenting his report in public hearing, City Council meeting, or courtroom situations. In considering all of these factors, I settled on the individual I believe would best handle this type of study: Peter J. Patchin, of Peter J. Patchin and Associates, in Burnsville. I have been acquainted with Mr. Patchin's work for many years, and know him to be one of the foremost appraisers of special purpose properties in the country. He also has extensive experience in similar types of studies. For example, he has done studies both for and against MNDOT on the impact of and benfits to property values of highway sound barriers. Procedurally, I would think our proposed study could be conducted in a similar manner. i goil�� G. G. Splinter - 8/11/87 Page 2 It is expected that the cost for a comprehensive and wide - ranging study to really find a supportable conclusion to the question would be in the $10,000.00 to $15,000.00 range. It is further expected that the lead time for such a study would be three months. If you wish to pursue this issue further, I would suggest we meet with Mr. Patchin so you can describe the assignment, at least in general terms, and evaluate Mr. Patchins' qualifications and suitability for the project. I will set up such a meeting upon your request. cc Ron Warren Charles LeFevere 3 E M & C No. 88 -07 February 4, 1988 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Minnesota Transportation Finance Study Commission Report To the Honorable Mayor & City Council: On Wednesday, February 3, 1988, I attended a meeting of the Transportation Finance Study Commission at Spring Lake Park High School. This is a bipartisan commission of members of the Senate and House of the Minnesota State Legislature, which is assessing future highway and transit needs in the state, examining alternate revenue sources, and making findings and recommendations to the Legislature by February 15, 1988. Attached please find a copy of the third draft of their report dated January 26, 1988. This is not their final report, but it probably is very close to their final recommendation and findings. In summarizing their report, they are recommending that 30% of the motor vehicle excise_ tax (MVET) be transferred from the state general revenue fund to transportation related funding. They are also recommending a three cents per gallon increase in the gasoline tax and again, this would be slated for transportation improvement- -both maintenance and construction. At their hearing at the Spring Lake Park High School, many local officials and chamber of commerce representatives plus county officials, supported the motor vehicle excise tax transfer and the three cents per gallon increase in the gas tax. From the comments at the hearing, there were also requests that funding priority be given to the north metro area as it represents a significant population area which has not had its "fair share" of road improvement_ There were also statements which supported the idea that if you are going to tax motor vehicles such as the motor vehicle excise tax, all of the funding should go toward roads and transportation, not just 30 %. A number of statements were made to the effect that the motoring public is willing to pay for support of highways as long as those taxes from motor vehicle and gas user fees are dedicated to highway improvement and maintenance. A number of individuals testified that transportation is the basic structure of economic development and that the _improvement and completion of State Highway lO bypass and the 610 Crosstown is an absolute necessity for the continued vitality of the north metro area. The City Council may want to discuss directing the staff to inform the Transportation Finance Study Commission of their support or opposition to their final report findings and recommendations. Respectfully tt d, /ar• A Gerald G. Splinter City Manager �y� a � 4 C� s January 26, 1988 TRANSPORTATION FINANCE STUDY COMMISSION FINAL REPORT 1 s ' L COMMISSION BACKGROUND The Transportation Finance Study Commission was created as part of the Transportation and Semi- States 1988 -89 appropriation bill enacted in the 1987 legislative session. That legislation directed the Commission to study- I. Present and future highway- and transit needs. 2. The adequacy of existing revenue sources to meet those needs. 3. Methods of raising additional revenue. 4. Alternatives to raising revenue. 5. Alternative methods of distributing revenues among various levels of government. The Commission was directed to report its findings and recommendations to the legislature by February 15, 1988. The following members of the legislature were appointed to the Commission: Senator Gary DeCramer Representative Doug Carlson Senator Keith Langseth Representative Bob Jensen Senator Marilyn Lantry Representative Henry Kalis Senator Lyle Mehrkens Representative Bernie Lieder Senator Clarence Purfeerst Representative Art Seaberg At the Commission's first meeting Senator Purfeerst and Representative Kalis were selected to serve as co- chairs. II. COMMISSION ACTIVITIES The Commission's first meeting was in the State Capitol and provided essential background on the developments which had led to the Commission's creation. Rep. Bob Vanasek, Speaker of the House, testified on the scope of the Commission's work, a subject also addressed in statements provided by Senator Roger Moe, Senate majority leader, and Governor Rudy Perpich. Transportation Commissioner Leonard Levine spoke on the changes which the Department of Transportation was forced to make as a result of funding shortfalls after the 1987 legislative session. The next three meetings, also in the Capitol, focused on state and local highway and transit needs and also heard a report on the Legislative Auditor's study of county state -aid distribution. The Commission then began a series of hearings at locations around the state in an attempt to obtain a sense of what the public expected and demanded of the legislature in terms of transportation service and willingness to finance that service. Meetings were held in Shakopee, Richfield, Two Harbors, Breezy Point, Mankato, Marshall and Spring Lake Park. All these meetings were characterized by heavy attendance (several to the point of capacity) and public testimony from more than 150 persons. While the testimony covered a broad range of transportation subjects almost all of it spoke to the public's awareness of the importance of transportation to the state's economic health. The specific points brought out most frequently in these hearings may be summarized as follows: 1. The motoring public is willing to pay for the support of highways as long as it can be sure that the money will actually go for highway improvements and maintenance. Page 2 2. The motor vehicle excise tax (MVET) is a highway user tax and should be treated like other • highway user taxes -- that is, dedicated to transportation. 3. Throughout the state people have been waiting many years for highway improvements and are becoming impatient with what they see as endless delays. 4. In rural areas weight restrictions on highways are a serious impediment to economic growth and add significantly to the costs borne by many segments of the economy, particularly those related to agriculture and manufacturing. 5. Public transit is a subject of vital importance to a sizeable segment of the population, and there is strong support among these people for expanded use of MVET funds for transit as well as for highways. 6. Local elected officials are particularly appreciative of the local bridge bonding program and hope it can be continued. 7. People generally believe that Minnesota's highways are in fundamentally good condition but that they can and must be improved in areas of capacity and safety. The Commission completed its work with an examination of the costs and benefits of credit financing for highways, then began its consideration of its final report. III. SCOPE OF THE COMMISSIONS WORK The overall charge given to the Transportation F Study Commission was an extremely broad one. If taken literally it would require several years of study, debate and public testimony to cover adequately. Given the limited amount of time available to the Commission it was necessary for us to concentrate primarily on the most pressing issues of transportation finance and to look specifically for recommendations to be made to the 1988 legislative session. This meant that we have been unable to formulate a plan for resolving transportation financing questions beyond the 1990 -91 biennium. This decision was not made easily. One of the major problems facing transportation today is the fact that many of its financing decisions have been made on a short -term basis which inhibits long -range planning and leads to public confusion and frustration. To the public the practice of scheduling highway projects and then cancelling them appears as bad management and bad planning when in fact it is the inevitable result of short -term decision making. Nonetheless we determined that our first responsibility in fulfilling the legislature's charge was to seek out the public's views on the kind of transportation system it wants and is willing to pay for. This concentration on learning what the public expects from the 1988 legislative session made it impracticable for us to conduct the kind of in -depth hearings necessary to formulating a long -term proposal. limitation v Even with this tation we believe that the recommendations in this report will provide a foundation on which a more permanent solution can be constructed. IV. COMMISSION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Commission believes that the most immediate transportation needs facing the 1988 legislative session are: (1) the restoration of the Minnesota Department of Transportation's highway improvement program i .' Page 3 for the 1988 -89 biennium to its level before the A ugust, 1987, P roject deferrals were announced, and (2) the restoration of the legislative policy of transferring a substantial portion of motor vehicle excise tax revenues to highways and transit. In both these areas the fundamental issue is one of commitment. The first responsibility of the legislature in financing transportation should be to avoid retreating on the state's commitment to a highway system adequate to sustain economic development in Minnesota and a transit system which provides a basic level of mobility for a substantial portion of the state's people. Both those objectives have been compromised by recent legislative actions. The reasons for those actions need not be debated here, but we feel that it is now time for the legislature to resolve, or at least alleviate, the problems raised by those actions. Only when the cutbacks of recent years in both highways and transit have been addressed can the legislature begin seriously to restore its full commitment to an adequate transportation system. The magnitude of the cutbacks in the highway development program did not become fully apparent until August, 1987, when the Department of Transportation announced that 36 highway projects with a total cost of about $96 million, originally scheduled for contract letting during the 1988 -89 biennium, would be indefinitely postponed These deferrals were made unavoidable when the 1987 legislature reduced from 50% to 5% the share of Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) revenues going to transportation in this biennium. This had the effect of reducing the Trunk Highway Fund's share of the MVET revenue from about 23% to about 2 %, requiring a cutback in the highway improvement program. A failure to increase the share of MVET revenue going to transportation in the 1990 -91 biennium beyond the 5% level (a 75% level was provided in the original MVET transfer legislation) will necessitate another round of project deferrals, amounting to approximately $150 million, in that biennium as well. A return to the practice of dedicating a substantial portion of motor vehicle excise tax revenue to highways and transit would also represent the restoration of a commitment. That transfer was originally written into law in 1981, delayed until 1983, adopted only for fiscal 1985, suspended for the 1986 -1987 biennium and cut back to just 5% for fiscal 1988 and subsequent years. The public testimony received during the Commission's hearings has clearly demonstrated that the public wants this dedication restored and insists on it as a part of any highway financing package. At a time when Minnesota is making major efforts to enhance economic development in all parts of the state a transportation program which is characterized by reductions, delays and uncertainties is clearly counterproductive. The first step toward making transportation part of the solution instead of part of the problem must be to take major steps toward restoring the cutbacks of the past year. To help accomplish this the Commission recommends the following actions: Recommendation No 1 The share of Motor Vehicle Excise Tax revenues going to transportation should be increased from the ,present 5% to 35%Q. beginaWg in fiscal year 1989. As has been noted, many persons who testified before the Commission felt strongly that the excise tax on motor vehicles is as much of a highway user tax as are the gasoline tax and motor vehicle license taxes, and should be dedicated to highways just as those taxes are. We believe that this testimony is representative of a sizeable portion of public opinion. The fact that many people believe that the MVET was always dedicated to highways, and that the legislature in 1983 took it away from highways and has refused to give it back, reflects not so much an erroneous view of the legislative history of MVET as a deep- seated sense that an MVET dedication to highways is fair and equitable. The Commission agrees with this public sense. Additional funds are needed if transportation is ever to become a stimulus for economic development, and the excise tax must be an essential component of a funding package. We recognize the strong feeling on the part of many members of the legislature that Page 4 they cannot accept any transportation financing package which does not include a significant increase in the share of MVET revenue going to transportation. We further believe that both sound policy and the necessity of public acceptance of any funding package require that the present division of MVET's transportation share between highways and transit (75% to highways, 25% to transit) be retained. The excise tax is of particular importance as the legislature is faced with proposals to reexamine highway jurisdiction in Minnesota. Because it is free of constitutional requirements for its distribution among state and local governments the excise tax is the only potential highway user tax with the flexibility to finance transfers of highways among jurisdictions. The additional 301 transfer would increase the total share of the excise tax going to transportation to 35 0 1o. The 30% figure was selected in order to keep the proposal within the realm of feasibility given the fiscal realities facing the next legislative session and also to provide a rough parity in the total package between MVET revenue and gasoline tax revenue. Recommendation No 2 The state gasoline tax should be increased by three cents per gallon. effective April 1. 1988. The gasoline tax has been the foundation of state highway financing for over fifty years, and we believe it is an essential part of any highway financing package in 1988 as well. The gasoline tax is the one tax where payments for most taxpayers are most closely related to actual highway use, so that it is widely viewed not simply as another tax but as part of the overall cost of motoring. As long as the gasoline tax is dedicated solely to highway purposes it has widespread public acceptance, and we believe that the public is willing to pay such a tax as the price of improving the highway system to meet the demands of its users. In increasing its gasoline tax (which has been unchanged since January 1, 1984) Minnesota would be following a clear national trend which has seen eighteen states increase their gasoline taxes since September 1, 1986. Among these states is Wisconsin, which in 1987 increased its tax to 20 cents per gallon. We expect that a number of other states will adopt increases in 1988, including possibly Iowa where the state Transportation Commission has proposed raising that state's 16 cent tax by three cents. Table I shows the anticipated revenue from the Commission's transportation financing proposal. The trunk highway share will be sufficient eventually to restore all the projects deferred from the current biennium's highway improvement plan and avoid more than 80% of the probable deferrals in the next biennium. While this package does not go as far as some of us would like in providing revenue for state highways we feel that it is the largest highway funding package which can realistically be presented to the legislature. III fig. 17 The amount which the package will rats for statewide transit assistance over the next three years is about .2 million, or an average of $18. million per year. It will be up to the legislature to ✓� 1 determine how much of this money will be used to augment present transit appropriations from the general fund and how much will be used to replace those general fund appropriations. While the Commission believes that this program will mark an end to a policy of retreat in the face of transportation problems and a start toward a permanent solution, it is b no means a complete plan. P P a Pe Y P There is a need for a long -range plan to define Minnesota's real transportation needs and to formulate methods of meeting those needs, including long -term sources of financing. Our final recommendation calls for a process for developing such a plan. Recommendation No 3 The legislature should create a Transportation Study Board to Rrenare a done - rance study of transportation needs and funding, Table REVENUES FROM TRANSPORTATION FINANCE STUDY COMMISSION RECOMMENDMENDATIONS 1969 1990 1991 1990 -91 9iernins MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE TAX (ADDITIONAL 30% TRANSFER) Total MVET revenue 238,600,000 249,098,400 260,058,730 509,157,130 30% of MVET revenue 71,580,000 74,729,520 78,017,619 152,747,139 Transit share 17,895,000 18,682,380 19,504,405 38,186,785 Metro 14,316,000 14,945,904 15,603,524 30,549,428 Nan -intro 3,579,000 3,736,476 3,900,881 7,637,357 Highway share 53,685,000 56,047,140 58,513,214 114,560,354 Trunk Highway Fund 33,016,275 34,468,991 35,985,627 70,454,618 Co. State -Aid Fund 15,890,760 16,589,953 17,319,911 33,909,865 Counties 15,700,071 16,390,874 17,112,072 33,502,946 Towns 190,689 199,079 207,839 406,918 Mun. State -Aid Fund 4,777,965 4,988,195 5,207,676 10,195,872 3 CENT GASOLINE TAX INCREASE Net per penny 20,682,706 20,663,588 20,583,882 41,247,471 Net from 3 cents 62,048,118 61,990,765 61,751,647 123,742,412 Trunk Highway Fund 38,159,592 38,124,320 37,977,263 76,101,583 Co. State -Aid Fund 18,366,243 18,349,266 18,278,488 36,627,754 Counties 18,145,848 18,129,075 18,059,146 36,188,221 Towns 220,395 220,191 219,342 439,533 Mun. State -Aid Fund 5,522,282 5,517,178 5,495,897 11,013,075 TOTAL ADDITIONAL REVENUE Trunk Highway Fund 71,175,867 72,593,311 73,962,890 146,556,201 County State -Aid Fund 34,257,003 34,939,220 35,598,399 70,537,619 Counties 33,845,919 34,519,949 35,171,218 69,691,167 Towns 411,084 419,271 427,181 846,451 Mun. State -Aid Fund 10,300,247 10,505,374 10,703,573 21,208,946 Metro Transit 14,316,000 14,945,904 15,603,524 30,549,428 Non -Metro Transit 3,579,000 3,736,476 3,900,881 7,637,357 Total 133,628,118 136,720,285 139,769,266 276,489,551 Page 5 Such a board ought to consist of both legislators and a broad cross- section of the public, including � P g representatives of business, labor, manufacturing, agriculture, tourism and other major highway users. It should be given sufficient time, staff and resources (including a directive to contract for consultant services) to make a thorough study of transportation needs both today and over the next twenty years and to develop a plan to meet those needs. Such a plan will necessarily be a compromise between the desires of all highway users and the ability of the state to make those desires a reality, but it is hoped that the board's studies will be aimed primarily at achieving a transportation system which will be a positive force for encouraging economic development and expanding public mobility. Specifically, we recommend that as part of its studies the board should consider the following broad areas: 1. A review of current transportation expenditures and potential cost- saving measures. 2. A review of statewide surface transportation needs and of potential revenue sources to meet those needs (this study should include a recommended transportation program to take Minnesota in the twenty-first century, and recommendations on financing such a program). 3. Suggested methods of insuring that both metropolitan and non- metropolitan areas are treated equitably in meeting transportation needs. 4. The feasibility of increased public- private partnership in the financing of major transportation improvements, and the development of strategies to facilitate such partnerships. More specific areas which the Board should study include: 1. The possible use of tolls for financing major highway improvements. 2. The costs and benefits of further borrowing to finance highway and bridge improvements. 3. The role of town roads in the state's overall road system and the appropriate level of state highway user tax revenue which should go for town roads and bridges. 4. The possible restoration of the Minnesota Department of Transportation's exemption from the state sales tax, and the exemption from the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax previously enjoyed by both Mn /DOT and local units of government. 5. The use of wheelage taxes as a measure for financing local road and street improvements. 6. The desirability of amending the Minnesota Constitution to provide permanent dedication to transportation purposes of some portion of MVET revenues. 7. The abandonment of the present per -gallon basis for the gasoline tax and its replacement by a tax indexed to fuel consumption, fuel prices, construction or maintenance costs or some other variable. 8. The feasibility and desirability of imposing a sales tax on motor fuel, either at the retail or wholesale level. 9. The use of the State Transportation Plan as a mechanism for guiding future transportation investment. Page 6 10. The role of transit in the overall state transportation picture and how transit is to be funded in future years. 11. Changes in highway ownership to insure that highways are under the control of the most appropriate jurisdiction While the focus of the board's studies would be on transportation it is our intention that it consider transportation spending within a broader context of overall state spending. The events of recent years indicate that transportation spending, and particularly highway spending, can no longer be considered in a vacuum apart from other state programs and commitments. The sooner such a broad context is achieved the, more likely it is that the present uncertainties and policy shifts can be replaced by the funding stability needed to carry out any long -range plan. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on February 8, 1988: CIGARETTE LICENSE The Pipeseller Shop 1301 Brookdale Center K. /,L aL2 kaj City Clerk ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Lions 5618 North Lilac Drive Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. Earle Brown Elementary School 5900 Humboldt Ave. N. Sanitarian t NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Canteen Company of MN, Inc. 6200 Penn Ave. S. FMC 1800 Freeway Blvd. Medtronics 6700 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. J. R. Vending 5312 Perry Ave. N. Brooklyn Law Office 5637 Brooklyn Blvd. Royal Business Forms 6840 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 North Lilac Drive Northern States Power 4501 68th Ave. N. Minnesota Vikings Food Service, Inc. 5200 West 74th St. Hennepin County Service Center 6125 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Hiway 100 N. France Health Club 4001 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Ryan Construction 6160 Summit Drive Ryan Construction 6200 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Silent Knight Security Systems 1700 Freeway Blvd. State Farm Insurance 5930 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Service America Corporation 7490 Central Avenue NE Dayton's Brookdale Center Donaldson's Brookdale Center Graco 6820 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Metropolitan Transit Commission 6845 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Theisen Vending Company 3804 Nicollet Ave. S. Brookdale Ford 2550 County Road 10 Budgetel Inn 6415 James Circle Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Blvd. Thrifty Scot Motel 6445 James Circle Bill West's Service Center 2000 57th Ave. N. Woodside Enterprises 11889 65th Ave. N. Brooklyn Center City Hall 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Sanitarian PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Canteen Company of MN, Inc. 6300 Penn Ave. S. FMC 1800 Freeway Blvd. Medtronics 6700 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. Minnesota Vikings Food Service, Inc. 5200 West 74th St. Hiway 100 N. France Health Club 4001 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Ryan Construction 6160 Summit Drive Ryan Construction 6200 Shingle Creek Pkwy. State Farm Insurance 5930 Shingle Creek Pkwv. Norcraft, Inc. 229 South 4th Street Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. Service America Corporation 7490 Central Ave. NE Dayton's Brookdale Center Donaldson's Brookdale Center Graco 6820 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Metropolitan Transit Commission 6845 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Theisen Vending Company 3804 Nicollet Ave. N. Budgetel Inn 6415 James Circle Sanitarian READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICL Taystee Baking Co. of St. Paul 4215 69th Ave. N. Sanitarian SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT Fun Services, Inc. 3615 50th Ave. N. The Gift Shop 2200 Freeway Blvd. Gift Shop, Too 1501 Freeway Blvd. � Ideal Drug 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. Sanitarian TAXICAB Airport Cab 3010 Minnehaha Ave. .0 ief of Police nn' GENERAL APPROVAL L D. K. Weeks, City Clerk