Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 10-13 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER OCTOBER 13, 1986 7:00 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. Approval of Minutes: a. September 15, 1986 - Special Session *b. September 22, 1986 - Regular Session *7. Appointment of Election Judges for the November 4, 1986 General Election 8. Mayoral Appointments: a. Human Rights Commission b. U.S. Constitution Anniversary Committee 9. Resolutions: *a. Accepting an Amendment to the Engineer's Report, Accepting Bid and Approving Contract for Improvement Project No. 1986 -20, Contract 1986 -P (Utility System Improvements as Required to Serve the Earle Brown Commons) *b. Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1985 -F (Lyndale Avenue Water Main Improvement Project No. 1985 -04 and Lyndale Avenue Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -05) *c. Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1986 -E (Water Tower No. 3 Reconditioning, Improvement Project No. 1985 -28) - Painting of Water Tower *d. Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1986 -G ( Street Improvements on Shingle Creek - g k Parkway between I 94 and CSAH 10 Improvement p vement Project No. 1985 -27 and 198 - J 6 07 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- October 13, 1986 *e. Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1985 - M (Installation of Traffic Control Signal Systems on Shingle Creek Parkway at John Martin Drive and at Summit Drive, Improvement Project No. 1985 -20) *f. Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for and Execute a Grant Agreement with the Metropolitan Council - Entertainment In The Parks *g. Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1) Air Compressor -1986 Fire Department Budget *h. Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Purchase of Six (6) Air Masks -1986 Fire Department Budget i. Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public Service of Dale Bloomstrand j. Appropriating Funds for Community Center Improvements in the Capital Projects Fund - Projects transferred out of 1987 General Fund Budget k. Amending the 1986 and 1987 General Fund Budget - Providing for purchase of booking camera and accessories 1. Declaring a Public Nuisance and ordering Removal of Diseased Shade Trees 10. Planning Commission Items: (7:15 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 86029 submitted by David Otto requesting a variance from'Section 35 -704 of the City ordinances to allow full retail use of the building at 5810 Xerxes Avenue North while providing fewer parking stalls than required by ordinance. This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its July 31, 1986 meeting and tabled by the City Council at its August 11, 1986 meeting. 1. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Parking Requirements for Retail Buildings -This item is being offered this evening for a first reading. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- October 13, 1986 b. Planning Commission Application No. 86037 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center HRA requesting preliminary plat approval to resubdivide into a lot and outlot the land south of the Earle Brown (Brooklyn) Farm to be developed as the Earle Brown Commons residential complex. -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September 25, 1986 meeting. 1. Final Plat - Earle Brown Commons R.L.S. c. Planning Commission Application No. 86038 submitted by Gabbert and Beck requesting site plan approval to construct a new access onto Brooklyn Boulevard, install a merge lane and parking lot modifications at the Westbrook Mall at 5717 Xerxes Avenue North. -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September 25, 1986 meeting. 11. Ordinances: (7:30 p.m.) a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 Regarding Liquor License Fees -This item will delete all references to liquor license fees from Chapter 23. This item is offered this evening for a first reading. b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 Regarding the Control of Noxious Weeds -This item was first read on August 25, 1986 and published in the City's official newspaper on September 4, 1986. The public hearing was opened at the September 22, 1986 meeting and continued to this evening. c. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 Regarding the Control of Noxious Weeds Pertaining to Natural Preserves -This item will state exceptions for natural preserves designated by the City. This item was first read on September 22, 1986, published in the City's official newspaper on October 2,1986 and is offered this evening for a second reading. d. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Drop -In Child Care Centers -.This item was first read on September 8, 1986, published in the City's official newspaper on September 18, 1986 and is offered this evening for a second reading. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- October 13, 1986 is 12. Discussion Items: a. Flag Pole for All- America City Flag b. Amoco Pipe Line c. Recommendation from Planning Commission Regarding 59th Avenue North between Brooklyn Boulevard and Xerxes Avenue North *13. Licenses 14. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL SESSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:17 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Bill Hawes and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Chief of Police Jim Lindsay, Assistant Director of Finance Charlie Hansen, City Attorney Bill Jordan, HRA Coordinator Brad Hoffman, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Administrative Aid Patti Page. Mayor Nyquist noted that Councilmember Scott was out of town and would not be present at this evening's meeting and Councilmember Lhotka would be late. RESOLUTIONS The City Manager stated that there were two resolutions before the Council this evening and that both dealt with the Earle Brown Commons Development. The HRA • Coordinator explained that the first resolution would give final approval to the issuance of multifamily housing development revenue bonds. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -152 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA, MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS (EARLE BROWN COMMONS PROJECT), IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $8,800,000; PRESCRIBING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INDENTURE OF TRUST, A LOAN AGREEMENT, A REGULATORY AGREEMENT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND SALE OF THE BONDS AND DIRECTING DELIVERY THEREOF; AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONTRACT OF PURCHASE IN CONNECTION WITH THE BONDS; CONSENTING TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND A FORM OF FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR THE SECURITIES, RIGHTS, AND REMEDIES OF THE OWNERS OF SAID REVENUE BONDS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. The HRA Coordinator stated that this next resolution was identical to the resolution passed by the HRA earlier. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -153 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 9 -15 -86 -1- r RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT AND CONSENT AND ESTOPPEL AGREEMENT AND APPROVING ASSIGNMENT OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist stated that there was one other resolution before the Council this evening, that being the Resolution Establishing a Local Committee for Commemoration of U.S. Constitution. He stated that he has appointed William Lakotas as chairman of the committee, and that he would like the Council to contact him if they had any suggestions for committee members. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -154 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A LOCAL COMMITTEE FOR COMMEMORATION OF U.S. CONSTITUTION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF AMUSEMENT DEVICE LICENSE -PLAZA INVESTMENTS ( RAMADA INN) There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the amusement device license for Plaza Investments. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE FOR RAMADA INN There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the on -sale intoxicating liquor license for Ramada Inn. The motion passed. PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Nyquist reconvened the public hearing on the 1987 annual City Budget. Councilmembers began review of the 1987 revenues for the City. Councilmember Theis asked if the liquor license fee for Ramada Hotel has been reflected in the budget. The Finance Director responded affirmatively. Councilmember Lhotka entered the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Councilmember Hawes asked why there was an increase in the animal control portion of the public safety budget. The Director of Finance stated that a new vehicle would be added to this budget. Councilmember Hawes asked why there was no trade -in value noted. The City Manager stated that the old vehicle would not be traded in but used as a rotation vehicle. Mayor Nyquist proceeded to review of the appropriation budget, and began with the City Council Budget, Unit No. 11. The City Manager stated that the Suburban Rate Authority has been cut from the budget, and that he is recommending cutting g the funding for lobbying to $5,000. He noted that he is also recommending $1,000 for the Mediation Project. Mayor Nyquist noted that there has been a substantial increase in the membership dues account, and asked what the City is gaining from membership in the r 9 -15 -86 _2_ Watershed Committees. The City Manager stated that the committee is reviewing the basin and will have a report ready soon. Councilmember Theis stated that he had not realized that there had been no budget allocation in 1985 for the Mediation Project. Mayor Nyquist recognized Barb Jensen of the Brooklyn Center Mediation Project who briefly explained their funding request and the other areas that funds have been requested from. Councilmember Theis asked if the Mediation Project is solvent for 1986. Ms. Jensen stated that the project is clinging from day to day but that she is confident it will make it through 1986. Councilmember Lhotka asked if there was going to be a point in time when the Brooklyn Center Mediation Project would not need funding from the City. Ms. Jensen stated that she believes in the future the Mediation Project will become part of the court system and be funded through that system. She added that will be in approximately three to five years. The City Manager stated that the $10,000 request from the police department for the Mediation Project funding has been cut because he feels the police department receives indirect benefits from the Mediation Project. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if the City should start putting away funds for programs that may in the future be cut from federal and state government budgets. The City Manager stated that the auditors frown on surplus funds unless there is a clear cut explanation behind these funds. Mayor Nyquist asked if the City is receiving five times the value from the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council as they are from the Mediation Project. The City Manager stated that is a hard question to answer, and noted that he had made a judgment call and had continued to fund those projects that had been funded in the past. Mayor Nyquist stated that he was not sure if the City should continue to fund only past items. The Personnel Coordinator stated that the Executive Director from Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council could make a presentation to the City Council if they so wished. Mayor Nyquist recognized Florence Johnson and June Scofield who represented the senior choir, and stated that they were asking for an increase in their allocation of $100. She noted that the members of the chorus do pay weekly dues and also pay for the buses that are provided. Ms. Johnson stated they are asking for the increase because the cost of transportation has tripled due to the rise in insurance costs. She added that one -third of the participants of this chorus are from Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Hawes asked who else funds this program. Ms. Johnson stated that Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center fund this program, and also organizations such as the Lions Club, Rotary, Community Education, and the Lioness. Mayor Nyquist stated the Council would give their request due consideration when they reach that portion of the budget. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he would like a brief summary of all the membership dues before the next Council meeting. The Council next reviewed the Charter Commission Budget, Unit No. 12. The Council had no questions at this time. 9 -15 -86 _3_ J The Council proceeded to review the City Manager's Office Budget, Unit No. 13. The City Manager stated that an appropriation has been made for the hazardous information service which relates to the Employees Right to Know Act. Councilmember Lhotka questioned about the appropriation for auxiliary aids. The City Manager stated that money has never been budgeted in the past for this item. Councilmember Lhotka inquired regarding the phone that was in the budget. It was noted that this phone would be a five button phone and would allow for greater efficiency in handling phone calls in the City Manager's office. A brief discussion then ensued regarding the phone system for City Hall. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. The Council next reviewed the Elections and Voter's Registration Budget, Unit No. 14. The City Manager stated that 30% of the City lerk's salary will y y 11 come from this unit due to the fact that the City Clerk spends a great deal of time on the elections. A brief discussion then ensued relative to the benefits of purchasing the optical scan units for the elections. The City Manager noted that the City would try to sell the old voting machines. Mayor Nyquist stated that if the only benefit received from these optical scan units was in the speed of counting, he could not justify spending this amount of money. The City Manager • stated that the machines that are currently being used are quite old, and it is becoming near impossible to replace some of the parts when they break down. Mayor Nyquist asked what the consequences would be if the City delayed purchasing these units. The City Manager stated that if staff delayed purchasing these units the City would not receive the price break that is anticipated. Mayor Nyquist stated that Councilmember Scott has stated that she also has some concerns regarding such a large amount of money for this equipment. Councilmember Lhotka asked if the County or State could force the City to use this system in the future. The City Manager stated that the County or State could not force the City to use this system, but added that the County will be approving different systems and the County is now in the process of approving this particular system. - Mayor Nyquist stated that he would like to see some figures relative to the payback for reduction in personnel at elections. The Council had no questions on the Assessing Department Budget, Unit No. 15. The Council had no questions on the Finance Department Budget, Unit No. 16. The Council proceeded to review the Independent Audit Budget, Unit No. 17. The City Manager noted that the appropriation for 1987 has been increased slightly to provide additional funds should the City Council seek audit proposals from 9 -15 -86 _4_ L other independent audit firms for the 1987 audit. The Council then reviewed the Legal Counsel Budget, Unit No. 18. The City Manager gave a brief explanation of the retainer which is carried with our law firm, and the other services which are handled by this law firm. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he would like to have a brief history of the per hour costs available for the next Council meeting. Councilmember Theis stated that he would like a brief history of the firm over the last three years which would address the questions of the length of time that prosecutors are with the City of Brooklyn Center, and the length of experience these prosecutors have had before coming to Brooklyn Center. There was a brief discussion regarding some of the concerns and problems which have arisen over the past year relating to the police department and the prosecution office. The Council proceeded to review the Government Buildings Budget, Unit No. 19. A brief discussion then ensued regarding the different capital outlay requests submitted by this department. Councilmember Lhotka asked for a breakdown of the caulking costs for City Hall and the west fire station. The City Council next reviewed the Data Processing Budget, Unit No. 20. The Council expressed some concern as to the usage these computers receive, and the amount of money and time which are being saved by using computers. The Council continued their review of the 1987 budget by proceeding to the Police Department, Unit No. 31. The City Manager briefly reviewed why there was a demand for increased police services and the departmental responses to these increased service demands. The Police Chief stated that the police department responds to all medical calls, and added that on weekends the fire department also responds to medical calls and takes over so that the police officers can be back in service. The City Manager briefly reviewed the impact of increased service demands, and noted that the figures and statistics that he has collected do not include Target, Brookview Center, and Ramada. Councilmember Lhotka asked if nonsworn personnel could handle radar checks and speeding tickets. The City Manager stated that only sworn personnel, who are certified each year, can issue speeding tickets and run the radar checks. He noted that nonsworn personnel can take statistical radar readings. Councilmember Lhotka asked if there was any way to measure the productivity of our police officers. The Police Chief stated that staff is currently trying to work out a program with LOGIS to measure productivity. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to continue the public hearing on the 1986 annual City Budget to September 22, 1986. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 9 -15 -86 -5- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION SEPTEMBER 22, 1986 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:02 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, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Police Chief Jim Lindsay, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Administrative Aid Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Scott. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had received two requests to use the Open Forum session this evening. He added that he would like to hold these requests until the proper agenda items. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the Consent Agenda. No requests were made. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8 1986 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the minutes of the September 8, 1986 City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - BROOKLYN CROSSING SECOND ADDITION There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the final plat for Brooklyn Crossing Second Addition. The motion passed unanimously. PERFORMANCE BOND RELEASES There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to release the performance guarantee, in the amount of $25,000, for Summit State Bank, 6100 Summit Drive (Planning Commission Application No. 78002). The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to release the performance guarantee, in the amount of $15,000, for Brooklyn Crossing Office Building, 3300 County Road 10 (Planning Commission Application 9 -22 -86 _1_ t No. 81017). The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to release the performance guarantee, in the amount of $20,000, for Brookwood, North Lilac Drive between Dupont & Humboldt (Planning Commission Application No. 83004). The motion passed unanimously. PERFORMANCE BOND REDUCTIONS There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to reduce the performance bond from $100,000 to $30,000 for Ramada Hotel, 2200 Freeway Boulevard, Planning Commission Application No. 83045. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to reduce the performance bond to $10,000 for Highway 100 Racquet and Swim Club, 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue North, Planning Commission Application Nos. 83051 and 86003. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to reduce the performance bond from $285,000 to $25,000 for Target /Ryan Shopping Center, 6000 -6100 Shingle Creek Parkway, Planning Commission Application No. 85001. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 86 -155 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER RATE FOR THE ELDERLY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -156 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF EVELYN MISFELDT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -157 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF ROSEMARY KIESELHORST The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gen i e Lhotka and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES 9 -22 -86 -2- i There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the following list of licenses: CIGARETTE LICENSE C.O.M.B. Company 5425 Xerxes Avenue N. Theisen Vending Company 3804 Nicollet Avenue S. Ramada Hotel 2200 Freeway Blvd. COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE Brooklyn Pet Hospital 4902 France Avenue N. Daisy Mae-Dog Grooming 6830 Humboldt Avenue N. Snyder Bros., Inc. Brookdale Center ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Earle Brown PTA 5900 Humboldt Avenue N. Korean Presbyterian Church 6830 Quail Avenue N. Willow Lane Elementary School 7107 Major Avenue North MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Aer, Inc. Box 1146 B & C Heating, Inc. P.O. Box 385 Royalton Heating & Cooling Co. 4120 85th Avenue N. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Theisen Vending Co. 3804 Nicollet Avenue N. Ramada Hotel 2200 Freeway Blvd. RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Bruce Beroloehr 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #120 Dr. Akbar Sajady 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #131 Dr. Akbar Sajady 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #224 Dr. Akbar Sajady 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #326 William and Linda Bjerke 3614 16 50th Ave. N. Douglas and JoMarie Hent es 520 g 6 63rd Ave. N Renewal: Tower Investments 5100 Drew Avenue N. Dion Properties, Inc. 5740 Dupont Avenue N. Roland Scherber 5243 Ewing Avenue N. Gary D. Anakkala 5412 & 5412 1/2 Fremont Ave. N. Mahmud & Mahmud 5843 Fremont Avenue N. Kenneth W. Kunz 5601 Lyndale Avenue N. Raymond and Grace Harr 6406 Scott Avenue N. Irwin Ketroser 6525, 27, 29 Willow Lane N. Milton R. Carlson 610 53rd Avenue N. Jack & Elizabeth Fahrenholz 620 53rd Avenue N. John and Patty DeVries 2801 66th Avenue N. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving Supplemental Agreement No. 1 9 -22 -86 -3- to Contract 1985 -K (Reconstruction of Dallas Road between 72nd and 73rd Avenues North). The Director of Public Works stated there have been several areas of failure on this 1985 construction project. He noted staff has done an extensive evaluation of the project, and has determined the cause of failure and the method of repair. He stated the roadway structure had been underdesigned and that the drainage had been installed at too shallow of a depth. Councilmember Scott asked if the repair cost is a guess or an estimate. The Director of Public Works stated that eight areas of the construction have been tested and staff feels this is a reasonable estimate for the project. Councilmember Scott asked how high the project costs could go. The Director of Public Works stated that in a worst case scenario he could see an additional $10,000 above the estimate. Councilmember Hawes asked if the drainage had been installed according to the specs. He also inquired who the specs had been completed by. The Director of Public Works stated that the drainage installation had been according to specs and the City's engineering department had completed the specifications. Councilmember Theis asked if this type of system had been used in other areas of the Twin Cities. The Director of Public Works stated that he was sure that it had been used in other areas but had no documentation on that. Councilmember Theis stated that in the future he would prefer to have these types of projects checked out. The Director of Public Works stated that generally a consultant is hired for these type of projects, but staff did not feel the problem was that extensive to justify the additional cost. Councilmember Lhotka noted that he was in agreement with Councilmember Theis' statement. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -158 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT 1985 -K AND PROCEDURES FOR CORRECTION OF PROJECT DEFICIENCIES (DALLAS ROAD BETWEEN 72ND AND 73RD AVENUES NORTH 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 Calling Special Election for Submission of Proposed Amendments to City Charter and Fixing Form of Ballots, November 4, 1986. He noted that this resolution had originally been read at the August 25, 1986 City Council meeting and had been tabled at that time. He referred the Council to the information prepared for the transition alternatives for Councilmember and Mayor positions. Mayor Nyquist inquired if action was to be taken on the transition issue this evening. The City Attorney stated that the transition could not be dealt with until after the election. Councilmember Theis stated that at the August 25, 1986 City Council meeting he had raised a number of questions. He noted that he did not intend to delay this issue and that he felt it was important to move on the issue and put it on the ballot as proposed. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ann Jarvimaki, 5625 Aldrich Avenue North, who stated she felt the amendment should be placed on the ballot so that the voting public 9 -22 -86 -4- and taxpayers could decide the issue. She briefly reviewed the number of voters who participated in the 1985 election and the cost of the election, and stated that she did not feel this was the best use of her tax money. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ron Christenson who stated he has some concerns regarding the ballot, and the transition because local issues usually become insignificant during federal and state elections. He stated he felt the Charter Commission should review their policies and the City Council should approve the Charter Commission's policies. Mayor Nyquist y yq ist recognized Ton Kuefler who stated he was Y representing the Citizens for Better Government, and that he supports putting the issue on the ballot. Mayor Nyquist recognized Dennis Kueng, Charter Commission Chairman, who stated the Commission has been discussing this issue for the past two years. He added that he could not understand why the Council would delay allowing the citizens to vote on this issue. Mayor Nyquist recognized Phil Cohen who stated that if public opinion had been sought from the beginning, questions would not have been raised regarding the procedure. He added that he felt the public should be aware of the ramifications of this change. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -159 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CALLING SPECIAL ELECTION FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CITY CHARTER AND FIXING FORM OF BALLOTS, NOVEMBER 4, 1986 Councilmember Theis asked what motion type of vote was required on this issue. The City Attorney stated that this resolution would require a simple majority vote. Councilmember Theis stated that he will vote for the resolution but that he is not endorsing the change. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. RENEWAL OF PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE FOR MARY ANN BOYER 5817 PEARSON DRIVE The City Manager g er stated that staff is recommending approval of the renewal of this private kennel license. Lhotka • a why the applicant had three dogs when the application was PP originally a roved. Mayor PP Nyquist recognized Mr. Boyer who stated that he and his wife had the three dogs when they moved to Brooklyn Center. He noted that the oldest dog is between 12 and 13 years old. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve renewal of the private kennel license for Mary Ann Boyer, 5817 Pearson Drive. Councilmember Hawes asked the applicant why here had been a dog g at large complaint p listed in the police department. Mr. Boyer stated that one of the dogs had got out through the gate when his wife was mowing the yard. 9 -22 -86 _5_ Upon vote being taken on the foregoing motion, the motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCES The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 Regarding the Control of Noxious Weeds. He noted this item was first read on August 25, 1986, published in the City's official newspaper on September 4, 1986, and is offered this evening for a second reading. He added that he is recommending the Council open the public hearing and then recess the public hearing until October 13, 1986 when the other Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 Regarding the Control of Noxious Weeds Pertaining to Natural Preserves can also have a second reading. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 Regarding the Control of Noxious Weeds. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to recess the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 Regarding the Control of Noxious Weeds until the October 13, 1986 City Council meeting. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances. He stated this item relates to proposed changes in the liquor ordinance and was first read on August 25, 1986, published in the City's official newspaper on September 4, 1986, and is offered this evening for a second reading. Councilmember Theis inquired if the City could just adopt the State law by reference as opposed to creating this entire ordinance. The City Manager stated that it would be difficult to deal with license holders because State statute is usually much harder to understand. He also added that the City can exceed the State statute for some requirements. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances, 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 Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 86 -11 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption; AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 Regarding the Control of Noxious Weeds Pertaining to Natural Preserves, and noted this ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 Regarding the Control of Noxious Weeds Pertaining to Natural Preserves, and to set the public hearing 9 -22 -86 -6- date on the ordinance for October 13, 1986 at 7 :30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 86035 SUBMITTED BY PLAZA INVESTMENTS REQUESTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO OPERATE AN EATING ESTABLISHMENT OFFERING LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN THE PA DA HOTEL AT 2200 FREEWAY BOULEVARD The City Manager noted this item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September 11, 1986 meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection referred the Council to pages one and two of the September 11, 1986 Planning Commission meeting minutes, and the informational sheet attached with those minutes. He briefly reviewed the application and noted that the entertainment would be on an occasional basis and not a regular feature. He stated that a public dance license must be obtained and that this was contained in the one condition recommended by the Planning Commission. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that a public hearing is scheduled for this evening and notices have been posted. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application No. 86035 submitted by Plaza Investments requesting special use permit approval to operate an eating establishment offering live entertainment in the Ramada Hotel at 2200 Freeway Boulevard. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone present in the audience 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 Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 86035 submitted by Plaza Investments. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Planning Commission Application No. 86035 submitted by Plaza Investments requesting special use permit approval to operate an eating establishment offering live entertainment in the Ramada Hotel at 2200 Freeway Boulevard, subject to the following condition: 1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations including the requirement for a public dance license, and _ any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 86036 SUBMITTED BY OSSEO SCHOOL DISTRICT REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION FOR A GYMNASIUM AND STORAGE ROOMS TO THE NORTH SIDE OF WILLOW LANE SCHOOL AT 7020 PERRY AVENUE NORTH The City Manager noted this item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September 11, 1986 meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection referred the Council to pages two through four of the September 11, 1986 Planning Commission minutes and the informational sheet attached with those minutes. He briefly reviewed the application and noted that most discussion 9 -22 -86 -7- centered around the site improvements for the landscaping, curb and gutter. He noted that the applicant has submitted revised PP landscaping plans, but does not P g P , feel that these revised plans are in compliance with the Planning Commission's recommendation. He went on to briefly review the eight conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. He noted that a public hearing has been scheduled for this evening and notices have been posted. Councilmember Lhotka asked if there was existing irrigation on the greenstrip area. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that irrigation is usually installed for only commercial and industrial areas. Councilmember Hawes inquired why, in condition No. 6, the curb and gutter would only have to be provided around the newly established greenstrip areas. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that no modifications were being made to the parking lot and that by installing curb and gutter around the greenstrips these areas would be protected. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 86036 submitted by Osseo School District requesting site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct an addition for a gymnasium and storage rooms to the north side of Willow Lane' School at 7020 Perry Avenue North. Mayor Nyquist recognized Jim Rydeen, the architect for the project, who briefly reviewed the landscaping plan and the potential safety hazards for smaller children as shrubs mature. He stated that he had misunderstood the Planning Commission's recommendation and, therefore, had not added any trees to the revised landscaping plan. Mayor Nyquist recognized Carole Blowers who stated that even though the greenstrip and landscaping would look quite attractive, what the school needed was a larger parking lot, not less parking stalls because of greenstrip and landscaping requirements. Mayor Nyquist asked if there was anyone else present at the meeting 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 Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 86036 submitted by Osseo School District. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve Planning Commission Application No 86036 submitted matted b y Osseo School District requesting site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct an addition for a gymnasium and storage rooms to the north side of Willow Lane school at 7020 Perry Avenue North, subject to the following conditions: I 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 9 -22 -86 -8- 3. A site performance agreement shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around the newly established greenstrip adjacent to Perry Avenue North. 7. The standards for a special use permit are deemed to be met by the virtue of the following: a) the proposed use enhances the public welfare. b) screening of the parking lot will improve the relationship of the school use to adjacent residences. c) there will be no adverse impact on development of adjacent parcels. d) the provision of greenstrip, boulevard, sidewalk, and defined access along Perry Avenue North will better control traffic movements into and out of the site. 8. The plans shall be modified to replace low -lying shrubs with deciduous trees in the greenstrip to be established on Perry Avenue and 25' sight triangles shall be maintained at the new parking lot entrances prior to the issuance of permits. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION The City Manager presented a Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Locking Two - Drawer File Cabinet. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -160 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A LOCKING TWO- DRAWER FILE CABINET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:17 p.m. and reconvened at 8:36 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Nyquist reconvened the public hearing on the 1987 annual City Budget. 9 -22 -86 -9- i The City Council reviewed the Fire Department Budget, Unit No. 32. Councilmember Hawes asked why there was an increase in duty pay at only one of the fire stations. The City Manager stated that there are men on duty at only one of the fire stations. Councilmember Theis inquired what the item titled Preplan Pay was for. The City Manager stated that the officers who update the fire department's preplan are paid for this service. Councilmember Theis inquired if there are features on the new fire pumper which are not necessary to extend the life of the equipment. The City Manager stated that the $145,000 represents the actual price of the pumper and that this piece of equipment does not have any of the extra features which add to the appearance of the equipment. He stated that the fire department uses outside funds and donations for any extra beautification features. Next, the Council reviewed the Planning & Inspection Department Budget, Unit No. 33. Councilmember Theis inquired what the office dividers would be used for. The City Manager stated that these dividers would be placed around the computer equipment to deaden the sound. Mayor Nyquist asked for more information on the personnel addition. The City Manager stated that the department head requested g p q ted an addition in personnel from a three /quarter time position to the full -time position. He noted that this request was one of the last items that he cut from the budget. The Council reviewed the Emergency Preparedness Department Budget, Unit No. 34. Councilmember Theis asked why the appropriation in object No. 4382 has decreased since 1986. The Police Chief stated that repair for the civil defense sirens had been budgeted for in 1986. Councilmember Lhotka asked why the mobil phone system for the communications van had been cut. The City Manager stated that this item will be purchased out of the utility division and will be shared by both departments. p ments. The City Council went on to review the Animal Control Budget, Unit No. 35. Councilmember Theis inquired if it was possible to extend the life of the current vehicle by another year. The City Manager stated that this vehicle is driven by the code enforcement officers and is on constant patrol. He added that the engine has already been replaced once in this vehicle. Councilmember Lhotka inquired when the vehicle had been rebuilt. The City Manager stated that he believed it was one and a half to two years ago, and that the vehicle had approximately 50,000 miles on it at that time. Councilmember Lhotka expressed some concern in buying the same type of vehicle if the City has had to replace an engine after 50,000 miles. The City Manager stated that staff is looking into the possibility of purchasing a mini -van. The Police Chief stated that a mini -van would be more functional than a pickup. The Council proceeded to the Engineering Division Budget, Unit No. 41. Councilmember Theis inquired why an appropriation had been budgeted for unemployment compensation in this division. The Director of Public Works stated that the engineering department has a seasonal employee who works nine to ten months and, therefore, qualifies for unemployment compensation. There was a brief discussion regarding the appropriation for aerial photographs. The Director of Public Works stated that the City would be buying prints from Hennepin County. Councilmember Lhotka inquired as to the increase in the dues 9 -22 -86 -10- and subscriptions appropriation. The Director of Public Works stated that the former City Engineer did not belong to the Minnesota Society of Professional Engineers, but that the he current City Engineer does. He added that it is th Y g e City's policy to pay for these memberships. The Council then reviewed the Street Maintenance Budget No., Unit No. 42. Councilmember Theis inquired as to why there was no past history of funding for account Nos. 4220, 4375, and 4420. The Director of Public Works stated that the items within these accounts were originally placed under one account, that being account 4234. He briefly reviewed the actual expenditures from this account and stated that staff would prefer to use separate accounts for these items. Councilmember Lhotka asked for more information regarding the four vehicles being requested. The City Manager stated that the icku truck being replaced has approximately P g P s roximatel PP 70 000 miles on y it and that it would be rotated down to lesser uses. He added that the Council must decide whether they want to spend more money to repair an older vehicle or to replace the vehicle with a new one. He stated that the two dump trucks that are being replaced are at least ten years old and have undercarriage problems. He noted that the current crew cab vehicle has approximately 120,000 miles on it, and that it is used for pulling the patching equipment trailer. The City Council next reviewed the Vehicle Maintenance Division Budget, Unit No. 43. There were no questions or comments on this unit. The Council continued on to the Traffic Signals Budget, Unit No. 44. Councilmember Lhotka inquired who was responsible for the upkeep and service for traffic signals. The City Manager stated that the City has a contract with Hennepin County for time and materials for these items. There were no questions or comments on the Street Lighting Budget, Unit No. 45. The Council reviewed the Weed Control Budget, Unit No. 46. Councilmember Lhotka asked if the administrative costs for weed control were also assessed to the property owners. The City Manager responded affirmatively. There were no questions or comments on the Health Regulation and Inspection Budget, Unit No. 51. The Council reviewed the Recreation and Parks Administration Budget, Unit No. 61. It was noted that this unit oversees the next four budget areas. The City Manager stated that the adult recreation programs recover the direct costs from their user fees. Councilmember Theis inquired if the City Manager had any information regarding the cost of lighting one softball field for one evening. The City Manager stated that as he recalls the cost of lighting the softball fields for one year was approximately $5,000. Councilmember Theis noted that he expected the bill to be higher. The Council proceeded to review the Adult Recreation Programs Budget, Unit No. 62. Mayor Nyquist inquired as to the increase in professional nal sere' P ices. The City Manager stated that this increase reflects the increasing cost of paying officials. 9 -22 -86 -11- Mayor Nyquist recognized Anita Hanson, President of the Brooklyn Community Band, who stated that over half of the membership are residents of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. She stated that the members are willing to pay an annual or biannual fee to belong to the community band, and stated that the band is requesting the membership fee be considered the budget share for the band. Mayor Nyquist asked if there was any income from concerts outside of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. Ms. Hanson stated that enerall the band asks for g Y donations of $50 to $75 for concerts outside of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. She noted that the band plays many concerts at nursing homes and that in most cases these nursing homes cannot afford the $50 to $75 donation. Councilmember Lhotka asked what the fee was for the members. Ms Hanson stated that each person pays $15. Councilmember Lhotka asked what the current membership was in the band. Ms. Hanson stated that there are currently 45 members in the community band. Councilmember Theis asked what the actual increase would be. Ms. Hanson stated that the City would be asked to increase their appropriation by $500. Councilmember Theis asked if the band had explored the idea of sponsorship by area businesses. Ms. Hanson stated that the band feels most businesses in the area were being asked quite often for donations from other organizations, and that these businesses could be selective in who they supported. Councilmember Hawes stated that he greatly supports the band and that he feels the City spends money on things which are of less benefit than the band. Councilmember Theis inquired of Councilmember Hawes if he felt the $500 increase should be split between the band, the children's chorus, and the harmonettes or given just to the band. Councilmember Hawes stated that he felt the $500 increase should go just to the band. There were no questions or comments on the Teen Recreation Programs Budget, Unit No. 63. The Council reviewed the Children's Recreation Programs Budget, Unit No. 64. The City Manager noted that the band and harmonettes were the only groups asking for additional funding, and that the children's chorus had not made such a request. There were no questions or comments on the General Recreation Programs Budget, Unit No. 65. The Council then reviewed the Community Center Budget, Unit No. 66. Councilmember Theis asked why maintenance projects are budgeted along with the actual programs. The City Manager stated that this was the way the budget was originally set up so that the Council could see exactly how expensive the building was to run. Mayor Nyquist asked if there would be an increase in revenue for the community center. The City Manager stated that staff is not expecting an increase in revenue, but that the majority of costs are covered by the revenue. Mayor Nyquist inquired if it would be possible to charge nonresidents a higher fee. The Finance Director stated that a higher fee for nonresidents could be charged, but he felt the community center and its programs would lose many participants. Next, the Council reviewed the Parks Maintenance Budget, Unit No. 69. Councilmember Lhotka inquired regarding the four dumpsters in the budget. The City Manager stated that the City owns the dumpsters which are in each park, and 9 -22 -86 -12- that these four that are being requested would replace dumpsters which are beyond repair. The Council proceeded to review the Unallocated Departmental Expenses Budget, Unit No. 80. There were no questions or comments on this item. Mayor Nyquist briefly reviewed the areas in which the Council had questions or concerns in the budget, and asked if there was any further discussion necessary on these items. Mayor Nyquist added that if there was to be any discussion of the mediation project he would not be participating because of his close affiliation with the project. Councilmember Hawes stated that he would also withdraw from discussion because of his affiliation with the project, but added that he felt the organization is a real asset to Brooklyn Center and additional appropriations should be made. Mayor Pro tem Lhotka requested the City Manager to explain the funding for the domestic abuse program and the mediation project. The City Manager stated that $18,750 has been budgeted for the domestic abuse program, but the $10,000 request for the mediation project was cut. Mayor Pro tem Lhotka stated that he found it difficult to draw the line and set a dollar figure on the amount of funding the mediation project should receive. He noted that the mediation project will at some point be self reliant and that most of these other programs will never be that way. Councilmember Theis stated that he felt the Brooklyn Center mediation project should be budgeted for. Mayor Pro tem Lhotka asked if it would be feasible to fund the mediation project at a decreasing amount each year. Mayor Pro tem Lhotka recognized Barb Jensen who stated the County will match dollar for dollar up to $7,000 for the mediation project. She noted that because of the demand, the project will grow to serve other communities and not just Brooklyn Center. She added that over the years she believes this program will become a State wide program with funding from the State. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to increase the appropriation for the Brooklyn Center mediation project from $1,000 to $6,000. Mayor Pro tem Lhotka stated that he would like to see the decrease in the next year's budget and a dollar figure included in this motion. Councilmember Theis stated he felt it would be difficult to place a dollar figure on this appropriation. Councilmember Theis stated that he would like to amend his motion to read "motion to increase allocation to $6,000 with the intent that this allocation would drop as other communities become active and the Brooklyn Center mediation ion project becomes self-sufficient". Councilmember Scott consented to this amended motion. Upon vote being taken on the foregoing motion, the following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Pro tem Lhotka, Councilmembers Theis and Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, the motion passed. Mayor Nyquist and Councilmember Hawes abstained from the vote. Discussion continued regarding the appropriation request from the senior chorus 9 -22 -86 -13- and the community band. Councilmember Theis asked what percentage the City would be paying if they increased the appropriation. The City Manager stated that it would be 45% versus the current 33% payment. The City Manager noted that if the Council were to give every group that asks for additional funding money the budget would double in two years. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to leave the appropriations at the recommended levels for the senior chorus and the community band. The motion passed with Councilmember Hawes opposed. Mayor Nyquist suggested that the Council move on to the concerns and questions that were stated regarding the Elections and Voters Registration Budget. The City Manager briefly reviewed the memorandums which were prepared for this item and noted that the Council could cut $5,400 from the budget if they did not plan for any expenses for a primary election. Councilmember Theis stated that he would not be comfortable cutting funds for a mandated program. Mayor Nyquist noted that he was most concerned with the cost of the new voting equipment. The City Manager stated that the purchase of the optical scan units in the near future is very important. He noted that our present machines are reaching capacity and that once all levels were used on the machine the City would have to use paper ballots. He added that staff would recommend that the City have one off year to test and use these machines before the large presidential election. Councilmember Theis stated that he was in favor of the City purchasing the optical scan units. Councilmember Hawes inquired if there was only one manufacturer for the units. The City Manager stated that there are four or five companies which manufacture these type of units, but this is the approved company by the County. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the Elections and Voters Registration Budget as submitted. The motion passed with Councilmember Hawes opposed. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there were any further questions or comments regarding the Independent Audit Budget. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to decrease the appropriation for the Independent Audit Budget to $12,000. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist stated that he would like to move on to review of the Legal Counsel Budget and the questions and concerns that were raised earlier. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he felt the main issue was the cost of the services. The City Attorney reviewed the information he had prepared on the billing rates from his office. He went on to explain the experience of the prosecutors and the length of time they worked for the City. He noted that the current setup does not appear to be working because there is not enough experience in the prosecutor's office. He added that he did not feel changing to another law firm for the prosecuting would change the continuity problem that the City is experiencing. Mayor Nyquist inquired if the City Attorney's office uses paralegal and law clerks to their fullest extent. The City Attorney stated that his office has three people which are not certified lawyers and there is no separate charge for the time spent by these people. He added that he does not 9 -22 -86 -14- r have any figures on the use of law clerks. Councilmember Theis noted that he felt that the City would be spending the same amount of money whether they had one law firm or two law firms. The City Attorney added that he had requested additional funds because of the two additional police officers being added. The Director of Finance stated that in the Police Department Budget a typographical error had been found in the dues and subscriptions area, and that this budget should be increased by $1,000. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to increase the Police Department Budget, Unit No. 31, Object No. 4413 by $1,000. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to decrease the Unallocated Departmental Budget by $3,000 to reflect the change in the Independent Audit Budget. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -161 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1987 BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -162 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A TAX LEVY FOR 1987 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS The motion for the adoption of the p foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 11 :15 p.m. and reconvened at 11:17 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -163 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE -THIRD MILL LEVY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 462.411 THROUGH 462.711, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE YEAR 1987 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 11:21 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 9 -22 -86 -15- The following persons are recommended for appointment as election judges for the November 4, 1986 General Election: Precinct 1 Precinct 6 Head Judge D- Loretta Stewig Head Judge R- Catherine Wetzel R- Marian Smith D -Beth Rygh D -Vy Peterson R- Josephine Swart R- Mildred Egnell D -Myrna Kragness D -Mary Gwen Stein R -Alice Velander R -Donna Bennett D -Susan Krekelberg D- Phyllis Sigurdson R- Gloria Weinebarger R -John Freund D -Bill Clark Precinct 2 Precinct 7 Head Judge R- Beverly Madden Head Judge D -Mona Hintzman D- McKevha Thomas R -Susan Heisler R- Marion Alford D -Carol Benkofske D- Esther Kelsey R- Jerine Polack R -Ray Freund D -Helen Julkowski D -Kay Brosseau R- Imelda Mayleben R- Adeline Lonn D -June Coerper D- Kathryn Bell R -Pat Elliott Precinct 3 Precinct 8 Head Judge R- Kathryn Dziedzic Head Judge D- Eileen Hannan D -Kathy DouVille R- Doloris McGeorge R -Joyce Shudy D -Ethel Pettman D -Mary Goenner R- Lorraine Wyman R- Dennis Benton D -Anne Bergquist D- Arlene Clark R -Trudi Ann Gores R -Nancy Denny D- Dolores Seal D -Bill Madir R -Donna Zieska Precinct 4 Precinct 9 Head Judge D- Robert Leach Head Judge D -Alice Madir R- DeLila Newman R -Jean Sullivan D- Alberta Ruf D- Margaret Stellburg R -Angie Olson R -Grace Freund D- Evelyn Hilstrom D -Tracy Tyler R- Thelma Jacobson R -Frank Slovak D- Gloria Voeltz R- Phyllis Petroski Standby- Election Judges R- Vernon Balken Precinct 5 D- Arlene Groves Head Judge D -Gerry Dorphy D- Clarice Johnson R- Gladys Leerhoff R- Harold Knudsen D -Alice Van Meerten D -Ralph Saline R -Jean Lindstrom R -Carl Sandstrom D- Lorraine Halter D- Joseph Tromiczak R- Arlene Kemp D- Beverly Hovde Absentee - Ballot Judges R- Dorothy Rogers D -Jean Tubman R- Barbara Sexton D- Marilyn Tyler R- Bonnie Lukes D- Sharon Knutson APPLICATION FOR APPOIN7, TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Name a. Age �z Addres :rz 4:: - elm �j n �Cc � /�/p Telephone j Occupation C��A Years lived in Brooklyn Cente I have read the Human Rights Commission Enabling Resolution (Resolution No. 68 - 44, 69 - 71 -211 and 74 -68), which defines the purpose, authority and responsibility of the Brooklyn Center Human Rights Commission. Yes No Comments I understand the importance of regular Commission meeting attendance and participation, and feel I have the time available to be an active participant. Yes No Comments Additional comments on my interest, experience, background, ideas, etc. Vey J A `�C,�� �/�4'_'t -,C� .�} �c�-t/ - �1.� -tJ � t� 2U• O � -dtJL- Signature Date Submit to: Mayor Dean Nyquist City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Nn. 55430 9,A Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ENGINEER'S REPORT, ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -20, CONTRACT 1986 -P (UTILITY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AS REQUIRED TO SERVE THE EARLE BROWN COMMONS) WHEREAS, an amendment to the feasbility report regarding modifications to the sanitary sewer system has been prepared by the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1986 -20, Utility System Improvements as Required to Serve the Earle Brown Commons, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 7th day of October, 1986. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Base Bid Amount Alternate Bid 0 & P Contracting, Inc. $ 61,932.85 add $ 990.00 Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc. 76,982.50 add 1,900.00 Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. 79,091.00 add 900.00 Hydrocon, Inc. 99,825.00 add 1,650.00 WHEREAS, it appears that 0 & P Contracting, Inc. of Champlin, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The amended report prepared by the City Engineer is hereby received by the City Council. 2. The estimated cost of the project is amended to be $80,348.00. 3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $62,922.85 with 0 & P Contracting, Inc. of Champlin, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1986 -20 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. RESOLUTION NO. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated cost of Improvement Project No. 1986 -20 is hereby amended in accordance with the following schedule: As Approved As Bid Contract $ 74,814.00 $ 62,922.85 Engineering Consultant 4,100.00 4,100.00 Administration 717.00 630.00 Legal 717.00 630.00 $ 80,348.00 $ 68,282.85 2. The estimated cost to be financed will be: Special Assessments $ 32,430.00 $ 31,491.85 H.R.A. 47.918.00 36,791.00 Total $ 80,348.00 $ 68,282.85 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 TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Wor s FROM: H.R. Spurrier, City Engineer DATE: October 9, 1986 RE: Utility System Improvements as Required to Serve the Earle Brown Commons Improvement Project No. 1986 -20, Contract 1986 -P On September 8, 1986 City Council adopted Resolution No. 86 -137 accepting the Engineer's Report, approving plans and specifications, and directing advertisement for bids for the above referenced project. During the period of advertisement for this project we discovered that significant alterations to the project scope were necessary. Based on incorrect topographic data that was furnished to the City for the plat of Brooklyn Farm, we planned to abandon a section of sanitary sewer on Earle Brown Drive. Fortunately, a subsequent topographic survey prepared by Hansen, Thorpe, Pellinen & Associates identified a service on the line that was being abandoned. The results of the discovery is that the design of the sanitary sewer had to be altered. The alteration did not result in any more work than would have been necessary had the service been discovered sooner. The modification increases the total project cost by $24,668.00. The revision is summarized below: Original Revised Cost Estimate Cost Estimate Sanitary Sewer Project Construction Cost $ 19,636 $ 40,168 Contingency 10% 1,964 4,016 Engineering 1,250 2,850 Administration 1% 200 442 Legal 1% 200 442 Subtotal $ 23,250 $ 47,918 Watermain Project Construction Cost $ 27,845 $ 27,845 Contingency 10% 2,785 2,785 Engineering 1,250 1,250 Administration 1% 275 275 Legal 1% 275 275 Subtotal $ 32,430 $ 32,430 �" f9661LL-AMfRfU QIY =I . MZ� October 9, 1986 Page 2 Original Revised Cost Estimate Cost Estimate Combined Project Construction Cost $ 47,481 $ 68,013 Contingency 10% 4,749 6,801 Engineering 2,500 4,100 Administration 1% 475 717 Legal 1% 475 717 Subtotal $ 55,680 $ 80,348 The cost of the watermain project, the part of this project that is proposed for assessment is not altered by the proposed work. The attached resolution accepts this report amending the report prepared by Westwood Planning and Engineering Company and revises the estimated cost of the project to $80,348. Further, the resolution accepts the bid and approves the contract for Improvement Project No. 1986 -20, Contract 1986 -P, utility system improvements as required to serve the Earle Brown Commons. Res a tf l y submitted, Approved for submittal, H R. rrier Sy K p City n eer Director of Public Works HRS : j n ACCB86P.MEM l W ' LSTWOOD PLANNING & ENGINEERING COMPANY October 8, 1986 Mr. Bo Spurrier City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN. 55430 Dear Mr. Spurrier: On October 7, 1986 bids were opened at the Brooklyn Center City Hall for improvement project 1986 -20, contract 1986 -P. This project consisted of constructing sanitary sewer and watermain utilities to service the Earle Brown Commons Senior Citizen facility. Four bids were received and tabulated with the results as shown below. O&P Contracting, Inc. $ 61,932.85 Alternate bid 990.00 Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc. 76,982.50 Alternate bid 1 Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. 79,091.00 Alternate bid 900.00 Hydrocon, Inc. 99,825.00 Alternate bid 1 Engineer's Estimate 74,814 5 0" Alternate bid — " - T — ,ZU6.7 The alternate bid involved transplanting 6 trees that otherwise would be obliterated by the construction activities. O &P Contracting, Inc. is a utilities construction firm located in Osseo, Minnesota. Westwood Planning & Engineering Company has worked with this contractor during the past couple of years and has found their work to be acceptable. During 1985 00 worked on an improvement project for the Cit of Brooklyn Center with acceptable results. All 7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55426 (612) 546.0155 October 8, 1986 It is reccimended that O&P Contracting, Inc. be awarded the construction project 1986 -20 in the amount totalling $62,922.85, including the alternate work task. If the City Council awards this bid on October 13, 1986 work on the project should commence on October 20, assuming the Contractor has his performance bond and insurance in order. As stipulated in the contract documents, the project is to be completed by November 21, 1986. Sincerely, Westwood Planning & Engineering Company Ld R.L. Koppy, P Vice Preside t RLK:nt BID TABULATION CONTRACT 1986 -P PROJECT NO. 1986 -20 Engineer's Estimate O & P CONTRACTING DAVE PERKINS CONTR. THOMAS & SONS HYDROCON, INC. 1 2 3 4 Item # Contract Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 5000.00 5000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 10,500.00 10,500.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 2 REMOVE CONC C & G (ALL DSGNS) LF 100 5.00 500.00 4.00 400.00 10.00 1,000.00 4.00 400.00 4.00 400.00 3 REMOVE CONC APRON LS 2 400.00 800.00 200.00 400.00 400.00 800.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 250.00 500.00 4 REMOVE BIT PAVE (ALL DSGNS) SY 325 2.50 812.50 2.00 650.00 3.00 975.00 5.00 1,625.00 3.00 975.00 5 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LF 150 2.50 375.00 2.00 300.00 2.00 300.00 3.50 525.00 3.00 450.00 6 TREE REMOVAL EA 6 50.00 300.00 65.00 390.00 100.00 600.00 250.00 1,500.00 100.00 600.00 7 CONC DRIVE PAVE, 8" THICK SY 10 50.00 500.00 40.00 400.00 50.00 500.00 38.00 380.00 70.00 700.00 8 BIT STREET RESTORATION LS 1 2000.00 2000.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 4,800.00 4,800.00 9 CONC C & G (ALL STYLES) LF 120 10.00 1200.00 12.00 1,440.00 12.00 1,440.00 25.00 3,000.00 20.00 2,400.00 10 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 500.00 500.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 500.00 500.00 11 ADJUST GATE VALVE EA 1 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 175.00 175.00 100.00 100.00 12 8" DIP CLASS 52 LF 860 20.00 17200.00 17.76 15,273.60 21.50 18,490.00 22.00 18,920.00 29.00 24,940.00 13 6" DIP CLASS 52 LF 25 18.00 450.00 15.25 381.25 19.50 _ 487.50 20.00 500.00 28.00 700.00 14 8" GATE VALVE & BOXES EA 2 500.00 1000.00 445.00 890.00 545.00 1,090.00 550.00 1,100.00 500.00 1,000.00 15 FITTINGS LB 1,180 1.15 1357.00 1.00 1,180.00 1.00 1,180.00 1.20 1,416.00 2.00 2,360.00 16 HYDRANT W/ AUX VALVE EA 2 1550.00 3100.00 1,670.00 3,340.00 1,100.00 2,200.00 1,800.00 3,600.00 1,700.00 3,400.00 17 12 "X8" T VALVE /SLVE INSTALLED EA 1 1600.00 1600.00 1,350.00 1,350.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,100.00 1,100.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 18 8" PLUG INSTALLED EA 3 50.00 150.00 35.00 105.00 200.00 600.00 270.00 810.00 100.00 300.00 19 CONN TO EXIST 8" WM STUB LS 1 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 2,250.00 2,250.00 200.00 200.00 400.00 400.00 20 8" PVC SAN SEWER (0 -8') LF 130 26.00 3380.00 13.60 1,768.00 15.00 1,950.00 12.00 1,560.00 34.00 4,420.00 21 8" PVC SAN SEWER (8 -10') LF 400 27.00 10800.00 13.60 5,440.00 23.00 9,200.00 18.00 7,200.00 35.00 14,000.00 22 8" PVC SAN SEWER (10 -12') LF 180 28.00 5040.00 15.90 2,862.00 26.00 4,680.00 18.00 3,240.00 36.00 6,480.00 23 8" PVC SAN SEWER (12 -14') LF 100 30.00 3000.00 18.20 1,820.00 27.00 2,700.00 24.00 2,400.00 37.00 3,700.00 24 STANDARD MH, COMPLETE (TO 8') EA 4 1100.00 4400.00 900.00 3,600.00 1,100.00 4,400.00 1,200.00 4,800.00 1,500.00 6,000.00 25 EXTRA MH DEPTH VF 8 75.00 600.00 60.00 480.00 150.00 1,200.00 80.00 640.00 100.00 800.00 26 8" PVC SERVICE LF 100 27.00 2700.00 13.60 1,360.00 25.00 2,500.00 12.00 1,200.00 37.00 3,700.00 27 6" PVC SERVICE LF 100 22.50 2250.00 12.78 1,278.00 24.00 2,400.00 10.00 1,000.00 37.00 3,700.00 28 8" PLUG, INSTALLED EA 1 50.00 50.00 15.00 15.00 75.00 75.00 100.00 100.00 50.00 50.00 29 6" PLUG, INSTALLED EA 1 50.00 50.00 10.00 10.00 65.00 65.00 100.00 100.00 50.00 50.00 30 REVISE WM ELEVATION LS 2 500.00 1000.00 400.00 800.00 1,200.00 2,400.00 500.00 1,000.00 300.00 600.00 31 PRESSURIZED SAND FILL LS 1 2000.00 2000.00 650.00 650.00 3,800.00 3,800.00 500.00 500.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 32 CONN TO EXIST 8" PVC SAN SEWER LS 1 1250.00 1250.00 5,750.00 5,750.00 1,550.00 1,550.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 33 CONNECT TO EXIST SAN SEWER MH LS 1 600.00 600.00 300.00 300.00 1,550.00 1,550.00 300.00 300.00 600.00 600.00 34 CONNECT EXIST 6" PVC TO MH #4 LS 1 250.00 250.00 100.00 100.00 251.00 251.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 35 REMOVE SEWER PIPE AND MH LS 1 400.00 400.00 300.00 300.00 600.00 600.00 500.00 500.00 600.00 600.00 ----- - - - - -- --- -- - - - - -- - --- -- - - - -- - ---- - - - - -- -- -- --- - --- $74,814.50 $61,932.85 $76,983.50 $79,091.00 $99,825.00 ALTERNATE 1 36 TRANSPL TREES (48" DIA SPADE) EA 2 150.00 300.00 165.00 330.00 250.00 500.00 150.00 300.00 275.00 550.00 ALTERNATE 2 37 TRANSPL TREES (60" DIA SPADE) EA 4 225.00 900.00 165.00 660.00 350.00 1,400.00 150.00 600.00 275.00 1,100.00 ----- - - - --- ----- - - -- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- --- ------ - --- - ---- -- $76,014.50 $62,922.85 $78,883.50 $79,991.00 $101,475.00 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1985 -F (LYNDALE AVENUE WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -04 AND LYNDALE AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO 1985 -05) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1985 -F signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Northdale Construction Company, Inc. has completed the following mprovement to the minimum acceptable standards required g p r q by said contract: WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -04 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -05 AND, WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has prepared Supplemental Agreement No. 2 to said contract, and has submitted a proposed final payment voucher to the City Council after conducting extensive negotiations with the contractor in order to resolve major claim disputes, and he h recommended � p as r ommended that the City Council approve said documents in lieu of proceeding with arbitration relating to those claims; and WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Bury and Carlson has satisfactorily completed the improvement of a arkin area at 560 P g 8 Lyndale Avenue North in accordance with said contract. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Supplemental Agreement No. 2, providing for a net credit of $2,026.39 to the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby approved. 2. The work completed under said contract with Northdale Construction Company, Inc. and Supplemental Agreements are hereby accepted and approved according to the following schedule: As Approved Final Amount Original Contract $ 278,784.95 $297,669.89 Supplemental Agreement #1 2,926.20 2,926.20 Supplemental Agreement #2 (2.026.39) (2.026.39) Total $ 279,684.76 $298,569.70 The value of work performed is more than the original contract and subsequent Change Orders and Supplemental Agreements amount by $18,884.94 due to a general underestimation of planned quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract to Northdale Construction Company, Inc., taking the contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $298,569.70. RESOLUTION NO. 4. The work completed under contract with Bury and Carlson, Inc. is hereby accepted and approved. As Approved Final Amount Original Contract $4,869.00 $5,076.30 The value of work performed is more than the original contract and subsequent Change Orders and Supplemental Agreements amount by $207.30 due to a general underestimation of planned quantities. 5. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract to Bury and Carlson, Inc. taking the contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $5,076.30. Said payment shall be made from Municipal State Aid Account No. 2611. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote ote 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 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 B ROOKLYN TE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: October 9, 1986 RE: Lyndale Avenue North Watermain Improvement Project No. 1985 -04 Lyndale Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -05 On April 8, 1985 the City Council accepted the low bid of Northdale Construction Company, Inc. for the construction of a watermain and street improvement project on Lyndale Avenue North between 53rd Avenue and 57th Avenue North. As you know only too well, this project did not go smoothly. It is my opinion that the primary reason for the delay in completion of the project and for the other problems which occurred during construction of the project was the poor performance demonstrated by the contractor. However, a combination of adverse weather, utility company delays, some minor plan changes and other factors contributed to the problem of coordinating the project and provided some excuse for delay in the contractor's performance. The project was finally completed to the point of meeting minimum contract requirements in late 1985. Subsequently, the Engineering Department attempted to negotiate a basis for final payment of work accomplished under the contract. Initially, Northdale submitted claims totalling $48,107.74. Most of that amount reflected claims for equipment standby during utility relocation, overruns for repair of areas where subgrade soils failed, overrun for bituminous driveway repairs and miscellaneous other items. In response, the City counter - claimed $18,277.68 of damages against Northdale. The 2 major items included in this claim against Northdale were (1) liquidated damages for 74 days at $100 per day = $7,400 and (2) repairs to Lift Station No. 2 as a result of failure during the reconstruction of Lyndale Avenue = $9,800. From the outset it appeared that there would be no resolution of these claims and so we requested the assistance and guidance of the City Attorney in preparing for arbitration (as provided for by the specifications). In early April of 1986 both the City and the contractor had each named an arbitrator and we were awaiting a meeting between those arbitrators to appoint a third arbitrator. At that point in time Northdale requested the opportunity to meet �vea �uawEaiu crr r' October 9, 1986 0 Page 2 with the Engineering Staff in an attempt to negotiate a settlement before proceeding with the arbitration proceedings. After reviewing all of the claim items in detail with the City Attorney and receiving his recommendations and guidance on how to conduct such negotiation, a negotiating session was held on April 24, 1986. As a result of that negotiating session, Northdale agreed to accept a final payment which will acknowledge their claims in the total amount of $18,476.17 ** (compared to their original claim of $48,107.74) and to acknowledge claims by the City in the total amount of $6,008.84 (compared to our initial claim against them of $18,277.68). Our office agreed to recommend approval of final payment on that basis to the City Council. Based on that tentative agreement we have prepared two documents, i.e.: - Proposed Supplemental Agreement No. 2 (copy attached) which provides a basis of payment for items of work accomplished which were not included in the original contract; and - A proposed final payment voucher (copy attached) which, if approved, will provide the basis of final payment for the contract. Under the terms of the negotiated agreement and proposed final payment the increases in contract cost can be summarized as follows: Description Additional Contract Cost During removal of the bituminous pavement $ 8,000 on the southerly 1/2 of the project it was discovered that there were 2 separate layers of bituminous pavement on Lyndale Avenue, separated by several inches of gravel. We had received no indication of this condition from the old plans which we had received from MNDOT, and the condition was not discovered during the course of soil borings taken in advance of the project. After discovery of the condition it was determined that it was necessary to remove this second layer of pavement. * Note: Of the $18,476.17 agreed to at the negotiation conference, $11,306.84 was non- contestable. We simply had not approved that part of their claim for the purpose of negotiating strategy. October 9, 1986 Page 3 Several areas of marginal final soil conditions, n 9 g $ , 300 also undetected by the soil borings, were found on the project. Had weather conditions been dry during the construction period, the project could have been completed with minimal problems. However, these areas became very unstable as a result of frequent rainfall during the course of the project and it was finally determined that the soils should be removed and replaced with granular soil in order to allow the project to be completed. Under the terms of the negotiated agreement the City would pay approximately two thirds of the cost for removing and replacing these marginal soils while Northdale will absorb the other one third of the cost. On this basis the City's cost for this work is $9,300. Miscellaneous additional work items, including $ 5,518 the items detailed on proposed Supplemental Agreement No. 2 ($3,933), and for other pay items where the actual q uantities exceeded the planned quantities. Total $22,818 As noted above, the negotiated agreement provides for a reduction in the City's claims against Northdale from $18,277.68 to a reduced amount of $6,008.84. Two major items reflect the majority of that decrease: Explanation City's Claim Reduction The City's claim for the cost of repair resulting $ 9,803.84 from failure at Lift Station No. 2 during reconstruction of Lyndale Avenue is recommended to be dropped since we have only circumstantial evidence to support our claim that the damage was caused by the construction project. Under the recommended settlement the claim was "traded off" against Northdale's claim of $19,178.04 for the cost of standby equipment incurred as a result of delays caused by the utility companies. October 9, 1986 Page 4 Explanation City's Claim Reduction We recommend reduction of liquidated damages from $ 2,400 the originally proposed $7,400 (74 days at $100 per day) to a reduced level of $5,000 (50 at $100 per day). This reduction was agreed to because (a) on a legal basis, liquidated damages are supposed to represent only the additional cost which the City can prove that it incurred as a result of the delay in completion of the project, and (b) since this is a State -Aid project, the liquidated damages must be approved by the Municipal State Aid Division of MNDOT. Following is a summary f payments due to Northdale and credits due to the C' Y P Ym City j on the basis of the proposed final payment. Basic Credit Net Item Payment to to Payment Northdale City Due Original Contract $278,784.95 $ 0 $278,784.95 Supplement Agreement No. 1 PP g 2 926.20 0 2 _ � a 926.20 General Overruns Acknowledged 4,341.86 0 4,341.86 prior to negotiated agreement General Overruns Recommended 14,543.08 0 14,543.08 for approval based on April 24, 1986 negotiation Proposed Su p ed lemental Agreement 3 933.07 5 959.46 026 PP g (2, .39) No. 2 based on April 24, 1986 negotiation $304,529.16 $ 5,959.46 $298,569.70 Despite my dissatisfaction with the contractor's performance on this project, it is my opinion that (1) the project meets the minimum standards required by the specifications, and (2) that this proposed settlement is the best that can be negotiated for the City and is better than the results I would expect from arbitration. Following the negotiating conference I reviewed the proposed agreement with the City Attorney and he concurs in my recommendation that the negotiated agreement be approved. October 9, 1986 Page 5 Additional Work Subsequent to Completion of Northdale Contract Due to a design error (subminimal grades) the project as constructed by Northdale created a drainage problem for the motel at 5608 Lyndale Avenue. This problem was not the fault of the contractor. In order to correct this problem a portion of the parking lot had to be removed, regraded and replaced. Rather than complicate the negotiated settlement already reached with Northdale, and to assure the work would be done by a contractor who was capable of doing the work expeditiously we received proposals from 2 other contractors to complete this work. The contract for this work was awarded to Bury and Carlson, Inc. on the basis of their low bid of $4,842.30. This work was done during September, 1986. Based on actual construction quantities, the final cost for that work is $5,076.30. Attached, for City Council consideration, is a resolution (a) approving Supplemental Agreement No. 2 (b) approving final payment to Northdale and (c) approving payment to Bury and Carlson, Inc. I recommend approval of this resolution. Respectfully submitted, Sy Knapp Director of Public Works cc: File 1985 -F SK: jn Mn /DOT 2134(5 -78) STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Sup_p. to Contract No. 1985 -F No. 2 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT s heet 1 of 3 ontractor State Project No. Northdale Construction Company, Inc. City Project No. 1985 -04 & 05 1 109-126-01 MTB ddress Location 14450 Northdale Blvd, Rogers, MN 55374 Lyndale Avenue No. - 53rd to 57th Avenues No. This contract is amended as follows: 3 w 2 Item 1: Northdale Construction Company, Inc. has incurred additional expense to °' lower an existing sanitary sewer manhole at 56th Avenue North & Lyndale O U m• Avenue North due to unforeseen conditions. Northdale Construction W t o Company, Inc. Invoice No. 5124, is hereby amended as follows: �p o Labor $338.64 w Equipment 318.24 p ° g Material 85.54 w Amended total Invoice $742.42 � M U c.�: EZ_ 0. 80 Item 2: Northdale Construction Company, Inc. has incurred additional expense p[" to rebuild an existing catchbasin that was structurally unstable at •�� 55th Avenue and Lyndale Avenue North. Northdale Construction Company, Inc. Invoice No. 5125 is as follows: � U O . Labor $284.31 �� Equipment 192.11 Material 116.60 Total Invoice $593.02 Item 3: Northdale Construction Company, Inc. has incurred additional expense to M a demobilize and remobilize due to extended time for Northwestern Bell 0Qo Telephone and Minnegasco to relocate their respective utilities. This Z delay was cause for an additional 21 days of signing and barricade rental. � C Q Demobilize and Remobilize $ 946.48 QO > u--¢. 21 days sign and barricade rental 440.16 a $1,386.64 Pro.No. Account I.D. Organization F.V. Requisition No. Vendor Number Type Terms Source S.Act. Task S. Task Cost, Job or Client Code Amount Suffix Object SEND TYPE OF TRANSACTION 1:1 F1 Entered by A40 A41 Date u� mbel o a a Entered by A44 A45 A46 Date Number APPROVED: Original Contract ! Commissioner of Administration Dated 19 e p rove r e t n i Pp veer r $278 784 y J_ g Architect Dated � �� 19 � gee y Contractor Dated Approved as to form and execution Date 19 c 4 uector Dated 19 Assistant Attorney General Approved by Agency Head 1 —STATE AUDITOR (White original) 2— CONTRACTOR (Pink) 3— AGENCY (Goldenrod) _. .. ✓., .. u. ..... va auav , a , 11 1aVV1 L[\ LV., .a lV. Mn /DOT 2134(5.78) STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Supp. to Contract No. 1985 -F No. 2 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT Sheet 2 of 3 ntractor =Omocn State Project No. Northdale Construction company, Inc. City Project No. 1985 -04 & 05 J 109-126-01 MTB A ddress Location 14450 Northdale Blvd, Pagers, I V 55374 Lyndale Avenue No. - 53rd to 57th Avenues No. This contract is amended as follows: . �o, Ite1t 4: Northdale Construction Company, Inc. has incurred additional expense to remove B -624 Concrete Curb & Gutter that no unit price was w A b provided. Northdale Construction Company, Inc. Invoice No. 5149 b d is as follows: �Ao Labor $165.31 Equipment 411.81 p°o '0 Total Invoice $577.12 dw o Item 5: Northdale Construction Company, Inc. has incurred additional expense to remove B -618 concrete curb &- gutter to install concrete spillway. Northdale Construction Company, Inc. Invoice No. 5150 is as follows: X1 0 w U 5 Labor $ 75.87 S� Equipment 117.22 Material 56.00 J E o Total Invoice $249.C9 Item 6: Northdale Construction Company, Inc. has incurred additional expense 0. due to casting change due - to unforeseen conditions. Northdale Construction 3 Company, Inc. Invoice No. 5151 is hereby amended as follows: 4.o- O U S] u x Labor $ 0.00 ti Equipm 0.00 Material a 0 >> o ° ° (Castings + 1 0%) 384.78 ¢3� Total Amended Invoice $384.78 Subtotal Add Amount $3,933.07 Pro.No. Account I.D. Organization F.V. Requisition No. Vendor Number Type I Terms Source S.Act. Task S. Task Cost, Job or Client Code Amount Suffix __T___ 6bject SEND TYPE OF TRANSACTION 11 J Entered by A40 A41 Date — u ❑ ❑ ❑ Entered by A44 A45 A46 Date Number APPROVED: Original Contract Commissioner of Administration Dated/_ 1 $278,784.95 v b roje t Enginee or Architect Dated � 1 Acc ted by Contractor Approved as to form and execution Dated lv 19 fl- Dated District Director �t S Dated 19 Assistant Attorney General Approved by Agency Head 1 —STATE AUDITOR (White original) 2— CONTRACTOR (Pink) 3— AGENCY !(;oldenrod) Mn /DOT TP- 02134 -02 (5/83) STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Supp. to Contract No. 1985 -F No. 2 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT Sheet 3 of 3 W ntractor t State Project No rthdale Construction Company, Inc. City Pro No. 1985 -04 & 05 1 109-126-01 M TB A ddress Location 14450 Northdale Blvd, Pogers, MN 55374 Lyndale Avenue No. - 53rd to 57th Avenues No. This contract is amended as follows: r '0 0 87 Item No. 7: Northdale Construction Company, Inc. has damaged and decreased the life of the B -618 Concrete Curb and Gutter; and 120 linear feet of said curb o has sustained damage and has resulted in an estimated reduction of the w w design life by 40 %; therefore, the City shall deduct 400 of the Contract Unit Price for all damaged curb and gutter as hereby established. � U d � w O a o Contract Y Item No. Item Name Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount bo 2531.501 Concrete Curb & Gutter IF 120 $ 5.05 $ 606.00 �3 ° Design B -618 M "" b U O 600 of Contract IF 120 $ 3.03 $ 363.60 d ° 40% Deduct Total $ 24 2.4 0 ax Item No. 8: The City of Brooklyn Center has assessed liquidated damages for 50 a� calendar days @ $100 per day. City of Brooklyn Center Invoice No. 5959 Deduct $5,000.00 0oro .�;3 Item No. 9: The City of Brooklyn Center has incurred expenses to provide dust control when Northdale Construction Company was unable to provide this item. City of Brooklyn Center Invoice No. 5959 Deduct $ 657.94 3 Item No. 10: The City of Brooklyn Center has incurred expenses to P rovide access . y to 5608 Lyndale Avenue when Northdale Construction Company was unable ono to provide the needed cork. City of Brooklyn Center Invoice No. 5959 H Deduct $ 59.12 TOTAL ADD $3,933.07 a 0 �, TOTAL DEDUCT $5,959-46 XXt1 M Total Deduct Supplemental Agreement No. 2 °--ay c $2,026-39 Pro.No. Account I.D. Organization F.V. Requisition No. Vendor Number Type Terms Source S.Act. Task S. Task Cost, Job or Client Code Amount Suffix Object SEND TYPE OF TRANSACTION a Entered by A40 A41 Date — um er ❑ ❑ Entered by A44 A45 A46 Date Number APPROVED: Original Contract Commissioner of Administration Date 1 $278,784.95 ] V b r e t gin er or Architect Dated (C� 1c t by Contr actor Approved as to form and execution Dated 1Dated istrict n sneer /I S' Dated 19 Assistant Attomey General Approved by Agency Head 1 —STATE AUDITOR /White original) 2— CONTRACTOR (Pink) 3— AGENCY (Goldenrod) 1985E 1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CONTRACT NO: 1985 -F �O1 Shingle Creek Parkway oklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Project No. 1985 -04 & 1985 -05 Partial Estimate Voucher No. 7 FINAL For Period Ending: 8 /31/86 City of Brooklyn Center to: NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 14450 Northdale Boulevard Rogers, Minnesota 55374 TELEPHONE: 428 -4868 Amount of Contract: $278,784.95 Date Approved: April 8, 1985 Project Description: Lyndale Water Main and Street Improvements ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Value Less Less Funds of Work Charges 5 Less Net Project Encumbered Certified and Percent Previous Amount Number To Date To Date Deducts Retained Payments Due - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- 1985-04 $45,855.50 $46,017.00 $0.00 $0.00 $43,716.15 $2,300.85 1985 -05 $233,829.26 $252,552.70 $0.00 $0.00 $212,842.58 $39,710.12 ------ - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- $279,684.76 $298,569.70 $0.00 $0.00 $256,558.73 $42,010.97 ds Encumbered for 1985 -05 include Supplemental Agreements No. 1 and 2 This is to certify that items of work shown in this statement of work certified herein have been actually furnished for the above mentioned project in accordance with lans and specifications P heretofore P a roved and that o PP the total work is 100-s completed. Date: A 6 Signature Project Engineer CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CERTIFICATION This is to certify that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the quantities and values of work certified herein are a fair approx- imate estimate f r the period covered be ;NO�RTHDALE is fro er-. Date: S igna' �r CONSTRUCTIO Hold check, call when ready. Send check to address shown above. I hereby recommend payment of this voucher: Date: ��T���`— Signature Directo:v'of Public Works 1985F2 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT i F Partial Estimate Voucher No 7 FINAL 'To: Northdale Construction Company Project No. 1985 -04 Description: Lyndale Avenue Water Main Installation T Contract Amount Certified To Date Item Unit �� - - -' -- - -- - -1 -------- - - - - -- S.A.P. # # Contract Item Unit Price''] Quantity Amount Quantity Amount - ----- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- 1 6" DIP CLASS 52 LF 12,.25. 2,376 $29,106.00 2,363.00 $28,946.75 2 CONNECT TO EXISTING SYSTEM EA 450.00. 2 900.00 2.00 900.00 3 6" GATE VALVE AND BOX EA 350.00 6 2,100.00 6.00 2,100.00 4 HYDRANT EA 1,000.00, 3 3,000.00 3.00 3 5 1" INCH COPPER SERVICE PIPE LF 6.75 982 6,628.50 1,179.00 7,958.25 6 3/4 X 1" SERVICE CONNECTION EA 17.00 34 578.00 33.00 561.00 7 1 SERVICE CONNECTION EA 78.00' 3 234.00 4.00 312.00 8 PIPE FITTINGS LB 1.05 955 1,002.75 955.00 1,002.75 9 STANDARD SANITARY MANHOLE EA 1,000.00 1 1,000.00 1.00 1,000.00 10 4 PVC S.D.R. 35 LF 8.75 35 306.25 27.00 236.25 11 CONNECT TO EXISTING SYSTEM EA 500.00" 2 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL PROJECT NO. 1985 -04 $45,855.50 $46,017.00 e r Page 1 1985F2 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Partial Estimate Voucher No. 7 FINAL To: Northdale Construction Company Project No. 1985 -05 Description: Lyndale Avenue Street Reconstruction S.A.P. No. 109 - 126 -01 MTB Contract Amount Certified To Date ItemUnit ---------------------- ----------------------- S.A.P. # # Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount --- - - - - -- - -- ----------------------- - - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- - - - - -- $3,500.00 - -- - - - - -- -- 2021.501 1 MOBILIZATION LS $3,500.00 1 $3,500.00 1.00 2101.511 2 CLEAR & GRUB ROADWAYS LS 2,000.00 1 2,000.00 1.00 2,000.00 0104.601 3 SAWCUT BIT & CONC PAVEMENT LF 4.50 920 4,140.00 872.00 3,924.00 2104.501 4 REMOVE C.S. PIPE - ALL SIZES LF 2.50 246 615.00 163.00 407.50 0104.603 5 REM /REPL'LANNON STONE RET WALL SF 7.70 168 1,293.60 168.00 1,293.60 2104.505 6 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 1.50 10,755 16,132.50 16,088.00 24,132.00 2104.505 7 REMOVE CONC DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 4.00 276 1,104.00 25.00 100.00 2104.505 8 REMOVE CONCRETE SIDEWALK SY 3.50 150 525.00 54.88 192.08 2104.5091 9 REMOVE TIMBER RETAINING WALL EA 110.00 2 220.00 1.00 110.00 2104.509 10 REMOVE CATCH BASIN /MANHOLE EA 350.00 3 1,050.00 2.00 700.00 2104.523 11 SALVAGE CASTING ASSEMBLY EA 100.00 2 200.00 2.00 200.00 0104.623 12 REMOVE /REPLACE MAIL BOX EA 25.00 38 950.00 29.00 725.00 2104.525 13 ABANDON CESSPOOL EA 650.00 2 1,300.00 1.00 650.00 2105.501 14 COMMON EXCAVATION CY 2.80 4,427 12,395.60 4,427.00 12,395.60 2105.522 15 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (IV) CY 6.50 1,420 9,230.00 1,454.44 9,453.86 2130.501 16 WATER FOR DUST CONTROL MGAL 10.00 60 600.00 40.00 400.00 2211.501 17 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 TN 6.25 2,285 14,281.25 2,506.80 15,667.50 2331.504 18 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR MIX TN 215.00 35 7,525.00 44.01 9,462.15 2331.514 19 BASE COURSE MIXTURE TN 14.85 770 11,434.50 880.21 13,071.12 2341.501 20 BIT MATERIAL FOR MIXTURE TN 215.00 38 8,170.00 48.59 10,446.85 2341.508 21 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE TN 16.00 684 10,944.00 883.58 14,137.28 0341.621 22 BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY REPAIR SY 11.15 1,050 11,707.50 966.70 10,778.71 2357.502 23 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK GAL 3.00 385 1,155.00 805.00 2,415.00 2411.503 24 CONCRETE RETAINING WALL SY 200.00 81 16,200.00 85.81 17,162.00 0411.603 25 LANNON STONE RETAINING WALL SY 76.75 130 9,977.50 97.03 7,447.05 0422.606 26 TIMBER RETAINING WALL SF 7.70 300 2,310.00 189.30 1,457.61 Page 2 1985F2 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Partial Estimate Voucher No. 7-FINAL To: Northdale Construction Company Project No. 1985 -05 Description: Lyndale Avenue Street Reconstruction S.A.P. No. 109 - 126 -01 MTB Contract Amount Certified To Date ItemUnit ------------ - - - - -- -- ------------------------ S.A.P. # # Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount -------------------------------------- - - - - -- - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- 0422.607 27 TIMBER PLANTER SF $7.50 200 $1,500.00 252.80 $1,896.00 2503.511 28 4 PVC PIPE SEWER SDR35 LF . .8.50 40 340.00 23.00 195.50 2503.511 29 12" R.C. PIPE SEWER, CLASS V LF 23.00 58 1,334.00 53.00 1,219.00 2503.511 30 15" R.C. PIPE SEWER, CLASS V LF 24.00 267 6,408.00 307.00 7,368.00 2503.511 31 18" C.S.'PIPE SEWER, 12 GAUGE LF 20.00 24 480.00 14.00 280.00 2506.508 32 CONSTRUCT MANHOLE, DESIGN F EA 850.00 1 850.00 1.00 850.00 2506.509 33 CONSTRUCTION C. B., DESIGN G EA 825.00 6 4,950.00 6.00 4,950.00 2506.516 34 CASTING ASSEMBLY, DESIGN A EA 140.00 6 840.00 6.00 840.00 2506.521; 35 INSTALL CASTING ASSEMBLY EA 75.00 8 600.00 8.00 600.00 2506.522 36 ADJUST FRAME AND RING ASSBLY EA 150.00 13 1,950.00 7.00 1,050.00 0506.611 37 CUT INTO EXIST ST SEWER SYS EA 450.00 3 1,350.00 3.00 1,350.00 2521.501 38 4" CONCRETE WALK SF 1.65 1,260 2,079.00 532.10- 877.97 0521.601 39 4 CONCRETE STEPS SF 33.00 35 1,155.00 84.45 2,786.85 2531.501 40 CONCRETE C & G, DESIGN B -618 LF 5.05 5,880 29,694.00 5,929.00. 29,941.45 2531.507 41 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 24.00 440 10,560.00 624.56 14,989.44 0531.601 42 CONCRETE "V" GUTTER LF 11.00 124 1,364.00 110.20 1,212.20 2571.544 43 TRANSPLANT SHRUB (ALL TYPES) EA 150.00 5 750.00 1.00 150.00 2575.05 44 SODDING WITH 4 TOPSOIL SY 1.90 9,350 17,765.00 9,930.30 18,867.57 SUBTOTAL PROJECT NO. 1985 -05 $232,929.45 $251,652.89 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 1 ADD 2,926.20 2,926.20 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 2 DEDUCT (2,026.39) (2,026.39) TOTAL PROJECT NO. 1985 -05 $233,829.26 $252,552.70 TOTAL PROJECT NO. 1985 -04 45,855.50 46,017.00 TOTAL CONTRACT 1985 -F $279,684.76 $298 Page 3 9� Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1986 -E (WATER TOWER NO. 3 RECONDITIONING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -28) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1986 -E signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Odland Protective Coatings has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: WATER TOWER NO. 3 RECONDITIONING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: As Approved Final Amount Original Contract $114,750.00 $114,750.00 2. The value of work performed is the same as the original contract amount. 3. It is hereby directed-that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $114,750.00. 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 t he following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1986 -G (STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BETWEEN I94 AND CSAH 10, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO 1985 -27 AND 1986 -07) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1986 -G signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Alber Construction, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -07 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY TURNLANE CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -27 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: As Approved Final Amount Original Contract $326,187.70 $338,867.38 Supplemental Agreement #1 12,344.00 12,344.00 Supplemental Agreement #2 2.719.12 2.719.12 Contract Total. $341,250.82 $353,930.50 2. The value of work performed is more than the original contract amount by $12,679.68 due to a general underestimation of planned quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $353,930.50. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 9F Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1985 -M (INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEMS ON SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AT JOHN MARTIN DRIVE AND AT SUMMIT DRIVE, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -20) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1985 -M signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Hoffmann Electric Company has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: As Approved Final Amount Original Contract $132,300.00 $132,300.00 Supplemental Agreement No. 1 6,390.61 6.390.61 $138,690.61 138,690.61 2. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $138,690.61. 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 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR AND EXECUTE A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center desires to seek a grant from the Metropolitan Council for state funding to carry out the sponsorship of three groups as part of the Entertainment In The Park series; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council requires that all grantees authorize and specify by resolution of their governing body the individual to apply for and execute the grant agreement on behalf of the organization. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager, is authorized to apply for and execute on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center a grant agreement with the Metropolitan Council for sponsorship of three groups as part of the Entertainment In The Park series. 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. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 291 -6571 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF GRANT -IN -AID Metro Account Number: Brooklyn Center Parks ana Recreation 472 7014 Amount of'Grant: $ 1,937 Application Number: MD - 02 - 7 - S Date Contract Sent: Please fill in the information below and return this form and two contracts, signed by an authorizing official, to Louise Robinson at the Metropolitan Council. Verification that the person signing the form and contracts is legally authorized to bind your organization must be included. *If a fiscal agent is being used, checks must be made out to the fiscal agent; therefore, name and address of the fiscal agent must be indicated below. Make check payable to: Name City Of Brooklyn (name of organization) Address 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway City Brooklyn Center State Minnesota Zip Code 55430 Project Dates: June 9, 1987• July 7 1987• July 28-1987 Authorizing Official's Signature Date DR0447 GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND BROOKLYN CENTER PARKS AND RECREATION THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of 1986, by and between the Metropolitan Council, hereinafter referred to as the "Council ", and the Brooklyn Center Parks and Recreation, hereinafter referred to as the "Grantee." WHEREAS, the Council has received grant funds from the Minnesota Legislature to distribute to applicants for the purpose of stimulating and encouraging the creation, performance, and appreciation of the arts in the Metropolitan Area; and WHEREAS, the Grantee has applied to the Council for an Arts Assistance Grant; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the Grantee's project will stimulate and encourage the creation, performance and appreciation of the arts in the Metropolitan Area and desires to assist the Grantee by the award of an Arts Assistance Grant. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council and Grantee agree as follows: I. Grant Amount A. The Council shall pay to the Grantee a total grant amount of $1,987.00. Grant funds shall be made available to the Grantee immediately upon execution of this agreement. B. The Grantee's share of the financial support for the project shall be at least 50 percent of the total project cost as set forth in Grantee's application for grant assistance, Appendix A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Grantee's share of the financial support shall include actual match items detailed in Appendix A. II. Authorized Use of Grant Proceeds A. The Grantee is only authorized to use the grant funds to carry out the project as described in Appendix A. Grant funds shall only be expended in accord with the specifications contained in Appendix A. B. In no event shall the Council pay or reimburse Grantee for costs and expenses incurred in excess of the total grant amount. III. Accounting A. The Grantee agrees to establish and maintain accurate and complete, separate accounts and records relating to the receipt and expenditure of any and all grant funds for the project as set forth in Appendix A. These project accounts and records shall be retained by the grantee during the grant period and for a period of at least three years following completion of the project specified in Appendix A. 3 . - 2 - B. The above accounts and records of the Grantee shall be audited in the same manner as all other accounts and records of the Grantee are audited, and may be audited and /or inspected on Grantee's premises or otherwise by individuals or organizations designated and authorized by the Council at any time following reasonable notification during the grant period and for a period of three years following grant payment. IV. Reports A. For a project whose completion date is more than six (6) months beyond the project starting date, the Grantee shall submit to the Council at the mid -point of the project a narrative summary of the project to date, a financial report indicating project expenditures, the local match raised to date, and such other information as may be requested by the Council. B. Within sixty days after completion of the project, the Grantee shall submit to the Council a narrative summary and financial report. The Council shall evaluate the report to determine whether the grant funds were used in accordance with the provisions of this agreement and the project description found in Appendix A. In particular, the Council shall evaluate the report to determine that: 1 The Grant f Grantee's share of the financial support PP o the project was at least 50 P 2) The major tasks to be funded by the grant proceeds were completed; and 3) The terms of this agreement were complied with. V. General Conditions A. Duration The period of the grant award specified herein shall commence on the execution of this agreement and be in force and effect until December 30, 1988. At that date, all allocated grant funds which have not been expended or for which expenditures have not been committed b executed n Y contract or purchase order shall revert to and become a part of the Council's Arts fund. B. Termination This grant agreement may be terminated by the Council a! any time upon 30 days written notice to the Grantee if the Grantee fails to comply with one or more conditions of this agreement. i C. Amendments The terms of this agreement, including ppendix A, may be 9 Y changed or modified by mutual agreement of the parties hereto. Such chanoes or modifications shall be effective only upon the execution of written amendments signed by authorized representatives of the Council and Grantee. D. Noncompliance In the event that the Council finds that there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of this agreement, the Council +� -3- may take such action as may be appropriate to protect the Council's interest. Upon a finding by the Council that the Grantee has made an unauthorized use of grant proceeds and a demand by the Council for repayment, the Grantee agrees to promptly repay such amounts to the Council. E. Equal Employment Opportunity The Grantee agrees to comply with all applicable laws relating to nondiscrimination and affirmative action. In particular, Grantee agrees not to discriminate against any new employee, applicant for employment, or participant in this project, because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, and to take affirmative action so that applicants and employees are treated equally with respect to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment, layoff, termination, rates of pay, and other forms of compensation and selection for training. F. Publications, Legend The Grantee agrees that the following legend will appear on all programs, graphic material, and publication related to the project: This activity is made possible in part by a grant provided by the Metropolitan Council from funds appropriated by the Minnesota State Legislature. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written by their authorized representatives. Approved as to legal form By Metropolitan Council Counsel GRANTEE: Brooklyn Center Parks and Recreation By Title LM050A RLFERRAF ' ME NCL_ZJJyf FOR OFFICE USE ONLY TYPE IN BLACK INK Form Number 300 Metro Square Bldg. 7th and Robert Sts. 7- St. Paul, MN 55101 Date Application Number Tel. 291 -6571 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ACTING AS THE REGIONAL ARTS COUNCIL ARTS SPONSOR ASSISTANCE GRANT APPLICATION 1. Applicant (name, address, zip code) la. (check one): ® General Sponsor Assistance Brooklyn Center Parks & Recreation Department ❑ New Presenters 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN., 55430 Phone Number J612) 561 -5448 2. Project Director (name, address, zip code) 3. Fiscal Agent (contact person, address, zip code, telephone number, fiscal agent organization). Sue LaCrosse, Program Supervisor Complete only if your organization has not yet 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway received its tax- exempt status and you are apply: Brooklyn Center, MN. , 55430 under the auspices of another tax - exempt organization. Day Phone Number ( 612) 561 -5440 or 561 -5 448 Evening Phone Number ( 612) 566 -7738 3a. IRS tax- exempt letter included Yes X No 4. Project Starting Date June 9, 1987 Project Ending Date August 11 , 1987 (project must not start until 90 days after the application deadline) 5. Brief description of the project (limit narrative to this space): The project is to sponsor three groups as part of the Entertainment In The Park series. The three groups scheduled are: Minneapolis Pops - orchestra, Minneapolis Chamber Symphony and Sideshow, all to perform in Central Park on a showmobile. r 6. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (cannot exceed 50% of cost of project): ; 1,987 7. TOTAL COST OF PRO) ECT: $ 7,018 8a. Total Number of Individual Artists Sponsored in this Project: 7 8b. Total Anticipated Audience for this Project: 4,000 , t ; Page 2 Brooklyn Center Parks & Applicant Organization Name Recreation Department CERTIFICATION: We certify that the information contained in this application is true and correct to the best of our knowledge. For New Presenters only: We certify that we have never received a Sponsor Assistance grant from the Metropolitan Council Regional Arts Council or foundation support for arts programming in excess of $2,000. 9a. Authorizing Official Arnie Mavis Director of Recreation typed name title signat re date 9b. Fiscal Agent Paul Holmlund Finance Director Q4 (if applicable) typed name title signature date 9c. Project Director Sue LaCrosse Program S typed name title signature da The original plus two copies of the application, plus one copy of the IRS letter or the contract with the fiscal agent and the agent's IRS letter must be submitted to the Council by the deadline date. All three submitted copies of the application must be signed. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 10. What is your organization's mission statement? Dedicated to the Citizens of Brooklyn Center that they may share in 4 the God given right to beauty, to sunshine, to tranquility; and to the end that each may herein find the laughter of childhood, the acceptance of youth, the fulfillment of adult life, and the companion- ship of old age, through a healthy, satisfying use of leisure time. 11. Describe your organization's artistic or community service goals. How will your proposed project help your organization reach these goals? 1. To provide opportunities for all ages to experience the arts through classes, community groups, quality programs, entertainment and local exhibits. 2. To provide opportunities for people in the suburban communities to experience the arts. 3. To extend services to the total community. In pursuing these goals, the arts /cultural programs offered by the Brooklyn Center Parks and Recreation Department include: Brooklyn Community Band Children's Dance Classes Children's Chorus Adult Pottery Classes Ballroom Dance Classes Brooklyn Community Harmonettes Community Center Gallery Entertainment in the Park Sunday In- Central Park Arts & Crafts Classes for Adults Arts & Crafts Classes for Children The proposed project would give us the opportunity to explore and experiment with different groups and /or artists for the Entertainment In The Park program. Because the program is free, it would be available to everyone, not just those who can afford to pay. Most free concerts are held in Minneapolis, primarily the Lake Harriet area. This project would help bring quality groups to the suburbs and would also serve northern Minneapolis. Q I Page 3 Brooklyn Center Parks & Applicant Organization Name Recreation Department Ask Limit all narrative to the spaces provided. r 12. Describe the complete project which you propose to undertake. Include names of artists or companies, dates of performances or schedule of activities for residencies, and locations of activities. What, in particular, will the requested grant monies provide? In 1984, a one day concert event called Sunday In Central Park was introduced. In 1 "985 more groups were added and the audience grew. This type of programming, initiated by Sunday In Central Park, has lead in 1986 to the start of Entertainment In The Park, a series of ten concerts. In 1987 we would like to add a fine arts component to this series. The three fine arts programs that would be offered are: Minneapolis Chamber Symphony, June 9, 1987; Sideshow, July 7, 1987; Minneapolis Pops Orchestra, July 28, 1987, all to be held in Central Park, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway. Programs of this nature have not been tried in Brooklyn Center before. These three programs represent an expansion for us and a risk financially. The 1987 Entertainment In'The Park program will also include performances by vocal groups, children's theater and bluegrass, community, jazz and contemporary bands. However, the funds requested would be applied to the three fine arts events only. The grant money would give us the opportunity to take risks with the Entertainment In The Park program and would be used toward the cost of the three groups to perform. QUALITY OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY 13. List specific objectives for this project. How will you determine how well these goals have been achieved? 1. To promote and stimulate interest and appreciation of the performing arts for all ages. 2. To provide quality entertainment free of charge. 3. To experiment and explore different areas of entertainment than from previous years. 4. To bring free entertainment programs to the northern suburbs. We would evaluate the success by talking to the people, counting the number of people present and by watching and listening to the groups. A few weeks after the performances,a meeting would be held with the project director and the Entertainment In The Park Committee to discuss and evaluate the project. i i �D- , Page 4 t Brooklyn Center Parks & Recreation Department Applicant Organization Name t This page may be duplicated as many times as necessary. t t 14. Concise related biographical information about sponsored artists. (Limit biographical information to one page per artist or company.) Minneapolis Pops Orchestra The Minneapolis Pops Orchestra is a group of musicians, conducted by Philip Brunelle I and organized to play concerts primarily at Lake Harriet during the month of July. A concert lasts about an hour and a half with no intermission. The Pops Orchestra programs include a balance of popular and classical music. A march, involves he hil highlight of the concert. which invo s t c dren in the audience is a h i g g Philip Brunelle, conductor, was artistic director and conductor of the Minnesota Opera Company from 1968 -1985. He is the choral /orchestral conductor of the Plymouth Music Series, a performing musical society which he founded in 1969. The society is dedicated to the presentation and recording of music of the present - commissioned works and first performances - as well as important, but rarely heard, works of the past. In addition, he is music advisor at the Walker Art Center, serves as chairman of the Choral Panel for the National Endowment for the Arts and has also been appointed to the Festival Committee of that organization. Mr. Brunelle has a wide symphonic and chamber music repertoire, and performs as a pianist in chamber music and accompanying singers in professional record- ings. He is a frequent performer on the "Prairie Home Companion" and also creates the musical background for the Walker Art Center's silent movies. Mr. Brunelle has conducted the Minneapolis Pops Orchestra since -1974. The Orchestra players are drawn from the free -lance pool of professional musicians in the Twin Cities area. Several are full time members of the St. Paul Chamber Orchestra and several are part -time members or have performed with SPCO Company as extras. Many play with the Minnesota Opera Company, the Plymouth Music Series, the American Ballet Theater or as extras with the Minnesota Orchestra. Sideshow Productions Incorporated Sideshow started in 1977 when a virtuoso juggler /mime teamed with another juggler and a musician for a benefit performance at the St. Paul Children's Hospital. Sideshow had chanced upon an art form that struck a responsive chord with the public. Sideshow Productions brings the versatility and tradition of an old time traveling show with a flash of 20th Century pizzaz. Their mission is to combine music, juggling, mime, circus skills, clowning and other theater elements into an artistic, creative entertain- ment form that will allow audiences as well as performers to think and to smile. Over the years, sideshow troupers have won recognition from their peers in the enter- tainment world, twice winning Best Entertainer title at Kansas City Renaissance Festival,, twice reaching the finals in the National Twin Cities Comedy Invitational Competition, winning Honorable Mention in the Twin Cities Mayors' Public Arts Awards, and winning first place in the International Jugglers Association team competition. They perform from 600 to 700 shows a year. 88 , Page 4 Brooklyn Center Parks & Applicant Organization Name Recreation Department This page may be duplicated as many times as necessary. 14. Concise related biographical information about sponsored artists. (Limit biographical information to one page per artist or company.) Minneapolis Chamber Symphony The Minneapolis Chamber Symphony was founded in 1978 by Jay Fishman, its present music director. The Chamber Symphony employs one full -time manager who is responsible for the proper functioning of the day -to -day operations and reports directly to the Board of Directors. The Board sets the larger goals and oversees the implementation of budget, total number of concerts and fundraising. The artistic staff consists of an orchestra of 20 -25 professional musicians who are hired on a part -time basis as independent con- tractors. A major goal of the Symphony is to reach as wide an audience as possible with primary emphasis being placed on those groups of people who are not reached by the Minnesota Orchestra or St. Paul Chamber Orchestra. A second major goal of the Minneapolis Chamber Symphony is to reach and develop new audiences, particularly in groups that are often neglected, such as the very ,Dung and the very old. In 1983, the Symphony began developing a senior citizen's project. Because of a generous grant, the orchestra was able to offer substantially discounted tickets to seniors for its subscription concerts as well as provide transportation to and from performances and open Saturday morning rehearsals. In order to attain these goals, the Chamber Symphony offers two distinct program formats. The first is its Summer Winter / Subscription concert series of eight performances held P g P at Willey Hall, at the University of Minnesota. These programs consist of regular chamber music repertoire, with emphasis on the great masters such as Handel, Mozart, Dvorak; pieces by often overlooked composers such as Friedrich de Witt and Arthur Foote; and compositions by talented contemporary composers. The second type of program is the Minneapolis Chamber Symphony Community Concerts which are light, family- oriented programs, with music from the classics, Broadway, Sousa and Joplin. Corporations, community groups- and - foundations underwrite the cost of these per- formances and offer them free to the public as a community service. Performance sites include parks, shopping malls, government buildings, department stores, factory grounds and the zoo. By playing at such sites, the Chamber Symphony reaches a wider and more diverse audience than any other music group in the metro community and brings its music to people who might not otherwise have an opportunity to hear it. No other musical.organization in tie area does anything like this, and because of the Symphony's size, (20 -25 musicians), and low overhead, it is able to offer these services at affordable prices. Recent honors include a McKnight Award of Excellence, a grant from the National Endowment for.the Arts and Mayor Donald Fraser's proclamation of June 16, 1985 as Minneapolis Chamber Symphony Day in recognition of the Symphony's many community service concerts. 0 89 MO- a2_ - 1-,5 F' Page Brooklyn Center Parks & Recreation Department Applicant Organization Name ABILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO ACCOMPLISH THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY 15. How was this project planned? Who was involved in the planning? How has the sponsored artist(s) been involved in the planning? A variety of artists or groups were contacted by project director as to their avail - ability, fees and references and then project director contacted the Entertainment In The Park Committee for their input. The committee is made up of three Parks and Recreation Commissioners, a representative from the Chamber of Commerce, and a representative from Brookdale Community Library. When contacted, artists or groups were given background on the entertainment program and were asked about their program. In some instances, they could gear their program just for us. 16. How and why did you select the artist(s) or companies who will be participating in this project? Several references were used in the selection process: Activity Resource Directory compiled and supplied by Hennepin County Library, Art Town supplied by Metro Council and a list prepared by the Minneapolis Park Board of artists and groups they have used. Artists were selected on the basis of past performances in other communities or from good recommendations by other agencies. The Pops Orchestra, Chamber Symphony and Sideshow can guarantee a high quality of performance based on past achievements. 17. How will ou publicize this Y P s protect. The 1987 promotional campaign will include the quarterly City Newsletter, sent to 12,000 resident and 1,000 non - resident homes, monthly senior adult newsletter sent to 550, posters, releases to local newspaper and Star and Tribune, radio and television public service announcements and flyers distributed to 6,000 elemen- tary school students, high -rise and apartment complexes, churches, summer children's programs and library. A special mailing will be sent to 200 Brooklyn Center businesses with cover letter and schedule. 18. What related past activities demonstrate your organization's ability to plan and carry out a project? In 1984 the first Sunday In Central Park was held with a Brooklyn Community Band concert and fireworks. In 1985, with the completion of all park development in Central Park, the schedule was expanded to include a performance by Climb Theatre and Lanotte Chamber Ensemble, a woodwind quintet. The audiences responded very well to the quality of the programs. About 250 people attended these two 1985 programs. In 1986 Sunday In Central Park will include performances by Dudley Riggs Brave New Workshop and the Brooklyn Community Children's Chorus, Harmonettes (women's vocal group), and Community Band. The Children's Chorus, Harmonettes and Community Band are co- sponsored by the Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park Parks and Recreation Departments. Also for 1986, the City purchased a portable showmobile and the Council approved an appropriation for ten evenings of ment in Central Park. 1� Brooklyn Center Parks Page .6 & Recreation Department Applicant Organization Name -_ —4 19. What are the roles and responsibilities of the project director? Direct roles and responsibilities of project director for the Entertainment In The Park series are: 1. Plans, prepares budget for and promotes the Entertainment In The Park program 2. Evaluates entertainment and makes recommendations for future programs. 3. Staff liaison to the Entertainment In The Park Committee. 4. Coordinates all aspects of Entertainment programs. Will make sure showmobile is delivered to Central Park on time with appropriate chairs, lighting, PA, etc. 5. Attends all entertainment programs. The Entertainment in The Park program takes about 10% of the project director's time. In addition to this, other full time responsibilities include planning, supervising, promot- ing and evaluating the following recreation programs: Women's volleyball League, tennis lessons and ski trips for all ages, children's dance, gymnastic and after school classes, summer playgrounds and classes for children, junior high open gyms, dances and field trips,and numer us s ec a event nc u*ng Sunday in Central Park. 20. What are the qualit s of the project aIrec or. Bachelor of Science Degree in Parks and Recreation Administration. Recreation Program Supervisor for the City of Brooklyn Center for 9 years. In this position, responsibilities and duties include planning, organizing and directing a comprehensive program of activities, classes and events for various age and interest groups that will meet the recreational needs of the participants and will assure maximum use of Community Center, park and school facilities. Has developed and planned many special events over the years including setting up the 1984, '85 and '86 Sunday In Central Park and 1986 Entertainment In The Park series. s 2�_2 I- 5 Page 7 Brooklyn Center Parks Applicant Organization Name and Recreation Department COMMUNITY NEED 21. How will this activity stimulate the artistic development of the community to be served by this project? It will give people in the community an opportunity to attend concerts and programs for the first time. In some instances, the ability to pay would have been a major reason for not attending before. In other instances, they may r not be sure they would like it. By us bringing the program(s) to them, it gives them the opportunity to be exposed to different types of entertainment and acquire an appreciation of the performing arts. It may influence them to explore the other fine arts opportunities available in the Metropolitan area. Well performed programs in Central Park may start a tradition in Brooklyn Center which could expand in years to come. 22. Anticipated Audience: a. Performances, Exhibitions or Screenings HouseCapacity nnl;m;tPrl (a In case of bad weather, we would move indoors. capacity indoors 275 - 300 depending on group. Date JiinP q 1g8 .71111T 7, 1 J-1— 2Q 1 ,OL Total Anticipated Audience: High Estimate 2,000 1,000 2,500 5 , 500 (complete for each 250 1 250 600 activity) Low Estimate b. Residency activities Date Total Anticipated participants: High Estimate (complete for each activity) Low Estimate c. Discuss any significant growth or decrease in attendance for arts events in the last three years. our program has only been in existence for two years and the first year was very small. Growth in attendance the second year, was primarily due to the fact there were more entertain- ment groups scheduled. Attendance increase from -1984 to 1985 was approximately 1,000. 23. Ticket Information: a. List ticket prices for similar events for the past three years. b. What are your ticket prices for this project? c. How did you determine your ticket prices? d. If you do not charge for events, list the reasons for not charging admission Entertainment In The ' Park was developed so that everyone could enjoy quality groups /artists, not just those that can afford a ticket or have transportation to concerts. M w A OD Brooklyn Center Parks and Recreation Department Please round figures to the nearest tens place. Applicant Organization Name 24. PROJECT BUDGET EXPENSES INCOME REQUEST Metropolitan Council Total Project Costs Amount $ Cash Match Amount $ In -Kind Match Amount $ Request Column 1 Column 2 (Source) Column 3 Column 4 (Source) Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 24a. Salaries (list positions individually) Title Time devoted to project (hrs.) Project director 30 hours 342 City appropriation 342 ($11.40 /hour) Clerk 7 hours 45 City appropriation 45 ($6.50 /hour) Announcer 3 times 75 City appropriation 75 ($25/time)- Set up and take down of band- stand (4 people @ $12.00 /hour, 4 hours ea. - 3 concerts) 576 Cityappropriation 576 w 24b. Artists fees, contracts, honoraria (list individually) Sideshow 425 Minneapolis Chamber Symphony 2,500 Musicians Union 1,760 Minneapolis Pops Orchestra 2,810 City appropriation 1 1,987 24c. Expendable supplies and materials (detail expenses) u 0 1 1 U Brooklyn Center Parks and Recreation Department 24. PROJECT BUDGET (continued) Applicant Organization Name EXPENSES INCOME REQUEST Metropolitan Council Total Project Costs Amount $ Cash Match Amount $ In -Kind Match Amount $ Request Column 1 Column 2 (Source) Column 3 Column 4 (Source) Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 24d Transportation (detail expenses) 24e. Promotional costs (printing, ads, etc.) 1) Ggneral press releases 100 100 posters, PSA's, phone contacts, cable television 2) Quarterly City brochure 75 75 (13,000 sent out) 3) Flyers to schools, churches 70 70 24f. beniafa ' o00 ) r 7 Total Counci) 24g. Total Project Cost , 01s Total Cash Match 4 ' 399 Total In -Kind Match 632 Request 24h. Budget narrative (optional) 1,987 -o a A Page 10 Brooklyn Center Parks & Applicant Organization Name Recreation Department Applicant's Annual Budget (Schools or governmental units, provide arts /culture budget) Fiscal Year Prior Fiscal Year of the to the Project Project (Dates: Jan. 1 -Dec. 31, 186 (Dates Jan. 1 -Dec. 31, ) 1987 § Beginning Fund Balance -0- - o - Income Earned Income (class fees) 16,133 17.778 Individual Contributions Musician's Trust Fund 386 1,760 Foundations and Business Grants City City Contribution 17,818 Public Grants Contribution 21,092 Met ro Grant 1 .9R7 Total 37,611 39,343 Expenses Personnel * Artistic -15,077 16,000 * *Administrative 5,700 5,928 Class Consultant Instructors 7,134 7,490 ***Overhead Production Service Supplies 9,200 9,400 Promotion 500 525 Total 37,611 39,343 § FY Surplus /(Deficit) - -0- -0- § Projected Year End Fund Balance -0- -0- Budget Narrative (optional) * Artistic expenses include band director, Children's Choral director, Harmonettes Choral director, their accompanists and the artists performing for Entertainment In The Park and Sunday In Central Park. ** Administrative expenses include Program Supervisor's and staff time which has been prorated for the arts /cultural programs only. * ** The Parks and Recreation Department does not have to pay for the use of schools nor for the use of the Community Center for their classes and programs. § Special Note: Any surplus or deficit at the end of the fiscal year is absorbed into the general City budget making beginning and end of year balances -0 -. i �5 Page 11 Brooklyn Center Parks & Recreation Department Applicant Organization Name Entertainment m the Park", 2E In honor of Brooklyn Center's 75th Anniversary the Brooklyn Center Parks and Recreation Department is proud to introduce an exciting new program called Entertainment In The Parts. Entertainment to The Park is sponsored by the City of Brooklyn Center with some artist assistance from the Twin Cities Musician's Union, Local "30.73 A.F of M. c Every there will It be quality entertainment featured in Central Park (located behind the Community Center). All programs are free and readily accessible to the handicapped: Bring a lawn ` chair or blanket: refreshments will be sold In case of inclement weather the programs will be held in the Social Batt of the Community Center, z t- � ,. Tlrs Summer rams'wer s prog a as t with scxrsc Ufrom the Enterta�nmept fn the Park ' orrkm SfEIn.Y The bel&r schedule is subject to change. Piease eat 56 5448 for further r ormabort. x� r Entertainment In the Park .1986 Schedule Ttx�iday June 1 T:W pj%%, µ t E y X Iuhrah Shrine Concert Band y. Qne of the best concert bands in the area r r . ,, `` ., `��, - .r"i.." ��` `�` " r 2 � tt70kfyri fs017T!'i'lun=Ban(� Sr w t (rtl7a � c " ! ( Y( r ,/{/� { " �{ +' ,, r"`c,..- V = w s 5v ' 9it♦t ;;l r < henn *7 X "13 bend music frorn OtA* Ellington ti} Rock `of 1�leather R � .�e,� "v'' - .... "°° ''x. }} •�, ,, , % Y �`+wS+a7 e JWii 22 Y. f ° rWof entertarrunent group slrigtrtg, fr i thsi 294«s to >' y { }k r t x :F 7r k t e° i�f ��(JOf1t CQLr}'1�t` e:.''5��� a a 3 r ��x x� � 7�9a� Oaod < v 2 ,�, ,& �-, a�'<"N',u ..... . x„ f�c� =�PP9 t s at @'Sr(tle9fltttC&°3 rs� az> y�y.._rc Dance �C 3 * ? 0 may_ � ` 8 15 fa rrt: `� a D/GCNC(t{!Y (67rrilntlnfR l9an x s ., fib. 'fr TuesdaY..>uty 22. ,7-0 Q p� c sr v+. @' ROCktn :.HOi�i�100� - i t lest [� 50 S gfOUp= the > �TLesdaY 4 July 29.' 7:0flip.m: s 4 ,,,�,�"'�' r� ,��� •,, t � -s: ' �=An Eerening euith Chop►n 4 , Piano come featuring T,adeusx Matewski tw _ � �^' .' Tuesday August 5. 7W p4m4 f "„ " ,� i a BIUOk(l�ri 2 FiP4IJa` agho Cent Pi ttse' * ��M tt► special evenut9 Perforz ♦♦ a �� nee chsldrin Witt see some of itte 7:30 p.m.`r' :lam' The Enchanted Fish ;Children's theatre performance featuring the Climb Theatre Company 8:15 p.m. '.` Barbershop Quartet - Minneapolis Commodores , 0 Tuesday. August 12. 7:00 p.m.. Hardly Herd Lively, foot tapping bluegrass mixed with western swing -_ Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) AIR COMPRESSOR WHEREAS, in the 1986 budget an appropriation was approved for the purchase of one (1) air compressor for the Fire Department; and WHEREAS, $6,400 was approved for the purchase of the air compressor; and WHEREAS, two quotations were received as follows: Company uote Trade -In Total R.L. George & Assoc. $7,550 $1,590 $5,960 Midwest Marketing Inc. $7,550 $ 500 $7,050 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of one (1) air compressor from R.L. George and Associates, in the amount of $5,960 is hereby approved. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. l x Co pr essAi p r& Equipment Co. R.L. George & Associates 700 Mendelssohn Ave. No. QUOTATION # 1114 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55427 612. 541.9064 September 17, 1986 To: City of Brooklyn Center Fire Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Attn: Mr. Ron Boman Subject: Bauer breathing air systems Dear Mr. Boman: Per your request we are pleased to offer the following: One (1) Bauer Model FS 7 E 3, high pressure air compressor suitable to deliver Grade D breathable compressed air: Performance: 7.0 cfm Maximum Pressure; 5000 psig Power: Supplied by a 7 1/2 HP 3/60/230/460 volt O.D.P. electric motor driving through V belts Complete with full gauge panel high temperature shutdown switch low oil pressure shutdown switch automatic condensate drain systems securus control system P -2 purification for 25,000 cu. ft. of air fully enclosed cabinet inlet filter condition indicator Price each, as described $ 7 Start -up assistance is provided to you at no additional cost. City of Brooklyn Center Fire . Quotation Page 2 CompressAir & Equipment will allow a trade in of your existing Ingersoll Rand Model 223X5 air compressor and controls. Trade allowance: $ 1,590.00 Your trade NET PRICE: $ 5 fob Norfolk, Virginia. Estimated freight is $ 100.00. Please allow three (3) weeks after receipt of order for delivery. Our terms are Net 30 days. We believe this is complete and look forward to your highly valued order. Respectfully, t Robert L. George RLG /j g Enclosure �s � f 0 MIDWEST C USTOMER: '�fY s � o a key.► DATE: d6 !J p � � m � y SPECIAL MARKETING INC. BUYER: Q ° COMMENTS: �! / MFG: k oa d Pa r?eorlaz)e /2 �/ �1� O T 15/r o y f� /Y/ti' �/� �! 6010 BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE �� D Sh A Ciffb� P' -"" w MINNETONKA, MN 55343 3 A '!l V Z a �'y G'B� �'~ J- i X 4 y PHONE: 612/933 - 3003 /-e t ry 2 66RD d !� /�,,'� �E,�* ��� A �'h •, or 612/933 -3153 Q U O TAT I ON G No �.� /-� o �3o rT .�•� Suggested Case Case Stock No. Descriptions List Pack Wt. Cost. 7 '� kJ /S 60 / �k r a rt D �m . sS d ax �.r�.rr 6 / �E �+ f n .r '7 4 rF 5•,, r ' 4 'l .f.,.u� Xf l a M.V �••c a45 /•f U' 4/`f so /x ' A /h JLr C. & /1r.. S 6/o ' 7 o / d76 /e ,1�,�� �,� -P,• e- .4 10 0 8 / 3 l ff -le r G 0 .Sd 7 fe, n 7 30 S 1� o Q Terms: Freight: Submitted by: White— Salesperson Yellow— Manufacturer Pink —Main Office Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF SIX (6) AIR MASKS WHEREAS, in the 1986 budget an appropriation was approved for the purchase of six (6) air masks for the Fire Department; and WHEREAS, $7,200 was approved for the purchase of the air masks; and WHEREAS, two quotations were received as follows: Company Quote Total Fire Safety and Communications Corp. $1,018 /each $6,108 Mid- Central Fire & Safety $1,029 /each $6,174 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of six (6) air masks from Fire Safety and Communications Corporation, in the amount of $6,108 is hereby authorized. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, . r n the following voted in favor thereof. and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. September 18, 1986 PRICE ACKNOWLEDGMENT F Brooklyn Center Fire Department 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 L Attn: Chief Ron Boman The following quotation is for quantities as indicated and prices are subject to change after 30 days. Terms are Net 30 days, F.O.B. shipping point. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY PRICE 900229 -04 Scott 2.2 Pressure Pak - 30 Minute Aluminum $ 948.00 ea. Cylinder, flame resistant harness, donning switch. 802862 -01 2.2 Nose Cu Kit. * 00 P $ 18. ea. 802162 -01 Carry Case. $ 52.00 ea. Chief Bowman- .Pty I neglected to acrd in nose C:.i'J iUts -- when quoting via telecphone We are pleased to submit the above quotation for your consideration. Should you place an order, be assured, it will re -eive our prompt attention. FIS �z 0 FIRE SAFETY & COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION Thank You O 22 - 1ST AVE. N. E. OCH ESTER , MN 55904 288-32 (507) 288 -3221 �— L.M Thompson MID - CENTRAL FIRE INC. MID - CENTRAL Fire & Safety Co INC I V C — j PLEASE INDICATE THE ABOVE NUMBER WHEN ORDERING • 14325 28th Place N., Plymouth, MN. 55441 TO OUOTATIO DATE SALESPERSON G4& 1�� INOUI Y f5XTE IKJOUIRY NUMBER ESTIMATED SHIPPING: DATE SHIPPED VIA �F.O B TERMS , OUANTITY - DESCRIPTION PRICE ' AMOUNT A I WE ARE PLEASED TO SUBMIT THE ABOVE QUOTATION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. SHOULD YOU PLACE AN ORDER, BE ASSURED IT WILL RECEIVE OUR PROMPT ATTENTION. THIS QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PRINTED ON REVERSE SIDE, AND IS VALID FOR DAYS. THEREAFTER IT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. V �--J,B �� fit/ ACCEPTED DATE SIGN AND RETURN YELLOW ACCEPTANCE COPY WHEN ORDERING. O "To 1 ! Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF DALE BLOOMSTRAND WHEREAS, Dale Bloomstrand served as a member of the Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Commission from May, 1982 through September, 1986; and WHEREAS, his devotion to the tasks and responsibilities of the Commission contributed to the sound progress and development of the City; and WHEREAS, his public service and civic effort for the betterment of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that his service to the community should be recognized and expressed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the dedicated public service of Dale Bloomstrand as a member of the Park and Recreation Commission is hereby recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center. 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 moved its adoption: introduced the following resolution and J RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR COMMUNITY CENTER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND WHEREAS, The City of Brooklyn Center has established a Capital Projects Fund to provide funds, and to account for the expenditure of such funds, for major capital outlays (which shall include, but not be limited to, construction or acquisition of major permanent facilities having a relatively long life); and /or to reduce debt incurred for capital outlays; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the following improve- ments to the Community Center are necessary: - Reroof and insulate . . . . . . . . . . $135,000 Fill Social Hall Recessed Area. . . 15,000 Carpet Social Hall. . . . . . . . 10,000 $ 160,000 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the sum of $160,000 be appropriated from the Capital Projects Fund fund balance to the Community Center Improvements Project No. 84. 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 AMENDING THE 1986 AND THE 1987 GENERAL FUND BUDGETS ----------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General Fund Budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter does provide for the transfer of unencumbered appropriation balances from one department to another within the same fund; and WHEREAS, to satisfy O.S.H.A. regulations, it is necessary to purchase, in 1986, a new booking camera for the Police Department, for which funding was not provided in the 1986 Budget, and to discontinue the internal processing of booking film; and WHEREAS, a booking camera was funded in the 1987 Budget with the intention of internally ern 11 processing booking film; Y P g g lm; and - WHEREAS, it will now be necessary processing to have outside rocessin of the booking film. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend the 1986.General Fund Budget as follows: Increase the Appropriation for the following line items: Police Department Capital Outlay Appropriation for Other Equipment by $900. Decrease the Appropriation for the following line items: Unallocated Departmental Expenses Appropriation for Contingency by $900; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend the 1987 General Fund Budget as follows: Increase the Appropriations for the following line items: Police Department Operating Supplies, General Appropriation by $900. Unallocated Departmental Expenses Appropriation for Contingency by $400. Decrease the Appropriations for the followin g line items: Police Department Capital Outlay Appropriation for Other Equipment by $1,300. 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. MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: October 9, 1986 SUBJECT: Purchase of Booking Camera and Accessories During the recent O.S.H.A. inspection, several violations were detected in the Police Department Photo Lab. Among these were wiring problems, protective clothing and face protection, lack of proper equipment for flushing eyes in emergencies, and the storage of chemicals.. Correcting these items to specifications would cost several thousands of dollars. Already approved in the 1987 Budget is $1,300.00 for the purchase of new booking camera equipment. This camera will be a 35 mm camera, versus the 120 mm camera we have now. The Minneapolis Police Department has agreed to develop our 35 mm film at a reasonable cost. They do not have the equipment to develop the 120 mm film. If we purchase the new camera now and transfer the developing to Minneapolis, we could eliminate the photo processing done by our police personnel. This would eliminate the need for upgrading the deficiencies noted in the photo lab. Although money was budgeted for the camera with accessories in the 1987 budget, no monies were requested for the processing by an outside agency. In pricing the booking camera needs, we have found a new camera which will enable us to purchase the camera and accessories for a total of $900.00 (itemized list attached). I therefore recommend that we purchase the camera with accessories immediately from the 1986 contingency account for a total cost of $900.00. I further recommend that of the $1,300.00 approved for this purchase in Capital Outlay Account #4552 in the 1987 budget, $900.00 be transferred to the Police Department's Miscellaneous Office Supplies Account #4220 to cover processing costs and the remaining $400.00 be transferred into the contingency fund. PHOTO EQUIPMENT One (1) Minolta Maxxum 5000 camera with 50 mm lens $ 279.99 One (1) Minolta 2800 A.F. flash unit 109.95 One (1) remote cord R.C. 10005 28.50 One (1) skylight filter 10.00 One (1) Universal Photo Identification Stand 443.85 Four (4) casters for stand 25.00 TOTAL REQUEST $ 897.29 Member introduced the followin g resolution and moved its adoption: ® RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED SHADE TREES (ORDER NO. DST86 -2) WHEREAS, a Notice to Abate Nuisance and a Notice of Non - Compliance with the Order to Abate the Nuisance have been issued to the owners of certain properties in the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, the owners of said properties have failed to abate the nuisance as ordered: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The diseased shade trees at the following addresses are hereby declared to be a public nuisance. PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS TREE NUMBER(S) David L. Jensen 5501 Brooklyn Boulevard 361 2. The property owners are hereby given five (5) business days in which to contest the determination of City Council by requesting a hearing in writing. Said request shall be filed with the City Clerk. 3. After five (5) days, if the property owner fails to request a hearing, the trees shall be removed by the City. 4. All removal costs, including legal, financing and administrative charges, shall be specially assessed against the property. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly_passed and adopted. i j t MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION SEPTEMBER 25, 1986_ CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Pro tem Mike Nelson at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pro tem Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Carl Sandstrom, Wallace Bernards and Anne Wallerstedt. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht and Commissioner Ainas had informed the Planning and Inspection Department that they would be unable to attend and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 11, 1986 Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the September 11, 1986 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 86037 (City of Brooklyn Center HRA) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of ® business, a request for preliminary plat approval to resubdivide into a lot and an outlot the land south of the Earle Brown (Brooklyn) Farm to be developed as the Earle Brown Commons residential complex. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86037, attached). The Secretary explained to the Commission that the City Council serves as the Housing and Redevelopment for the City and that the application is actually made on their behalf. The Secretary also explained that the outlot for the second phase of the residential development would be unbuildable until it was replatted. He explained that this replatting would have to take place prior to construction of the second phase. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the land involved in the plat was purchased with the Earle Brown Farm. The Secretary answered that part of the land had been included in the Earle Brown Farm site, but that a majority of it was located on a parcel that had been owned by Texas International Airlines. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the property was part of the tax increment financing district. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He stated that when the tax increment bonds are paid off the land would go back onto the tax rolls and would not be tax exempt. Commissioner Sandstrom asked when the property would go back on the tax rolls. The Planner stated that the law permits a tax increment district for up to 25 years, but that the City has committed to complete the tax increment district within 10 to 15 years. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the subsidy was an advantage for the developer. The Secretary pointed out that the property would pay the same amount in taxes, but that the taxes would be dedicated to the redevelopment and to some extent to a reduction in the price of the land. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 86037) Chairman Pro tem Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked 9 -25 -86 -1- whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86037 (City of Brooklyn Center) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 86037, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The developer shall execute an easement for storm sewer and the detention pond and said easement shall be indicated on the final plat prior to final plat approval. 4. The developer shall execute an easement for sanitary sewer and water and said easement shall be indicated on the final plat prior to final plat approval. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Nelson, Commissioners - Malecki, Sandstrom, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. APPLICATION NO. 86038 (Gabbert and Beck) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for site plan approval to construct a new access onto Brooklyn Boulevard and install a merge lane and parking lot modifications at the Westbrook Mall, 5717 Xerxes Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86038 attached). The Secretary also noted that there would be no median opening in Brooklyn Boulevard to serve the proposed access. He also added that Hennepin County which now maintains Brooklyn Boulevard supports the new access arrangement over the existing situation. Commissioner Bernards asked who would pay for the sidewalk relocation. The Secretary stated that it was his understanding the applicant would pay for that relocation. Commissioner Bernards also expressed concern regarding sight lines for cars wishing to exit the site relative to cars traveling northbound in the merge lane. Commissioner Sandstrom recommended that a condition be added to preserve sight lines at the proposed access in accordance with the sight triangle standards for public streets. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked what would happen to the access between the Westbrook Mall parking lot and the parking lot for the Brookdale Ten Office Building. Mr. Warren Beck stated that it would be unaffected by the proposed access improvement. Commissioner Malecki stated that the City's policy is generally to reduce the number of accesses and turning movements onto Brooklyn Boulevard. She stated that the proposed access does not seem to be an equal trade given the arrangement that exists at present. She stated that it would add more traffic movements onto Brooklyn 9 -25 -86 -2- Boulevard. The Secretary acknowledged that there would be more traffic movements onto Brooklyn Boulevard than at present, but added that the same could happen if a driveway were opened up between the Westbrook Mall lot and the First Brookdale Bank. He stated that the proposed access location is better than the location of the access presently serving the bank (which will be closed). Commissioners Sandstrom and Bernards then discussed the concern of additional turning movements onto Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary pointed out that the Westbrook Mall has claimed there have been access problems for many years. He stated that there is visibility of Westbrook Mall from Brooklyn Boulevard, but no access. Chairman Pro tem Nelson asked why it was appropriate to force cars to turn left or right so soon after entering the lot rather than giving them a space to drive in to the lot and then to disperse. The Secretary stated that the objective of such a barrier close to an entrance is to disperse traffic as it enters the lot and move it toward parking spaces rather than right in front of the shopping center. Commissioner Bernards commented that the barrier would force traffic to slow down as it enters the lot. Commissioner M,alecki asked whether there would be adequate room for cars which are merging right to exit into the shopping center relative to cars merging left from 56th into northbound Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary stated that with the proposed access improvements there would be an entire lane to do this merging rather than the shorter merging lanes that exist at present. The Planner stated that it depended on the number of movements involved as to whether there would be a • significant number of conflicts between these merging movements. He added that there would probably not be a great number of such movements and conflicts in this case. Commissioner Malecki acknowledged that such conflicts do exist in other locations, but asked whether the City had to create them. Commissioner Sandstrom compared the proposed access to the office building on the north side of County Road 10 and east of Brooklyn Boulevard. He pointed out that the City requires people using that office building to go around to Northway Drive and enter the site from the east. The Secretary stated that there are far more turning movements from County Road 10 from Brooklyn Boulevard than from 56th Avenue North onto Brooklyn Boulevard. He added that there is not a full merge lane in that location. He, therefore, concluded that far more conflicts would result in that location than in the instance of Westbrook Mall. Chairman Pro tem Nelson asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Warren Beck stated that he had complaints from tenants and customers on how to get into Westbrook Mall since its construction in 1976. He stated that he had expected a period of adjustment until customers learned the access routes to the center. He added, however, that after 10 years it is still a problem for the tenants and customers. He stated that an access onto Brooklyn Boulevard was important to make the shopping center work. Mr. Beck then introduced Mr. Howard Preston of Bennett, Ringrose and Wolsfeld (BRW) to discuss questions of traffic engineering. Mr. Preston addressed concerns raised in the Planning Commission's discussion. He stated that a merge lane can accommodate 1800 vehicles crossing in both directions in an hour's time. He stated that the peak hour traffic into the access on Brooklyn Boulevard would be only 32 ® cars. Mr. Preston also pointed out that the taper of the existing merge lanes onto and off of Brooklyn Boulevard is short and that the installation of a full merge lane between Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10 would improve the merging movement of 9 -25 -86 -3- cars both onto and off of Brooklyn Boulevard. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether trucks could make the movement off of Brooklyn Boulevard into the access to the Westbrook Mall shopping center. Mr. Preston stated that pickup or a straight truck could make the movement, but not a semi trailer truck. He added that there are other routes into the site that a semi can take and that this side of the center is not a loading dock area. Mr. Preston also explained that the T intersection as cars enter the site off Brooklyn Boulevard functions well because it contains potential for fewer traffic conflicts, therefore, he added, cars can move through such an intersection more easily. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86038 (Gabbert and Beck) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to recommend approval of Application No. 86038, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall execute a performance agreement with a supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) to assure completion of improvements, both in the arkin lot and in the i r prior to the e ubl c a p g p g Y� p issuance of the driveway permit by the County. 2. The applicant shall execute an easement for sidewalk purposes within a portion of the greenstrip adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard prior to issuance of the driveway permit by the County. 3. The applicant shall submit a written acknowledgement from First • Brookdale Bank agreeing to the proposed driveway relocation prior to issuance of the driveway permit. 4. The applicant and First Brookdale Bank shall execute a cross access agreement for the use of the access drive prior to issuance of the driveway permit. 5. Plan approval acknowledges a driveway opening of 32' on the basis of the recommendation of the Director of Public Works. 6. Plan approval acknowledges a proof -of- parking plan for 562 spaces on the site (submitted by BRW and dated 9- 11 -86) as fulfillment of ordinance parking requirments. 7. Traffic control signs shall be installed on the site adjacent to the proposed access in accordance with recommendations of the Director of Public Works and such signery shall be indicated on the approved site plan. 8. The plan shall be revised to indicate sight lines at the access onto Brooklyn Boulevard in accordance with Section 35 -560 of the Zoning Ordinance prior to consideration by the City Council. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: Commissioner Malecki. The motion passed. • Commissioner Malecki explained that she opposed the application because she was not convinced that the potential problems with turning movements onto Brooklyn Boulevard had been solved and felt that there were other solutions to the problem of access to the Westbrook Mall shopping center. 9 -25 -86 -4- i The Secretary left the meeting at 8:33 p.m. ® DISCUSSION ITEM a. Retail Parking Formula The Planner then reviewed with the Commission additional statistical and graphic information on the impact of a change in the retail parking formula to either 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area or 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. He stated that the decision between 5 spaces per 1,000 and 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. was not a black and white decision. He pointed out that the lower formula would allow for more development on retail properties, including the possibility of satellite developments. He informed the Commission that one of the concerns expressed at the City Council level was whether the new formula would induce new development which would in turn lead to the elimination of extra -wide greenstrips provided by proof -of- parking areas. The Planner also pointed out that a requirement of 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area would provide a greater comfort margin than the lesser formula, but would still do away with the heavy parking requirement on smaller buildings. In a brief discussion, Commissioner Bernards indicated that it might be just as well to error on the side of caution and go with the higher requirement of 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Sandstrom expressed concern that the City be competitive with other communities so that development which could locate here does not go to other communities because of our parking requirement. ADJOURNMENT • Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Bernards to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:06 p.m. Chairman S 9 -25 -86 -5- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JULY 31, 1986 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Lowell Ainas, Mike Nelson, Wallace Bernards and Ann Wallerstedt. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. The Secretary noted that Commissioner Sandstrom had called to say that he would be unable to attend and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 17, 1986 Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the July 17, 1986 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Nelson, and Bernards. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Wallerstedt. APPLICATION NO. 86029 (David Otto) ollowing Thai mr an's explan tia on, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for a variance from Section 35 -704 of the City Ordinances to allow full retail use of the building at 5810 Xerxes Avenue North while providing fewer parking stalls than required by the ordinance. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86029 attached). The Secretary noted that the Planning Commission had recommended a change in the retail parking formula which would have eliminated the need for the variance. He stated that the City Council considered that amendment and deferred approval of a first reading and asked for more information. The Secretary stated that, since that time, the Planner had prepared a memo providing additional information on potential building construction resulting from the formula change and the potential traffic generation. He stated that the City had also received a comment from Short - Elliott- Hendrickson on this topic. He reminded the Commission of the traffic study done by Short - Elliott- Hendrickson at the request of the City in 1985. He stated that the intersection that would probably be most affected by the ordinance change would be John Martin Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway. He noted that the letter from SEH stated that the level of service might, at worst, drop to level of service C from level of service B under the probable development scenario in the traffic study. The Secretary stated that staff would recommend an ordinance amendment more strongly than a variance in this case, but that a variance could be justified under the present ordinance. Commissioner Bernards asked for an explanation of the reference to the "southeast" corner of the building. The Secretary explained that that is where the proof -of- parking area within the building is located. Commissioner Bernards asked whether parking was permitted on Xerxes Avenue North or Northway Drive. The Secretary stated that Xerxes Avenue North was posted "no parking ", but that he was not sure if Northway Drive is posted or not. He stated that he had never seen anyone park on Northway Drive. Commissioner Bernards asked whether both accesses to this site were on the property in question. The Secretary stated that the easterly access was shared with the Health Spa. 7 -31 -86 -1- Commissioner Malecki asked whether there would be a surplus of 13 parking stalls under the new formula. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. There followed a discussion of the options before the Planning Commission. The Secretary stated that the variance could be denied with a recommendation to adopt the ordinance, or tabled with recommendation that the ordinance be studied by the City Council. He also stated that the matter could be sent on to the City Council together with a recommendation to approve the variance, but accompanied with a recommendation to change the ordinance as well. Chairman Lucht asked whether the tenant remodeling would come back to the Planning Commission. The Secretary responded in the negative. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Otto stated that he had nothing to add to the report. He stated that he did not believe there was parking allowed on Northway Drive. He also explained that his lease agreement with the Health Spa for parking stalls on the St. Paul Book site had lapsed and that, therefore, he was free to use all of the stalls on his property. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 86029 and asked whether anyone present wished to comment. Seeing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. I CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86029 AND RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 86029 on the basis of the findings listed below and recommending adoption of an ordinance amendment regarding the retail parking formula. The findings in favor of the variance are as follows: 1. A hardship is experienced by the applicant in that a substantial portion of the building is reserved for proof -of- parking and is, therefore, underutilized in order to deal with a potential parking problem which has no history of existing on the site. 2. The reuse of the building originally designed and used for another purpose is somewhat unique within the C2 zoning district. 3• The hardship is created by the existing ordinance which requires much more parking for each 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area for a smaller retail establishment than for a larger retail center. 4. No detriment to surrounding property is anticipated if the entire building is utilized for retail sales purposes. Voting in favor of the previous motion: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 7 -31 -86 _2. ADJOUMENT The Secretary briefly mentioned to the Planning Commission upcoming business items on an apartment development on 69th Avenue North and the cut - through traffic concern in the Central Neighborhood. There was a motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:09 p.m. Chairman 7 -31 -86 -3- Planning Commission Information Sheet Applicant: David Otto Location: 5810 Xerxes Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35 -70 Subdivision 2c of the Zoning Ordinance to allow less than the required number of parking stalls for retail use of at 810 Xerxes Avenue North. The property the entire building 5 P P Y in question is zoned C2 and is bounded by Xerxes Avenue North on the west, by Northway Drive on the north, by First Minnesota Savings Bank on the east, and by the health spa building and TCF on the south. Issue Clarification and Background The building in question has a gross floor area of 114,7 sq. ft. Under the parking formula set forth in the Zoning Ordinance for retail establishment, the entire building would be required to have 11+ (8 x 13.743) = 121 spaces. The applicant, who owns the building, proposes 1 sq. ft. of retail space and 390 sq. ft. of warehouse space for a total requirement of 119 spaces. The site presently has 92 spaces and there are five additional proof -of- parking spaces inside the building which would be lost to the proposed interior remodeling. The extent of the variance is, therefore, 27 spaces. The existing building is in conformance because the floor space within the building is divided into 11,700 sq. ft. of retail space requiring 96.6.or 97 spaces, and 3,0 sq. ft. of garage parking area within the building which has been used for limited ar storage space. No additional parking spaces were required for the garage /storage h City in 1 when the City The internal arkin s aces were accepted b the y 975 Y area. parking P P Y ® lifted a deed restriction on the use of the building for an S and H Greenstamp Redemption Center and replaced it with a restriction that approximately 3,000 sq. ft. within the building be reserved for proof -of- parking and storage use. The proof -of- parking provision has never been exercised for customer parking since 1975. In fact, for 10 years, the Health Spa had an agreement with this property to use over 20 parking stalls on the lot at 5810 Xerxes Avenue North. Variance Standards The proposed variance is subject to the Standards for a Variance contained in Section 35 -2 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) . The applicant, Mr. David Otto, has submitted a letter addressing those standards (also attached). Mr. Otto states that the proposed remodeling would make better use of existing parking by adding an entrance to the north' side of the building toward the east lot. Two of the tenants presently face Xerxes Avenue North and have no parking directl y in front of their space. Mr. Otto argues that the business in the building are assets to the community and that a real hardship is worked on them when improvement of the tenant layout is limited by an overly restrictive parking requirement. Regarding standard (b) pertaining to uniqueness of the circumstances, Mr. Otto simply asserts that the existing site circulation and shape are unique and not common generally to other property in the same zoning classification. Mr. Otto states that the hardship is the result of the ordinance parking requirement and has not been created by anyone presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. Finally, Mr. Otto states that the granting of the variance will have no detrimental effect on surrounding property, but will, in fact, serve to enhance the vitality of this commercial node. 7 -31 -86 -1- Application No. 86029 continued Analysis The applicant pictures the hardship as an imbalance between parking and building entrances caused by the existing restriction on space within the building which reduces flexibility in arranging tenant spaces. (The restricted area is at the southeast corner of the building and does somewhat limit the possibilities for entrance on the east side of the building where much of the site's parking is located). While this is a valid point, it seems clear that the existing tenant spaces could be provided more convenient access without doing away with the restricted area in the building. It seems to us that what the applicant really wants is full or nearly full utilization of an existing building in the C2 zone for uses which are permitted in that zone. The real hardship is that building space is being kept out of use to meet a potential parking problem when, in actual fact, a parking surplus has existed for years. Further, the City recognized the parking excess in 1975 when it gave its blessing to an off -site parking agreement with the Health Spa for use of over 20 spaces on the subject site. So, the hardship is really underutilization of existing building space in order to live within the letter of the ordinance, not because an actual parking shortage exists. The applicant states that the shape and site circulation are unique. Certainly, every commercial site can be said to be unique. The site design in this case may qualify for being uniquely bad - ie. two tenant entrances on the west side of the building (for visibility onto Xerxes) with no parking adjacent to those spaces. However, it is not unique in the sense of the CEAP property or the Brookdale Six Office buildings, with elongated accesses and soil and topographic problems. It is a small retail center with frontage on two streets, one of which is a major thoroughfare. The site layout is certainly poor, but this circumstance was not really created by the City, or the ordinance parking requirement. It was created by the original owners and developers of the property with the help of their Or architects. With respect to detrimental effects on surrounding property, we would agree that, in this case, no detrimental effect should occur, that parking would be adequate. The detrimental effects would be more indirect. The granting of variances unless clearly justified generally undermines community standards from which all presumably benefit. The Health Spa will also be more restricted in its ability to find additional parking. Assuming for the moment that the circumstances in this case are unique (which they do not appear to be) and there will be no detrimental effect from granting a variance, the real question is what is the hardship and what created it? The hardship cited by the applicant - restricted tenant layout - was really created by the previous owner, not the Zoning Ordinance. A hardship of underutilization, however, does seem directly related to the ordinance parking requirement rather than to any parking shortage which has actually been experienced. Recommendation As the Commission is aware, the retail parking formula in the Zoning Ordinance has been under study for almost a year. One of the unique features of the existing formula is that it requires much more parking for the first 15,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area than for additinal floor area. Since the building in question is just under 15,000 sq. ft., it bears the heaviest burden under the formula. Parking studies do not bear out the presumption in the ordinance that the initial square footage in a center generates a larger share of the traffic. In fact, they indicate that traffic generation per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area increases generally with the size of the development and breadth of the tenant mix. We again recommend 7 -31 -86 -2- Application No. 86029 continued consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to make the retail parking formula more neutral in its effect, rather than weighted so heavily at the low end. (Further information on the proposed ordinance amendment is attached). However, if it is felt that an ordinance change is unwarranted, we would still recommend a variance be granted. A parking variance (Application No. 78009) was granted In somewhat similar circustances when Pilgrim Cleaners converted a former gas station into a dry cleaners and pick -up station. Both cases involve the re -use of buildings originally designed for somewhat different purposes than their present use. s 7 -31 -86 -3- via WA MW MW APPLICATION NO.j ®� r _., :. all IL i - Gig _ ` � t' ��1 S' •� St t q Raga► pb� . o. s -���� 1Z:o' Vie' It,,e' 6.!' q.�pwv a hkb 1v ' r.• 1 t - {gr' '' a is ., is •1! * N�1.. ♦ - .4r. �''•"` V' �• i L`S M ` tv " " _ y';' �1:" _ a, r: '• R' ' IY t. e - .'d r,� , , f �. yX �+; ,•(� G �� .. , r:�tT= �.�,. �.;;' •::� '.i. , s b tt ,r, ;i;� '` '� � + _'s � Q _ � + •-� � �� , r+,. 1 a ti � -`=.�� f am L ,yam t h Tai ., l� .► Y ..t., i red 1�:� {� c5.. t:. r - •' .J -t. ! _ -f: s•I i. , .�,'�► "'S.. L. ! - ... •� • .� ,� rl ` N L do .Q ? `•.. . i t - • :f �:�Tk _.ra[ =:ti ' \ �`� '� ..`r ; ����. \ ��. — ssR�sri :�aD� r ' ♦� iii • LIBRARY • AV • USA grow— r _ ■ ♦� �■ ••/ i r e �__--- •- ---e4t - -SI °23'44 "E 1 0 a 368.10(R.L.S.) R•440.9.�8a7` gyh 'qP' ' c . v A � M I ( I 6 h I 1 da: /d.:oy �• � h C\ 3 6 u v \ 142,098 S.E ac `�� Sefbe <.E Li u 3.262 ACRES rot, a 'V >J i L i�0 T \ " onnvr- "' � ^ a �_ � ] Pe .J ZONE R_7 r / \ n r I D .� "� v V •, I W S 1013' 19" e I 146.54 N �t� Fti 1 `— 848 --�8. ,pro \ 817 2 SI ° 13'19 "Wai� D. r 48.00 �A.ti D zo zo S43 °46 41 ° E 1 \/D 168,722 S. F, I 36.73 �L. N /f . \ / O / 3.873 ACRES ZONE R -7 .A e' u\ m e t , I „ D\ cri Ln J pP ,d' I �,/ V" sC: .Sef6ack , �u� ai B48 .� Q," �� n4 0 U T L 0 T A 8 °' 1 r�' • D _. L—, 6" _ e' tov zo a \_ ' c e _ ;Y — _.. _ �� ae• ^' � �,./P � I mss\ 166.65 a "S Nao''e�. N I ° 23'22 " ^ .D E 388.51 (R L.S.) �'P J v Zp u . e.e. $44.* 437.) /O1 t, h\ hL•346.89 6=30 °34'38" is. - e O e... °.e. 844.1 m e 8.650 <rs .�' L =101 58 z f u1a ■ a e w 1\ a 0 ..r< us.e e / ` 1: , -c• r` _. -,�."� 9 43 R s. 41.1 w « 0 <a�2.28 S89 8'43 07'3o8 ` 405 e l� 1 1. ea. M.A. e,f.l °7.1.i 11..4 ♦ / < a I Tr1Tn1 "ne•f ' I A �1 m1 WE mm m AP � 111 1111[tS .�. ■� Iii Ii1 11 � 11 1� a�, � ; -� ■■ i11 � 11 Iii �.� � ;�� N . AW C • • ♦ •.� r r CO 9 �; \ • 'p B -- . 3 � A ti o ll Al w. f CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1986 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding parking requirements for retail buildings. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. P _ lease contact act the Personnel Coordinator inator at 61 x+40 to mak e 0o d 5 5 arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RETAIL BUILDINGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -320. SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT 3. Special Uses c. Office buildings or office parks totaling over 70,000 sq. ft. in gross floor area Section 35 -321. C1A Service /Office District 3. Special Uses b. Office buildings or office parks totaling over 70,000 sq. ft. in gross floor area Section 35 -322. COMMERCE DISTRICT r. Individual or clustered establishments including, but not limited _ g� to, retail centers and /or office buildings with over 70,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Section 35 - 330. 3. Special Uses i. Buildings or clusters of buildings on a single parcel with a total gross floor area over 70,000 sq. ft. 2. Commerce (Retail and Service /Office) c. Other retail retail stores or centers and financial institutions: ] Te n aces for the first 1,000 square [ feet of gross floor area or fraction thereof; [eight spaces ORDINANCE NO. for each 1,000 square feet of floor area in excess of 1,000 square feet, but not exceeding 15,000 square feet; six spaces for each 1,000 square feet f gross floor area in q o g excess of 15,000 square feet, but not exceeding 30,000 square feet;] 5.5 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area exceeding E30,0001 1,000 square feet. See also subsection 4e of this section. 4. Miscellaneous e. Individual and clustered establishments including but not limited to, industrial buildings, retail centers, and /or office buildings, which have a total gross floor area exceeding 70,000 square feet: Spaces as required by the subsections above or spaces as determined by a professional traffic or parking analysis when prepared at the request of the City Manager, whichever requirement is greater. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Y � g p Adopted this day of 19 ATTEST: Mayor Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted). I MEMORANDUM TO: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection FROM: Gary Shallcross, Planne�g' RE: Retail Parking Formula DATE: October 8, 1986 Attached are a number of items relating to the discussion of the City's retail parking formula. Briefly, the items include the following: 1. Memo to Planning original staff memo dated April 10, 1986. This is the g mo recommending a change in the ordinance parking formula for retail uses. It includes a discussion of the problem, alternate formulas, implications of a formula change, e and arguments pro and con. 2. Memo to City Manager et al dated June 1 _. 9, 1986. This memo was prepared in response to the discussion by the City Council on May 5, 1986 regarding the proposed ordinance change. It explains the effect of the formula change in terms of additional building area at various retail centers in the city and a discussion of landscaping impacts. It is accompanied by a table which projects additional building area and traffic generation. These are worst case numbers. A draft resolution to adopt a landscape point system is also included. (The point system would serve to establish minimums in terms of site plantings.) 3. Table for 5.5 spaces /1,000 sq. ft. gross floor area. This table performs the same exercise as the table attached to the 6 -19 -86 memo above, except that a formula of 10 spaces for the first 1,000 sq. ft. and 5.5 spaces for each additional 1,000 sq. ft. (gross floor area) is assumed. The result for each retail property is a smaller parking surplus translating into less development potential and less threat to oversized greenstrips. This second alternate formula does, however, achieve greater equity between large and small retail establishments than the current formula. 4. Graphic Comparison of Formulas. A graph comparing the existing formula, the two alternate formulas, and the Urban Land Institute formula is attached. Each line on the graph shows how the average number of spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA (vertical axis) changes relative to the size of a building (horizontal axis). The existing formula and the second alternate (B) formula move toward convergence since both are based primarily on 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA- (Note that h at there is a wide difference, d d erence, however, for smaller buildings.) The first alternate formula (A) parallels the second, but always at .5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA lower. The lowest of all is the Urban Land Institute formula which, in this range of building size, is approximately 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Gross Leaseable Area (less than GFA). 5. Letter from SEH. A letter from Glen Van Wormer with Short - E1 ott-Hendrickson commenting on the worst case traffic impact at the most affected intersection (Shingle Creek Parkway and John Martin) is also attached. The letter projects additional trips generated by development that could occur if alternate formula A (5/1,000 sq. ft. GFA) were in effect. In the worst case, the level of service at this intersection could drop from "B" to "C ", still considered acceptable. The impact under alternate formula B is not discussed, but would no doubt be considerably less. In addition to the above items, I would suggest that the Council consider an ordinance amendment making all buildings or centers over 100,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area a special use in any zone where they are permitted. This would give the City greater influence over access location, building orientation, etc. In addition, I would recommend, especially if alternate formula A is adopted, that the parking requirement for such large buildings meet either the ordinance formula or a parking requirement recommended by a professional parking analyst, whichever is greater. This policy should also be adopted by ordinance. Attachments im N , MEMORANDUM TO: Brooklyn Center Planning Commission FROM: Gary Shallcross, Planner SUBJECT: Retail Parking Requirement DATE: April 10, 1986 The following information and analysis is offered as an overview of the issue of retail parking requirements. It is offered to provide supporting reasons for the draft ordinance amendment contained in the Planning ommission's April ril 10 1 agenda. P 86 9 g Documentation of Problem One particular situation which has stimulated a review of the retail parking requirement is the retail building at 5810 Xerxes Avenue North (St. Paul Book and Stationery, et al). This building has a gross floor area of 14,743 sq. ft. The parking requirement for the building under the existing ordinance formula is 121 spaces. However, only 92 spaces exist on the site. By agreement with the City, a 3,043 sq. ft. area within the building is used for storage and is set aside for proof - of- parking for 5 additional stalls. The 97 stalls potentially available meet the existing requirement for the 11,700 sq. ft. of space devoted to retail sales. (The reason for the agreement is that the building was originally used as a green -stamp redemption center with limited "retail" floor space). The tenants in this building face Xerxes and Northway Drive and so the parking north of the building is heavily used. However, most of the parking is to the east of the building and is not heavily used. In fact, until recently, the Health Spa leased 20 parking stalls from t g m he St. Paul Book site in this area. It is my judgment that the 5810 Xerxes Avenue North building could be devoted entirely to retail sales within another entrance on the east side of the building with no shortage of parking. In fact, the existing parking would be better utilized if there were an entrance on the east side of the building. Another basis for concern over the retail parking requirement is personal observation. My experience and that of other staff members I have talked with is that the only parking lot serving a retail center or establishment that has ever been full is Brookdale's at Christmas time. The parking lots of individual retail establishments and the smaller strip centers invariably have significant excess parking area, even at the peak Christmas shopping season. This excess parking area was documented indirectly last December when the City had some aerial photographs taken of the Brookdale area on Saturday, December 7, 1985, in the afternoon. We have been informed by the manager at Brookdale, Mr. Chris Cummins, that this was one of the busiest days of the year for Brookdale. The parking lot at Brookdale was nearly full according to the photographs, but the parking lots of other retail establishments near Brookdale had very noticeable excess capacity. The Brookdale Square center is fairly heavily used at Christmas, -1- but there are over 100 stalls behind the center that are almost never used. There are also over 200 stalls - acknowledged in a proof-of-parking g g p p n plan for this site. f There is also the act that the UA Theatre and T- Wrights draw traffic heavily on weekends and evenings. While it is perhaps difficult to judge in the case of Brookdale Square, because of the mixture of uses, my impression is that the number of spaces required for the retail center exceeds even the peak parking demand. Parking Formulas Given that there is excess parking space at retail establisments in the City apart from Brookdale, what has caused that excess? I would point out the "shape" of the existing parking formula as the main cause. The existing parking formula is 11 spaces for the first 1,000 sq. ft. of G.F.A. (Gross Floor Area) ; 8 spaces for each additional 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. up to 15,000 sq. ft.; 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. from 15,000 sq. ft. to 30,000 sq. ft.; and 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of G.F.A. over 30,000 sq. ft. This places a much heavier parking requirement on smaller retail buildings than on larger buildings. A 15,000 sq. ft. building such as the St. Paul Book and Stationery building must have parking at the rate of 8.2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of G.F.A.. Meanwhile, a 100,000 sq. ft. building like Target must have spaces at the rate of 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of G.F.A. (a rate 27% less) . Finally, a 1 million sq. ft. center such as Brookdale must provide parking at just over 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A.. The Urban Land Institute performed a nationwide study of retail parking demand in the early 1980 It concludes that parking demand per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area actually increases with the size of the center rather than decreasing as under the City's present formula. The conclusions as to the eneral level of parking demand g P g an d is also much less than required b the City ' q y y s ordinance. The formula suggested by the ULI study is: 4.0 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of GLA (Gross Leaseable Area) from 25,000 sq. ft. to 400,000 sq. ft.; a linear progression from 4.0 to 5.0 spaces per 1, 000 sq. ft . of GLA between 400, 000 sq. ft. and 600, 000 sq. ft . ; and 5.0 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of GLA over 600,000 sq. ft. (This formula is geared to meet the 20th busiest hour of the year.) Note that this formula is based on gross leaseable area, a subset of gross floor area. The amount of parking required at 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leaseable area will be less than required at 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. I do not recommend altering our retail parking formula to match the formula contained in the ULI study. The experience of parking demand at Brookdale and the fact that a significant number of stalls will be lost to snow storage at the busiest shopping season lead me to the conclusion that a stiffer requirement is needed here. I have also contacted a number of other suburban cities in the metro area. Their retail parking formulas are listed in the attached survey. Some of these requirements are less onerous than Brooklyn Center's and some are more onerous. (I am very skeptical of the Bloomington requirement of 1 space per 85 sq. ft. since this would have required over 47,000 parking spaces for the retail portion of the mega - mall alone and only 19,000 spaces were proposed for the entire complex and even that number had to be put in a three -level ramp.) The formula suggested in the draft ordinance amendment is as follows: -2- -10 spaces for the first 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. - 5 spaces /1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. from 1,000 sq. ft. to 500,000 sq. ft. - 5.5 spaces /1,000 sq. ft. of G.F.A. A table showing the resulting parking requirement for various sizes of buildings is attached. This formula, on balance, is much closer to our existing formula than to the ULI formula. It would, however, significantly reduce the parking requirement for smaller retail establishments and neighborhood centers where the excess is most apparent. It would also, however, keep a 10 stall requirement for the first 1,000 sq. __ft..of G.F.A. to deal with the high traffic convenience store such as Superamerica. Implications One immediate question that arises is what implication the proposed formula has for Brookdale where there does not appear to be an excess of parking. The effect on Brookdale would actually be nil. Since Brookdale has begun to use its central mall for shops and open -air eating establishments, we must count this area for the purposes of parking requirements. The parking requirement for all of Brookdale is about 5,400 stalls under the existing ordinance. Under the proposed ordinance, the requirement would drop to about 5,200 spaces. Brookdale currently has just over 5,000 spaces. So, there will continue to be somewhat of a parking deficiency. If the new formula were reduced simply to 5 stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A., Brookdale would be roughly in conformance, perhaps with a slight excess. The implications for other existing evelopment are that some additions ions to buildings would be feasible which ich are not under the existing ordinance. More space could also be devoted to restaurants which require more parking per 1,000 sq. ft. than retail. There is certainly the possibility on some larger sites that detached establishments may be built out in the unutilized areas of existing parking lots. The implication for future retail developments is simply that they could be somewhat larger than under current ordinance. They could occupy more of the site and, therefore, increase density. The question of density is always a sensitive one for planning. It would be counter - productive to allow development at densities which would overtax public facilities such as roads and sewers. On the other hand, it is a costly burden to finance public facilities that are not being used to an optimum extent. The potential for increased density under the proposed formula is real. There would be some effect on traffic, sewer and water use etc. The impact, however, should not be a threat to the City's system of public improvements. Although some sites might have a 20% parking surplus, the building cannot thereby be expanded by 20 %. Every addition of 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area must be matched by 1,500 sq. ft. in parking area to support it under the revised formula. So a 20% parking excess might result in an 8% building expansion. Also, the larger the existing site, the less difference the new formula would make. Total expansions should, therefore, be pretty manageable. -3- Another factor coming into play that will tend to offset the effect of a change in the parking formula is the recent introduction of ponding requirements for drainage attenuation and water purification imposed by the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Districts. New sites will likely have to devote some area to meet these ponding requirements. And, if the day should come when the requirements would become retroactive, there may be some excess land on existing developments to accommodate such ponding. The Commission has also considered some quantitative planting requirements for commercial and industrial developments. It may be that green areas would have to expand to accommodate more plantings required by a new landscaping ordinance. Arguments Briefly summarized below are some arguments, pro and con, that occur to me on the issue of reducing the retail parking requirement. Con - Almost all the retail development in the City has been designed to meet the existing standard. Changing the formula now will do little for existing businesses and will put them at a disadvantage relative to new development. The formula may be imbalanced, but now isn't the time to change it. Everyone should face the same standard. -It will be harder to find a parking stall. -There will be more traffic. -The infill development may be tacky. -The City would just cater to the greed of developers who always want to maximize the use of their land. Density would increase. Pro - Increased density has public as well as private benefits, at least to a point. Tax base per acre is enhanced. The increased profits from higher density allow property owners to build in more quality and pay for a higher standard of on- going maintenance. -The recent and upcoming highway improvements to and through Brooklyn Center greatly enhance this area's access. Land values have risen as a result. Unnecessary parking has become more expensive to provide and maintain. The locational advantages of Brooklyn Center land will be wasted if development is not maximized to the greatest reasonable extent. -The land no longer needed for parking can be used for more landscaping, vertical structures, or required ponding, all of which are more satisfying aesthetically than unused parking stalls. -4- - Before long, many retail properties in the City will have amortized their debt, and be in need of renovation. This period will likely be accompanied by desires to renovate, expand, upgrade, and /or change use as we are seeing now in single- family homes. A reduced parking requirement can facilitate sch plans which will bring about more investment in the community. -Areas in the City in need of redevelopment could benefit. The cost or removing obsolete b olete and unsightly buildings invariably requires that the new development 0 achieve a higher density than the old. Parking requirements are, of course, directly related to potential densities. A reduced parking requirement allow for part of the increase in density that redevelopment will require. Recommendation While I feel the arguments against an ordinance change are quite valid and the process of adjustment to a new retail parking standard will not be entirely smooth, I do recommend that the City adopt an ordinance amendment reducing the retail parking formula. The present formula is simply not in sync with reality and the longer it remains in effect, the more it will be viewed as an artificial, arbitrary and costly barrier to rising development pressures. Certainly, those who wish to develop land for profit should not be allowed to build without accountability to the public need for order. But neither should the City impose a development standard that artificially constrains the level of efficiency attainable on a site. The proposed parking formula is very unlikely to result in on- street parking which is the greatest threat to the traffic capacity of our local system of roads, whereas the present parking formula has resulted in an inefficient use of private land. The amount of useable land in Brooklyn Center is limited. It, is therefore, in the City's interest to make the most efficient use of available private land while insuring that public facilities are not jeopardized. A better trade -off is possible under the proposed formula. -5- ` Survey of Retail Parking Requirements Bloomington 1 space per 85 sq. ft. of retail space Brooklyn Park 1 space per 200 sq. ft. of floor area Plymouth -10 spaces /1000 sq. ft. of floor area for retail and service establishments and banks -6 spaces /1000 sq. ft. of floor area for shopping centers Eden Prairie 8 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. Gross Floor Area Edina -8 for the first 1000 sq. ft. Gross Floor Area (not including restrooms, mech., stairwells) -6 from 1,000 - 15,000 -5 for each 1000 sq. ft. thereafter Shopping Center - 5 per 1000 sq. ft. Gross Floor Area Crystal 1 space /140 sq. ft. of G.F.A. less 10% s Minnetonka , 1 space /250 sq. ft. G.F.A. 4.5 spaces for Neighborhood and Commercial Centers 5.5/1000 sq. ft. for Regional Centers St. Louis Park 1 space /100 sq. ft. G.F.A. excluding non - public areas (storage, maintenance office and mechanical rooms excluded) Over 20,000 sq. ft. there can be some reduction Robbinsdale 1 space /200 sq. ft. of G.F.A. Roseville 5 per 1000 sq. ft. Gross Leaseable Area Banks - 6 per 1000 sq. ft. G.F.A. Fridley 1 space /200 sq. ft. G.F.A. in C2 1 space /150 sq. ft. in C3 _ - - - ^ , .✓' 1, � �' C�� .✓ r . .�/ /� r ✓ � cc - � C opt C .` G; � - a g Uoo`� �l LZ -=: S , -S91 �cl z,, L _ lO� - _ - - - ^ , .✓' 1, � �' C�� .✓ r . .�/ /� r ✓ � cc - � C opt C .` G; � - Uoo`� �l MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager Ronald A. Warren, Director or Planning and Inspection Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: Gary Shallcross, Planner DATE: June 19, 1986 SUBJECT: Impact of Retail Parkimg Amendment Attached is a table entitled "Potential Development /Traffic Impact of Retail Parking Formula Change." It projects for most of the retail establishments in the City the additional building area and peak hour trips that could potentially result from a reduction in the retail parking formula to: 10 spaces for the first 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area; 5 spaces /1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. from 1,000 to 500,000 sq. ft.; and 5.5 spaces /1,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. over 500,000 sq. ft. Working from left to right, the table first lists retail establishments and their gross floor areas. Available parking and proof -of- parking are then listed for each site based on the site plans on file with the City. A parking surplus is then calculated by subtracting the requirement under the alternate formula from the Parking spaces available and proof on each site. This parking surplus is then multiplied by 300 sq. ft. to arrive at a potential land area available on each site. The land area is then multiplied by .35 to arrive at a potential building area. I should point out that a floor area ratio (F.A.R.) of .35 is quite high for retail establishments. New retail developments usually achieve a F.A.R. of about .2. The- higher F.A.R. is used here because greenstrips and setbacks have already been _ achieved on existing sites. Additional development can achieve a high level of y efficiency, but won't actually in many cases. It would seem, therefore, that a F.A.R. of .35 is a worst case scenario, at least for retail uses. After estimating the potential additional building area, the table projects increased peak hour trips. Each site is assigned a trip rate per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Multiplying the estimated floor area /1,000 by the trip rate results in the projected number of trips. As the totals suggest, there is considerable development capacity available over all these retail sites (8.6 acres - of land and possibly 130,000 sq. ft. of retail space). If developed as retail space, the available capacity might generate about 600 additional peak hour trips throughout the City (this is over an area larger than the traffic study). The probable development scenario in the 1985 SEH traffic study projected 11,281 evening (7-8 p.m.) peak hour trips in the traffic study area. Of the 606 projected by the table, only 280 would be accounted for by sites in the study area. This is an increase of about 2.5 percent in the study area. If staff or the City Council feel this could represent a noticeable impact on the level of service on the City's streets, I would tentatively suggest that SEH be asked to comment on the potential traffic impact of the ordinance change. It should be pointed out that the attached table deals only with retail expansions. Certainly, in some cases, the parking surplus might be used to develop small restaurants or service facilities. In the case of a restaurant use, the building area would most likely be smaller and the traffic impact, while greater per 1,000 sq. ft. of G.F.A., will not necessarily be greater overall. In general, it is very difficult to project the precise increase traffic volumes from the ordinance change since every site has a different surplus and a unique setting in which to eventually take advantage of added development potential. Landscaping Some interest was expressed by the City Council in expanding the landscaping requirements for retail establishments at the same time the parking requirement would be eased. There are two possible approaches to beefing up landscaping. One is to require more plantings in the existing green areas. Another is to require the green areas to be expanded. A schedule of landscape planting requirements (attached) has been considered and tentatively adopted by the Planning Commission. This schedule is flexible enough to allow landscape architects a fair amount of freedom in designing plans, but also provides a base level of landscape plantings to assure a reasonable amount of visual relief from the broad flat surfaces of buildings and parking lots. The schedule is being adopted on an experimental basis and may change as the Commission gains more experience working with it. As to expanding the required green areas, I would point out that this could have very serious ramnifications for existing parking layouts and would also require tearing out curb and gutter and bituminous which the City originally required to be installed. I do not recommend this kind of change, but if it is pursued, the most logical change I can think of would be expanding the greenstrip requirement along major thoroughfares to 33' (the existing 15' plus the 18' depth of a typical 9(:p stall). Such a change would be fairly consistent with the requirement of a 35' greenstrip for office uses along major thoroughfares. However, it would negate much of the effect of the change in the parking formula. Also, the larger greenstrip might never be realized precisely because property owners would not put on small additions if the cost includes giving up parking spaces and tearing out old improvements to install new landscaping which has no direct relationship to return on investment. There is also some concern that proof -of- parking areas may be converted to parking - -� space if the retail formula is reduced and new development occurs. That may well take place. However, it is also true that these spaces could legally be installed now, without an ordinance change or new development. It is also possible that, even with new development, these potential stalls could be left in green areas as proof - of- parking. I would agree though that the proposed ordinance change does pose a threat to these proof -of- parking stalls. -2- - - • y i r f POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT /TRAFFIC IMPACT' OF RETAIL PARKING FORMULA CHANGE Existing Development/ Parking Surplus under Potential Bldg. Increased Peak Gross Floor Area Avail. Proof new Formula % Land Area Avail. at .35 FAR % Trips/6:00-8:00 P.M Rate Trips Brookdale 5200 (est.) ___ per 1000 G,F.A. 1 Million sq. ft, Brookdale Square 441 95 87 16.2 26,100 9,135 10.3 4.5 41 88,767 sq. ft. Burger Bros. 85 g 32 34.4 9,600 3,360 28.1 4.0 13 10,700 sq. ft.- Retail 1,238 sq. ft. -Whse. K -Mart 708 -- 119 16.8 35,700 12,500 10.7 4.0 50 116,700 sq. ft. Best Co. 360 90 25.0 27,000` 9,450 17.9 4.0 38 52,920 sq. ft. . Target /Ryan 821 70 152 17.0 45,600 15,960 10.9 6.0 96 146,728 sq. ft. Brookview Center 345, 87 79 18.3 23,700 8,295 11.9 4.5 37 69,620 sq. ft. St. Paul Book 92 5 13 13.4 3,900 1,365 9.2 4.0 5 14,743 sq. ft. Id Super Valu 293 - -134 45.7 40,200 14,070 42.3 5.5 77 30,000 sq. ft.- Retail 3,281 sq. ft. Whse. Westbrook Mall 437 137 127 22.1 38,1.00 13,335 15.1 4.5 60 88,400 sq. ft. Audio King 36 -- 11 30.5 r 3,300 1,155 28.9 4.0 5 4,000 sq. ft.- Retail POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT /TRAFFIC IMPACT' OF RETAIL PARKING FORMULA CHANGE Existing Development/ Parking Surplus under Potential Bldg. Increased Peak Gross Floor Area Avail. Proof new Formula ' % Land Area Avail. at .35 FAR % Tri / 6:00 -8:00 Rate Trips per 1000 McKids, etc. _ -- G.F.A. 164 - -- - -- - -- - -- 32,640 sq. ft. Builders Square/ 915 - -- 160 17.5 48,000 16,800 11.2 4.0 67 Red Owl 150,000 sq. ft. Boulevard Center 162 - -- 57 35.2 17,100 5,985 29.7 4.5 27 20,120 sq. ft. Humboldt Square 280 - -- 74 26.4 22,200 7,770 19.3 4.5 35 40,250 sq. ft. Northbrook Center 450 - -- 116 25.7 34,800 65,848 sq. ft. 12,180 18.5 4.5 55 Total 1,251 375,300 (8.6 ac.) 131,360 sq. ft. 606 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 86 -2 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING DEFINITIVE STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING THE ADEQUACY OF LANDSCAPE PLANS — WHEREAS, Section 35 -230 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance states that it is the policy of the City o "preserve an Y P d romote an attractive, ractive, stable residential and business environment for its citizens through encouraging well conceived, high quality developments "; and WHEREAS, Section 35 -230 also encourages "imaginative architectural concepts shall be employed in the ... development of respective sites" and requires site and building plan approval for all developments other than one and two family dwellings; and WHEREAS, said section also requires the submission of a site plan showing landscape, including trees and shrubbery ith indication of species, Y lanti and location; and P , size WHEREAS, it has been the informal policy of the Planning Commission to request landscaping plans which meet an implicit community standard; and WHEREAS, the Commission, at its March 13, April 10, and April 24, 1986 meetings has investigated the means of making the implicit community standard for landscaping explicit, systematic and quantifiable, both"for the benefit of the Commission and of architects preparing required plans. - ti NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED b the Planning Commission f t Y g o he City f Brooklyn that hat t _ Yn he following standards be used in evaluating the he adequacy of proposed landscape plans: 1. Landscape Plantings shall be provided on the site based on the point system indicated below. Maximum Planting Type Minimum Size Points /Planting of Points a) Shade trees (Deciduous) 2 1/2 dia. 10 50 (Maple, Linden, Ash, Oak, Locust, etc.) b) Coniferous Trees 1 ht. Pine Spruce, 6 40 . ce (Pine, p , c) Decorative Trees 1t dia. 1.5 35 (Russian Olives, Radiant Crab, Canada Red Cherry, etc.) d) Shrubs (Dogwood, Spirea, 12f dia. .5 25 Mockorange, Juniper, Arborvitae, etc. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -2 Points Required Per Acre The following schedule shall be used to determine the required number of points for a given site. The schedule is cumulative so that the first two acres of any site will require points on the basis of the column headed 11 0 -2 11 ; the next eight acres shall be computed on the basis of the column headed " 2 -10 "; and, area over ten acres shall be computed on the basis of the column headed 11 10 + Land Area of Site (acres) Type of Development 0 -2 2-10 10+ Office 100 80 60 Rest. /Retail /Service /Ent. /Hotels 80 60 40 Light Industrial 75 60 50 Heavy Industrial 60 50 40 Office /Ind. (over 25% office) 90 70 50 Multi-family Res y d ntial 90 75 60 Examples 6 acre office site = 2 ac. @ 100 plus 4 ac. @ 80 = 520 points 15 acre retail /rest = 2 ac. @ 80 plus 8 ac. @ 60 plus 5 ac. @ 40 = 840 points 2. The above point system in no way substitutes for the screening and buffer requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Plantings used for screening Purposes shall be accorded points, but fulfilling the point requirement shall -` not obviate the requirement for screening. 3. Mature existing trees shall be accorded points on the basis of the above point schedule. Abonus equal up to the full value of a given planting be granted . g P � Y g d b the Commission for or the preservation of large existing g g 4. All green areas on a site shall be sodded except in ardas where viable turf exists and is totally undisturbed by construction. The burden shall be on the developer to prove at the time of a site inspection that such viable turf, in fact, exists and has been properly maintained. 5. All greenstrips adjacent to an interior property line shall be a minimum of 5' in width except in cases where special buffer provisions apply. Date Chairman - ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption dop ion of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded b member Y and upon vote being aken thereon the following n8 olio ing voted in favor thereof; and the following voted against the same; whereupon said resolution was duly passed and adopted. POTENTIAL''DEVELOPMENT /TRAFFIC IMPACT OF RETAIL PARKING FORMULA CHANGE (@ 5.5/1000'sq'. ft. G.F.A.) Existing Development/ Parking Surplus under Potential Bldg. Increased Peak Trips, Gross Floor Area Avail. Proof new Formula % Land Area Avail. at .35 FAR % 6 :00 -8:00 p.m. Rate Trips per 1000 Brookdale 5200 (est.) - -- ___ - -- G.F.A. 1 Million sq. ft. - -- Brookdale Square 441 95 43 8.0 12,900 4,515 5.1 4.5 20 88,767 sq. ft. Burger Bros. 85 8 20 21.5 6,000 2,100 19.6 4.0 8 10,700 sq. ft.- Retail 1,238 sq. ft. -Whse. K -Mart 708 -- 62 8.8 18,600 6,510 5.6 4.0 26 116,700 sq. ft. Best Co. 360 -- 64 17.8 19,200 6,720 12.7 4.0 27 52,920 sq. ft. Target /Ryan 821 70 45 5.1 13,500 4,725 3.2 6.0 28 146,728 sq. ft. Brookview Center 345 87 43 9.9 12,900 4,515 6.5 4.5 20 69,620 sq. ft. St. Paul Book 92 5 6 6.5 1,200 630 4.3 4.0 3 14,743 sq. ft. Super Valu 293 -- 119 40.6 35,700 12,495 37.5 5.5 69 30,000 sq. ft.- Retail . 3,281 sq. ft. -Whse. Westbrook Mall 437 137 46 8.0 13,800 4,830 5.5 4.5 22 88,400 sq. ft. Audio King 36 9 25.0 2,700 945 23.6 4.0 9 4,000 sq. ft.- Retail POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT /TRAFFIC IMPACT OF RETAIL PARKING FORMULA CHANGE (@ 5.5/1000 sq. ft. G.F.A.) Existing Development/ Parking Surplus under Potential Bldg. Increased Peak Trips/ Gross Floor Area Avail. Proof new Formula % Land Area Avail. at .35 FAR q 6:00 -8 :00 p.m. Rate Trips per 1000 - G.F.A. McKids, etc. 164 = -- - -_ ___ __ 32,640 sq. ft. Builders Square 915 - -- 85 9.3 25,500 8,925 5.9 4.0 36 Red Owl 150,000 sq. ft. Boulevard Center 162 - -- 47 29.0 14,100 4,935 24.5 4.5 22 20,120 sq. ft. m ___ Humboldt Square 280 q 54 19.3 16,200 5,670 14.1 4.5 26 40,250 sq. ft. Northbrook Center 450 - -- 83 18.4 24,900 8,715 13.2 4.5 39 65,848 sq. ft. Total 726 217,800 (5 acres) 76,230 sq. ft. 350 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE 11.0 RETAIL PARKING FORMULAS 10.5- 10.0 9.5- 9.0- 8.5 - U 8.0- 7.5- Existing Formula C4 0 CD 6.5- Alternate r Formula 6 6.o- 5.5- w 5.0- Alternate rormu a U cL 4.5- Ca U 4.0- z Y 3.5 Urban Land Institute Formula a 3.0 2.5- 2.0 1.5 1.0- - 0.5 0.0 v' In (p N M Q' In CO ti Gfl Q1 GROSS FLOOR AREA (x 1000 sq.ft. G.F.A. ) r, SHORT- ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC. }' CONSULTING ENGINEERS ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA CHIPPEWA FALLS, WISCONSIN July 29, 1986 RE: BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA RETAIL PARKING REQUIREMENT 1986 REVISION CONSIDERATIONS SEH FILE NO. 84049 (94) Mr. Gary Shallcross, Planner City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Gary: We have had an opportunity to review the proposed changes in the parking ordinance relating to retail parking requirements. Your..._ - -- April 10, 1986 memo, your June 19, 1986 memo and several pages of calculations all served as a basis for our review. We agree with the philosophy that all retail businesses should provide all necessary parking, but that surpluses should not be required: We also agree with` g your correlation - that the less land designated for parking, the more land and more building that will be utilized or constructed and consequently resulting in more traffic being generated by the facility. The amount of additional of traffic will be difficult to assess. The charts which you provided indicate calculations which will result in a assignable number of trips to the additional building space. As an example, the K -Mart facility with currently 116,700 square feet would have a surplus of 119 parking spaces. Converting these, at 300 square feet per parking space, will result in an additional 35,700 square feet of land available. With a floor area ratio of .35, an additional building of 12,500 square feet is possible. This theoretically will result in approximately 50 additional trips in the evening shopping period and 40 additional trips in the p.m. peak hour period. 200 GOPHER BUILDING9222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD•ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117•PHONE (612) 4840272 Mr. Gary Shallcross, Planner July 29, 1986 Page 2 This could add a significant amount of traffic to an inter- section. We reviewed all parking increases possible in traffic analysis zones 17, 18, 19 and 21. These are the zones which have impact on traffic volumes at the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and John Martin Drive. Going through similar calculations for each parcel, with the assumptions made for additional available land, results in an added increase in traffic in the p.m. peak hour of 14.5 percent on John Martin Boulevard In the evening shopping period, the increase P g P c ease is 23.5 percent. This is a significant scant incre g ase in traffic volumes for John Martin Drive. However, the calculated level of service under the probable development conditions is B and this should change only slightly with the additional traffic. At worst, it would end up being level of service C, which is still an acceptable design level. The actual traffic volumes generated by additional available land on the particular parcel may be less in reality. The floor area ratio of .35 is actually quite high compared to some sites. However, we are aware of some developers who have a goal of maxi- mizing building space on a particular site and .35 actually represents a lower threshold for them. It is also doubtful that a 10 percent increase in size of the building will result in a 10 percent increase in number of trips, which is what calculations would indicate. The trip generation figures are based on generalized studies and serve as an excellent basis for any traffic study. However, it would have to be modified to fit a specific instance. It is recognized in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' books that the number of trips per square foot generated by a particular business actually decreases as the size of gross floor area increases. It is unlikely that the additional 12,000 square feet of floor area available to K -Mart would draw at the same rate as the first 50,000 square feet. We calculated 15 to 24 percent increases in traffic for a specific intersection and theyy probably will represent the maximum possible given the existing zoning and g g land uses in Brooklyn Center. Other major intersections are impacted primarily by office or other uses and changes in retail ark' g parking and retail trip generation will not have significant impacts. Traffic on Summit Drive is less impacted cted b P retail businesses sses Target and adjacent businesses as the only significant retail. - Mr. Gary Shallcross, Planner July 29, 1986 Page 3 The major concern with the growth is the Brookdale Shopping Center, but your analysis indicated they would receive no parking reduction. The calculation for Brookdale Square indicated a'7 percent growth in traffic at their Shingle Creek Parkway entrance. In summary, a change in parking requirements will result in an increase in traffic volume generated by the specific business. Your calculations for additional trips are reasonable and indicate that the scope of increase is up to 20 percent which represents a sizable increase. The impact on intersections would be noticeable, but fortunately none of the retail oriented inter- sections are at capacity at this time or under the "probable development" scenario of our report. It therefore appears that the reduction in parking requirements should be approached cautiously. The liberal application of values. indicates a relatively high percentage growth in traffic could result. However, the traffic forecast does not indicate that retail oriented intersection would be overloaded. All our calculations did assume some liberal additional space and traffic calculations. If you need any further information or have any questions relative to our calculations or discussions, please feel free to call us. Sincerely, Glen Van Wormer Chief Transportation Engineer jcj cc: Sy Knapp, City of Brooklyn Center Bob Byers Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86037 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center HRA Location: 6100 Summit Drive Request: Preliminary Plat This application is a request for preliminary plat approval to resubdivide into two lots the land south of the Earle Brown Farm complex to be developed as the Earle Brown Commons. The land in question is now zoned R7 (as per Application No. 86010) and is bounded on the north by the Earle Brown or Brooklyn Farm, on the east and southeast by Earle Brown Drive, on the southwest by Summit Drive, and on the west by the Brookdale Corporate Center III building now under construction. The existing legal description of the property includes Tract I, R.L.S. 1594, Tract A, R.L.S. 1380 and land under vacated Earle Brown Drive. The new legal description would be Lot 1 and Outlot A, Brooklyn Farm 2nd Addition. The proposed subdivision would create two lots, one for each phase of the Earle Brown Commons development. The first phase parcel, Lot 1, is to be 142,098 sq. ft. or 3.26 acres. In terms of the density requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, the first phase of 140 units requires 140 x 1400 sq. ft. = 196,000 sq. ft. of land prior to density credits. The master plan for the Earle Brown Commons provides for 108 covered parking stalls on the first phase parcel. A density credit of 500 sq. ft. per covered stall, which is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, would reduce the required land area by 54,000 sq. ft. to 142,000 sq. ft. The proposed parcel is, therefore, just large enough to meet ordinance requirements. Some additional land will be added in the future when the westerly 10' of the Earle Brown Drive right -of- way is vacated. The parcel for the second phase is proposed as an outlot at this time. As an outlot, the property will be unbuildable until it is replatted. The purpose of this designation is to insure that, if the second phase of the residential development is detached and independent from the first phase, the zero -lot line created by this subdivision will be eliminated and a 20 side interior building setback established as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The 20' setback cannot be established now and eliminated later because the mortgage on the property cannot suffer a reduction in land, but can be expanded over a larger area of land. If the second phase is attached as planned, the property line can be eliminated altogether or remain as is with a reclassification of the outlot to a buildable lot. The proposed plat shows an existing utility easement running east -west through the northern half of the plat. This easement will be relocated somewhat to allow for the realignment of the storm sewer. Water and sanitary sewer mains will be completely relocated north of the proposed buildings. The new easement location for the relocated utilities has not been shown. Also, not shown is the location of a ponding easement to meet the requirements of the Shingle Creek Watershed District. These easements must be indicated on the final plat. Altogether, the preliminary plat appears to be in order and approval is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 9 -25 -86 -1- Application No. 86037 continued 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3• The developer shall execute an easement for storm sewer and the detention pond and said easement shall be indicated on the final plat prior to final plat approval. 4. The developer shall execute an easement for sanitary sewer and water and said easement shall be indicated on the final plat prior to final plat approval. 9 -25 -86 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86038 Applicant: Gabbert and Beck Location: 5717 Xerxes Avenue North Request: Site Plan Approval Location /Use The applicant requests site plan approval to construct an access onto Brooklyn Boulevard (County Road 152) and modify the parking lot at the Westbrook Mall. The Westbrook Mall site is zoned C2 and is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by County Road 10, on the east by the Dayton's Home Store and Xerxes Avenue North, on the south by Baker's Square Restaurant and First Brookdale Bank, and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard and the Brookdale Ten Office Building. The shopping center is a permitted use in the C2 zoning district. Access /Parking The proposed access is to be located approximately 160' north of an existing driveway leading from the First Brookdale Bank onto Brooklyn Boulevard. The existing driveway serving the bank is to be closed and a driveway connecting the bank lot to the Westbrook Mall lot and the new access will be constructed. The Director of Public Works has recommended a driveway width in this case of 32' to allow for truck turning movements. This exceeds the normal maximum of 30' allowed by ordinance. Cars entering the new access will be forced to go left or right immediately as a result of the extension of delineator inside the parking lot parallel to Brooklyn Boulevard. This "T" intersection immediately inside the lot will force cars to slowdown before proceeding onto find a parking space. We do not feel that the level of traffic using this access will create any back -up onto Brooklyn Boulevard. Within the parking lot, the access and modifications will result in a loss of 12 parking stalls. The resulting parking lot will have 426 parking stalls. A proof -of- parking plan with 90 parking stalls and fewer large islands shows a potential for 562 stalls. The parking requirement for the 88,400 sq. ft. shopping center is 534 stalls. Therefore, the proof -of- parking will still be adequate after the modification within the parking lot. Modifications in Right -of -Way A major aspect of the proposed site improvement project is the modification of the Brooklyn Boulevard roadway to provide a continuous merge lane from 56th Avenue North to County Road 10. At present, the merge lane from 56th Avenue North ends about 300' south of the right -turn lane to County Road 10. This area will be made into a continuous merge lane at the applicant's expense. The construction of the merge lane will also require the relocation of a 5' sidewalk on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard. It will be necessary to install part of the sidewalk on private property in order to achieve an 8' separation between street and sidewalk. An easement for the sidewalk must therefore be granted. Traffic The applicant has submitted projections of traffic movements prepared by Howard Preston with Bennett - Ringrose - Wolsfeld (BRW) (see attached). Those projections estimate 140 trips into and 140 trips out of the entire site during the peak hour. Of these, the new access drive on Brooklyn Boulevard is expected to handle 32 trips in and 42 trips out in the peak hour. Of the 42 trips out, 14 are expected to cross the northbound lanes of Brooklyn Boulevard and enter the left -turn lane to head west on County Road 10. The remaining trips are expected to travel north on Brooklyn Boulevard. This does not appear to present a major traffic problem. 9 -25 -86 -1- Application No. 86038 continued Landscaping No additional landscaping on the site is proposed with this project. The site in question is 9.87 acres. Under the landscape point system tentatively adopted by the Planning Commission, the site would be required to have approximately 635 landscape points for plantings. The plantings on the site add up to approximately 29 shade trees, 31 coniferous trees, 46 decorative trees and approximately 330 shrubs for a total of 710 points. No additional landscaping would, therefore, be required to meet the requirements of the point system. Recommendation Altogether, the plans are generally in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall execute a performance agreement with a financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) to assure completion of improvements, both in the parking lot and in the public right -of -way, prior to the issuance of the driveway permit by the County. 2. The applicant shall execute an easement for sidewalk purposes within a portion of the greenstrip adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard prior to issuance of the driveway permit by the County. 3. The applicant shall submit a written acknowledgement from First Brookdale Bank agreeing to the proposed driveway relocation prior to issuance of the driveway permit. 4. The applicant and First Brookdale Bank shall execute a cross access agreement for use of the access drive prior to issuance of the driveway permit. 5. Plan approval acknowledges a driveway opening of 32' on the basis of the recommendation of the Director of Public Works. 6. Plan approval acknowledges a proof -of- parking plan for 562 spaces on the site (submitted by BRW and dated 9- 11 -86) as fulfillment of ordinance parking requirements. 9 -25 -86 -2- AN CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: H.R. Spurrier, City Engineer DATE: October 10, 1986 RE: Final R.L.S. Earle Brown Commons The City of Brooklyn Center Housing Redevelopment Authority, developer of the above referenced Registered Land Survey, has petitioned the City Council to approve the final Registered Land Survey that combines three parcels and then divides that parcel into two tracts in the southeast quadrant of the Earle: Brown Farm site. Conditions proposed for the preliminary plat to be considered by City Council on October 13, 1986 are as follows: 1. The final plat is subject-to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The developer must provide an easement for storm sewer and for the detention pond and said easement shall be indicated on the final plat prior to final plat approval. 4. The developer must provide an easement for sanitary sewer and for water and said easement shall be indicated on the final plat prior to final plat approval. Conditions 1 and 2 have been met. Conditions 3 and 4 will be met if the final registered land survey approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall execute an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of the utility and storm drainage systems. 2. The developer shall execute an easement for sanitary sewer. Re ;ng�'n ly submitted, Approve for submittal, .R rier Sy R p City er Direc or of Public Works HRS : j n "" WiU- AMIRKAGN =r REGISTERED LAND SURVEY N0. N 84.0 2'36 "E 3 82.59 1p \ Q �. 0 100 200 300 m / S 88. 46'41 "E \ h 139-80 , I •�� SCALE FEET ; / TRACT A m � '�_� • m � � 58.04 M W Mf N? i Y S 88 "E �\ N ' \•' �� N . W cy N 69 35 "E �t'` \\� / f /? _^ vi ! ✓ 87.0 —__ 5 pr /.? •s._C a I J ' : TRACT 6 ommwo Lij A l a• _14 F � / CD � u '1 — _ d i Dili , i' q1 t L • 101.58 a- 2 R • 2357.80 / C =101.58 \�� y a43g g5 O �j6 C.Brq.= N 6 14 "E �� : 5.23 ' -- - N 89-28'43'W I Hansen Thorp Pe N m Olson kr— SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of 1986 at p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 23 regarding the deletion of liquor license fees. 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 23 REGARDING LIQUOR LICENSE FEES FOLLOWS; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS Section 1. Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 23 -010 LICENSE FEES. The fees for the various licenses shall be as hereinafter stated, not withstanding other ordinance provisions regarding the specific fee. Fee, (annual un- less otherwise Type of License Required by Section License Expires stated [On Sale Intoxicating Liquor Class A 11 -507 Dec. 31 $ 8,000.00 Class B 11 -507 Dec. 31 11,000.00 Class C 11 -507 Dec. 31 14,000.00 (These fees shall become effective on January 1, 1985. Until such time the fees from all classes of on sale intoxicating liquor licenses shall be $10,000.) Class D 11 -507 Dec. 31 14,000.00 On Sale Liquor (Club) 11 -507 Dec. 31 Up to 200 members 300.00 201 - 500 members 500.00 501 - 1,000 members 650.00 1,001 - 2,000 members 800.00 2,001 - 4,000 members 1,000.00 4,001 - 6,000 members 2,000.00 Over - 6,000 members 3,000.00 Sunday On Sale Intoxicating Liquor 11 -552 Dec. 31 200.00 Set Up License 11 -402 June 30 300.00 ORDINANCE NO. Temporary Set Up License 11 -403 Special $25.00 /day On Sale Malt 11 -102, Sub. 1 Dec. 31 500.00 Temporary On Sale Malt 11 -102, Sub. 1 Special 10.00 /day Off Sale Malt 11 -102, Sub. 1 Dec. 31 50.00 On Sale Wine 11 -507 Dec. 31 2,000.00] Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1986. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given Y g that a public hearing will be held on the 22nd day of September, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 19 regarding the control of noxious weeds. 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 19 REGARDING THE CONTROL OF NOXIOUS WEEDS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 19 -1603 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 19 -1603. NOXIOUS WEEDS DEFINED. A—. For purposes of this ordinance and in addition to provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 18.171, Subdivision 5, "noxious weeds" means the following plants: Common Name Botanical Name Field Bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Hemp Cannabis sativa Poison Ivy Rhus radicans Spurge, leafy Euphorbia esula Thistle, sow Sonchus arvensis Thistle, bull Cirsium vulgare Thistle, Canada Cirsium arvense Thistle, musk Carduus nutans Thistle, plumeless Carduus acanthoides Alyssum, hoary Berteroa incana Milkweed Asclepias syriaca Quackgrass Agropyron repens Ragweed, common Ambrosia artemisiifolia Ragweed, giant Ambrosia trifida b. Any weeds or grass growing to a height greater than eight (8) inches or which have gone or about to go to-seed. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. ORDINANCE NO. Adopted this day of , 1986. Mayor ATTEST: , Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter) v CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 13th day of October, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 19 regarding the control of noxious weeds pertaining to natural preserves. 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 19 REGARDING THE CONTROL OF NOXIOUS WEEDS PERTAINING TO NATURAL PRESERVES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 19 -1601 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 19 -1601. CONTROL OF NOXIOUS WEEDS. It shall be the duty of every occupant of land or, if the land is unoccupied, the owner thereof, or his agent, or the public official in charge thereof, to cut down, otherwise destroy, or eradicate all noxious weeds as hereinafter defined, standing, being, or growing upon such land, except for areas within natural preserves, _ in such p manner and at such times as may be directed or ordered by the Brooklyn Center Weed Inspector. Natural preserves shall be publicly owned lands designated as nark or open space or private Drronerties approved by the City Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty ( ) y following its le ub g al 1 scat g publication. n. Adopted this day of 1986. i Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 13th day of October , 1986 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall, 0 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the zoning classificiation of drop -in child care centers. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF DROP -IN CHILD CARE CENTERS THE CITY COU14CIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS; Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -320. C1 SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT 1. Permitted Uses v. Drop -in child care centers licensed by the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare pursuant to a valid license application provided that a copy of said license and application shall be submitted annually to the City. Section 35 -322. C2 COMMERCE DISTRICT 1. Permitted Uses k. Drop -in child care centers licensed by the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare pursuant to a valid license application, provided that a copy of said license and application shall be submitted annually to the City. — Section 35 -900 DEFINITIONS. IC I Drop -in child care center - A facility licensed by the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare to provide child care on an irregular basis for periods not to exceed five 5 consecutive hours in a given 244 hour period. Such centers are intended to provide babysitting service for parents who wish to shop and /or pursue leisure activities and do not provide regular care of children while parents travel to a place of work. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 ORDINANCE NO. Flayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Geralyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator DATE: October 9, 1986 SUBJECT: Flagpole The 75th Anniversary Committee is planning to bury a time capsule, tentatively s p , scheduled for November tuber 9, 1986. As part of the ceremonies, it has been ro p posed that a flagpole for the All - America City flag be ground set with the time capsule near it. The suggested gg location for the flagpole is next to the existing pole in the City all entry ry driveway area. The cost of a flagpole and labor to ground set the pole is approximately $1,400. The 75th Anniversary Committee is requesting the City Council to discuss this proposal and asks the City to fund this project. i MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Geralyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator DATE: October 9, 1986 SUBJECT: Amoco Pipeline Attached are the following items of information for the City Council: 1. Presentation to Governor's Commission on Pipeline Safety by Dick Peterson of Amoco Pipeline Company 2. Northern Division General Map of the Amoco Pipeline Company 3. Twin Cities Operating Area of the Amoco Pipeline Company 4. A map indicating the route of the Amoco pipeline through Brooklyn Center 5. A draft letter from you to be mailed to residents living along Dupont Avenue North 6. "What You Should Know About Petroleum Pipeline Safety ", a brochure published by the American Petroleum Institute, which will be sent with your letter to residents on Dupont Avenue North If you need additional information, please let me know. PRESENTATION TO GOVERNORS COKMISSION ON PIPELINE SAFETY ST. PAUL, MN. 09/04/86 GOOD AFTERNOON: MY NAME IS DICK PETERSON, AND I AM THE AREA MANAGER FOR AMOCO PIPELINE COMPANY FOR THIS REGION. MY OFFICE IS LOCATED AT OUR MAINTENANCE HQ IN BROOKLYN PARK, MN. I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO GIVE YOU A SHORT PRESENTATION ON AMOCO'S PIPELINES IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. TO DO SO, I WILL BEGIN BY PROVIDING SOME BACKGROUND DATA ON THE SIZE, LOCATION, AND OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION, FOLLOWED BY THE OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM. I WILL CONCLUDE WITH SOME COMMENTS ABOUT OUR MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES. BACKGROUND AMOCO OWNS AND OPERATES 2 INTERSTATE PIPELINE SYSTEMS IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. (SEE HAND -OUT). ONE IS A 10" LINE, WHICH ORIGINATES AT AMOCO'S WHITING, INDIANA REFINERY AND TERMINATES AT OUR TERMINAL IN ROSEVILLE, MN. PUMP STATIONS AND DELIVERY TERMINALS ARE LOCATED AT STRATEGIC POINTS IN ROUTE, OU IN VALLEY , CLUDING A TERMINAL AT SPRING VALL AND A PUMP STATION AT STEWARTVILLE. THIS LINE WAS BUILT IN 1947, AND HAS A MAXIMUM OPERATING PRESSURE OF 1440 PSI. THE OTHER SYSTEM IS AN 8" LINE WHICH ORIGINATES AT AMOCO'S REFINERY AT MANDAN, NORTH DAKOTA, AND ALSO TERMINATES AT OUR TERMINAL IN ROSEVILLE. TERMINALS ARE LOCATED AT MOORHEAD AND SAUK CENTRE, AND PUMP STATIONS AT MOORHEAD, CARLISLE, EVANSVILLE, SAUK CENTRE, AND CLEARWATER. THE MINNESOTA PORTION OF THE LINE WAS ALSO BUILT IN 1947 AND IT TOO OPERATES AT A MAXIMUM OF 1440 PSI. ALTOGETHER, AMOCO OPERATES 355 *TILES OF LINE IN • THE STATE. BOTH SYSTEMS PUMP REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS SUCH AS GASOLINE, #1 AND 462 FUEL OIL, DIESEL FUEL, AND JET FUEL. PAGE 2 • OPERATIONS THE PIPELINE SYSTEM FOR THIS AREA IS OPERATED OUT OF OUR CONTROL CENTER IN DUBUQUE, IOWA. THE CENTER IS MANNED 24 HRS /DAY BY PERSONNEL SPECIFICIALLY TRAINED IN PIPELINE OPERATIONS. ALL STARTING AND STOPPING OF PUMPS, DELIVERIES TO TERMINALS, AND MONITORING OF DATA IS DONE FROM DUBUQUE. THE LONE EXCEPTION BEING THE DELIVERIES INTO THE TERMINAL AT ROSEVILLE, WHICH IS DONE MANUALLY BY DISTRIBUTION PERSONNEL AT THE TERMINAL. THE OPERATORS AT DUBUQUE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE PUMPING SCHEDULE, STARTING AND STOPPING UNITS, MAKING DELIVERIES, MONITORING INCOMING DATA, AND HANDLING UPSETS. ALL PUMP STATIONS HAVE A NUMBER OF "SHUT - DOWN" DEVICES WHICH - WILL SHUT THE STATION DOWN IN THE EVENT OF AN UPSET, E.G., SEAL FAILURE, VIBRATION, VAPORS, POWER SURGES, AND OTHERS. IN ADDITION TO THE PU?IP STATIONS, ISOLATION VALVES ARE LOCATED ALONG THE PIPELINE TO ISOLATE THE LINE IN THE EVENT OF A LEAK. IF A LEAK OCCURS, THE OPERATORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SHUTTING DOWN THE SYSTEM, ISOLATING THE SECTION BY HAVING SELECTED VALVES CLOSED, AND CONTACTING MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LOCAL OFFICIALS TO RESPOND TO THE SITE. ALL PRODUCTS ARE CAREFULLY MEASURED INTO AND OUT OF THE SYSTEM, AND ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE INVESTIGATED IMMEDIATELY. ALSO, FLOW RATES AND PUMP STATION SUCTION AND DISCHARGE PRESSURES ARE MONITORED CONTINUALLY TO DETECT ANY ABNORMAL OPERATION. • PAGE 3 MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM IS DONE BY AMOCO PERSONNEL LOCATED ALONG THE PIPELINE. EACH ARE TRAINED IN THEIR FIELD AND ARE VERY GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO. TECHNICIANS MAINTAIN MOST OF THE EQUIPMENT AT THE PUMP STATIONS, WHILE THE PIPELINE MAINTENANCE CREW HANDLES THE LINE MAINTENANCE. THE CORROSION SPECIALIST HANDLES THE CATHODIC PROTECTION- WHICH IS A KEY TO PIPELINE MAINTENANCE. THE FOLLOWING IS A BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE MAINTENANCE AND FREQUENCY OF THE MAINTENANCE FUNCTIONS PERFORMED. (AMOCO MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE D.O.T. REQUIREMENTS IN EACH AREA). 1. AERIAL PATROL - A PILOT FLIES THE PIPELINE ROUTE EACH WEEK FROM APRIL THRU NOVEMBER, ARID BI- WEEKLY FROM DECE11BER THRU MARCH. HE . CHECKS FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY NEAR THE LINE, AND REPORTS IMMEDIATELY TO A PERSON ON THE GROUND, WHO GOES TO THE SITE AND INVESTIGATES. 2. RECTIFIER INSPECTIONS - IN ORDER TO PREVENT CORROSION ON THE PIPELINE, A DC CURRENT IS IMPRESSED ON THE PIPELINE TO MAKE THE LINE MORE NEGATIVE IN POTENTIAL THAN THE EARTH AROUND IT. BY DOING SO, STRAY CURRENT WHICH EXISTS IN THE GROUND, WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET ON THE LINE AND CAUSE CORROSION. RECTIFIERS ARE USED TO CONVERT AC POWER TO DC, AND THESE INSTALLATIONS ARE CHECKED MONTHLY TO SEE THAT THEY ARE OPERATING PROPERLY. REPORTS ARE SENT TO THE CORROSION SPECIALIST, WHO ANALYZES THE RESULTS AND MAKES CHANGES AS NEEDED. PAGE 4 3. PROTECTION SURVEY - ONCE Opt TWICE EACH YEAR THE CORROSION SPECIALIST MAKES A PHYSICAL SURVEY OF THE SYSTEM TO BE SURE THE POTENTIALS MENTIONED EARLIER ARE SUFFICIENT TO PREVENT CORROSION. A SERIES OF TEST LEADS ARE ATTACHED TO THE LINE AT 2 -3 MILE INTERVALS. THE CORROSION SPECIALIST RECORDS THE POTENTIAL AT EACH OF THOSE LOCATIONS, PLOTS THE DATA ON A COMPUTER PROGRAM, WHICH SHOWS ANY AREAS OF INSUFFICIENT PROTECTION. USING THAT DATA, THE CORROSION SPECIALIST CAN DESIGN NEW INSTALLATIONS TO ELIMINATE THE UMPROTECTED AREAS. 4. RIVER CROSSING INSPECTIONS - EVERY FIVE YEARS, ALL CROSSINGS OF i NAVIGABLE WATERS ARE INSPECTED BY CONTRACTORS WHO ARE TRAINED IN THAT FIELD. THE CONTRACTORS USE DIVERS AND ELECTRONIC GEAR WHICH SHOW IF THE LINE HAS DEBRIS HANGING ON IT, OR IF IT IS SUSPENDED IN ANY WAY. BOTH BANKS ARE INSPECTED TO BE SURE THE BANK HAS NOT ERODED, LEAVING THE PIPE EXPOSED. FROM THE RESULTS OF THE INSPECTION, REPAIRS ARE MADE AS NEEDED. S. OVERPRESSURE SAFETY DEVICES - ALL OF THE SAFETY DEVICES WHICH ARE DESIGNED TO LIMIT OVERPRESSURING OF THE SYSTEM ARE CHECKED AND CALIBRATED ONCE EACH YEAR. THESE INCLUDE RELIEF VALVES, PRESSURE SWITCHES, CONTROL VALVES, AND OTHERS. IN ADDITION, ALL OF THE OTHER PUMP STATION AND TERMINAL EQUIPMENT IS CHECKED AND RECALIBRATED. s PAGE 5 6. VALVE INSPECTION - ALL OF THE ISOLATION VALVES ON THE SYSTEM ARE CHECKED TWICE EACH YEAR TO INSURE THAT THEY WILL OPERATE WHEN NEEDED. VALVES THAT ARE DIFFICULT TO OPERATE ARE GREASED OR REPAIRED AS NEEDED. 7. PIPELINE INSPECTION - WHENEVER THE PIPELINE IS UNCOVERED FOR ANY REASON, THE COATING IS INSPECTED TO BE SURE IT IS INTACT. IF THE LINE IS CUT FOR ANY REASON, SUCH AS RELOCATION OR REPAIR, BOTH THE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL SURFACES ARE INSPECTED FOR CORROSION. 8. TRAINING - ALL EMPLOYEES RECEIVE TRAINING IN A NUMBER OF AREAS, • SUCH AS THE OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL, SAFETY MANUAL, HAZARDS OF HYDROCARBON, FIREFIGHTING, SPILL RESPONSE, FIRST AID, CONFINED SPACE ENTRY, DEFENSIVE DRIVING, AND HEARING CONSERVATION. IN ADDITION, MANY ARE SENT TO SCHOOLS SPECIALIZING IN THEIR AREA OF EXPERTISE. IN SUMMARY, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT AMOCO MAKES EVERY EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH ALL MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING REGULATIONS GOVERNING INTERSTATE PIPELINES. OUR OPERATING RECORD IS SOMETHING WE ARE VERY PROUD OF, AND WE ARE COMMITTED TO KEEPING IT THAT WAY. IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS, I WILL BE HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER THEM. - �[ «•. North Dakota -� v 9 E W'••I.bN O•wp • � r I ••- -y rr•� TN J � GIKN I • 1 �'.�,�rr�'�° South Dakota 1 't ibR {... c.wl... / C .. rK w•. ' c« .•• � - 7 s ' ! 1 I t \ M1Mn•IM W.11. O.. I r w .I: 1 ,r..A Mich c h i g a n ..��oK•r•�r ytliscon : in » -li / '•' i> [L•.�r• {. ;«,., ;� � Minnesota r Tlw M . [ , N e b r a s k a I : �"� Ww.••a u•.. (� ^' I fr �_'�� a• � ~ .J••- - ,��'.`..:" «..- •+ww+ .l I ` ' - i..,�!•!':; I.. ) ON •YOM•• C.I.. {.Wor ib .M••� ' ..t / NM ►M . -\ r 1 rw 1 \ \t.,,,,' I `... t t n a 1 a n a onw.• y...w•• `r , i,. 1�'uurµl .N A.M I � ••.M.•«� {Ww�NM JtI. O••M.�{ t i •.... �.J � � _ + w 1� y N•w.Y°I'• MAW4 rouse CA ...� I (« '� i . �� ..url•u .� i IitinOi• tNSENT 'A' AMOCO . ».�__ Y.••r _t y , {aaw.. l : -} . ^.. �'�w'•• 1 C�..wow - ,1 . � 1 � «^ I W .+. ww• � ... r .-- ( \[ A.Ousm rYN► STATION - Arl • i• y Wr.K.._ »., t- - 4 ' . • •�,/- WNW N.M I T -s -}. A[C. r.r. o i _.... NMrM L wIt•Nll 11[lS ..".. ` - .... .... l - . y A u... •.. M.. +. r •t y r .�,,. _ ?+....A "INITIAL • Kansas i ... rr «.« ; . 1 /r.. i ` •�:.�• rl[.«. c...�• J NO.IT •rtt « Mlssourt \:. mucky L l ,+�- Iw {R•MlE AMOCO PIPELINE COMPANY «�E NORTHERN DIVISION TNIYl rc:...1. f 1 GENERAL MAP � •-�-� �' ;11 W96T alma[ nn LM[ Co. i , . `.• / Alabarn• AMOCO PIPELINE COMPANY TIOGA TWIN CITIES OPERATING AREA i R� xouw t r KM IYbiM Oatcle ( '1 4 7 owgs L �...� ifMW MlttN/ Mf MN,tt t1l� /I.t111KY -� � [w..vnu 1 {{ N [...T. z. �•, s.a....flu[ ,'no _ Ti,, . L._-1 In Emerg Call g Y � - 319 - 583 -- 5488 „m". ME AMOCA ►1►tL1119 COMPANY • F.L. $TAW" • F.L. TIMM"IAL - ♦ "FOCRT = z rN. C' 11MM N W I r.rw 30 E - • ' � 1A�' > n 3 .f a� i�s17i r' -- eaA M N * 1} T 1fw N_t r r 3 M RR rN PARK h '�•' - - i1M i. ` CITY LL _ ._.__. _. �� 1�,,3✓�► Y . . w 109 N� I _ff•1 I nM - rr.r I la j 11 hC ..�tw A NowrN 3 Cfr1�A1 z lwv[>,M j 11 Ar I M f11 MN I •` \ \ 3 �uwlow , M oauorj <r IIf1w /711. I I ' - t fad M f C hr�n •,�' M M C+W ' M �M s '• • 1 N/EW C /EN -' -' 77 3�_ M > T� dlA Md M + M ~r ' 1 A1• I 1 Md Ar � MN 2 j ; - 1 ^ • n �w r 111 I A+ &Z- � 4, 710 1 1 .. t. 1 M 1a M / r.n..dd• rrn . w• Isz �. > °' I Ar M f rrw ; pan O f"' fwn I _tae_ I A r F _.. o C. ®1 > ; M F•f k1•w $ 4 � k I� � M r tfM � 1St ••N .� „ .M srlor 2' ��O 'C � NA�r Ar N• F MN owl at n fI a i l- A.�.. -.... ....�_. _.. uz t• I H SS W, • c ; j 4p6I I • J W�n i LS * + ;3��f71 ii =� /WM ■ ITII MM AV. I. \G n , c tt :: 4 � � < � ! � g � ` u -J : A. rp. II I i SM J I / < Ift swn 2� !I.: a j < I I Z : O I _ ; w� !✓ I e ""w ;r � N i ON 4 'e ;. iM ; OOKI N CENTER Ar wk id - I I w • I aw Iii >( •w w,�a_ hr1 , wrtcw,i,3�3iv1 N = sia faw �Q! - i M , -, j H .. L. �r N , z v ew t i a M A. N p >an 1 t$�lj wi„c{wr l: - t {q = < f M �. A. �tA� Ar _ 3Qt NM ArM, - L M _ / f 171" fi MM_, J.Jr M ,� , <<'' <' Ta > 6300 ,•� � fTM' I { CITN-It -I.e ►v I 6 . d j' r.M�aA.iN'g. ;; ••I�. AFI'NI SIN ON CMb.I / 9a M r. i L rN •+ , �rrr H 0 EI'•ii a /� _ d I NIM z 3 p• al 3 Y . AY j � w• �/ G / � // 7, l 61 1 a`°w•�"' 1 fOM ti N= Q !OM' L - a 'Le 7W ,, 7A' S{i•3• , 100 Ea ; > 4 „al^ • `° f' ! ` eft era a r.a ,f " I w f l if;A Ar - .a � _ w1n u i F I fNN A• M W d c� aNrrNAr t ' i to iF f"c. L S`w I- _ E i to % ;z � G1•rfl�r 7•.�'> - -"f II I,OQI �J �� I �I / NI"Arl �• � wOAtic � � { tt vt4M •71 71 �Ep!! :I: Q 10 I �-K �' 4A . fnlN � ' ._t_ • N !fM Ar p �. J , IM •.. f•.L = M I I 11.1 � 1 ' ISt v lrw Yw_M . , I6/ { 1'� tr E z yam �c J I•lr• t" fF I 1 I< 7 1 M { AI.1' s 1 a ° • i 1,— .,- A r D �: 4. T . t _) Q1 1 1 -. • AN N �. II a• i �a - i i i < . r / • ,;E f �I! '� > w.rwrxr ,� a Y » s 1 I 11•r i / 4 Ay < _. �ld z '� II ttt"`lll S I An M I0.o '� w _ O I - f1. ~` 'OY - 71 P, < <i I R < . I < j 2 d N h • _ a s«`• 1y_ r Ar `"► - .Mw T �of € 3 w:�« I No ArN" I.. :t = A+ = MN N • 1r r.�, � �- I ►!' > I ' !" 3 z z z z z z z I,v w z x ■ V y ►W I �° n N I y � (M!1- )1 L00 I Iil l..WMf --r-#. -' ' C16' I 41.4 /IPAN, Ar °Ian 6 $ it [r'+.f Y= ArArN.• z g # + . S II E �, I �Ar z I 17J1� f N, A. N + .. Id. = IM M N -: L ; 711' b //1N .i z � a AY N // r X M I < , 0.NN f I •.N I N ^W III I AVM °�• ii 111 �f f I I 1 I i I � 1 yqz z A. Ih � • _��' g' of Ar I� 1 A j° N IS} _ �wlr 4/v N s1n a A. [ ` <..: •d c1T,1r ■ Ifi • l 1 IA r • 1 � ' <. a < ' A E Ar CITY = t / N LL d 1M 7 M .� N ArN y. vs 6- Ild -.-+-' I I a �- Ar NI ` I jT 1fw w I00 N _x 110 A; 11 ( I G ' Ar f i.IAd �E•r ► 0 1 _- (•E! - 111k Ar 1II fM Aw•yq .L A 10 A:"� ♦ - A. L. kv I 1 yM AvN C .-�[ # - j 310 A N S 4 47 37.1 A•M > N Of+r1W, Av N n i 2 m N c I I : 77th ( AN 11~ „ 1� y 3 MN 1f%loM 2I " f7 Ad. ,N r.} M s a ♦r o �- 1 � .. _ l YrNr I o I I M IO a t o �`. I . Nln. •!N 1...., I > V Ar N� 11 - f: n n n I f i0 N I M "� 31 I '_ \1 79M Ay ' art _�1xx gin! I �M i as . 3NN ArM II `_i M - \••' z ow"" x• AJr M M � � au1 I t �ArM I a t' ♦ z / f g t � i lots R' I N;€ N • (v,N. I � = e ' J A. �"' i 7 Y!•. nrf �fl IY ArN r7 0 t. fl Q o Y _ - H LOWr tir AV N' a 11 °R 1300 cl H 31. w. �+i ; 31P A. , MM "1 «w 4 =... 22-d ' CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY • OF :BRIOOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 Dear Residents: City of Brooklyn Center officials have met with a representative of Amoco Pipeline Company to review the status of the pipeline that operates in Brooklyn Center. For your information, Amoco Pipeline Company has an eight - inch line originating at Amoco's refinery at Mandan, North Dakota and terminating at a terminal in Roseville, Minnesota. This line passes through Brooklyn Center along Dupont Avenue North, alternating from one side of Dupont to the other. The line, built in 1947, carries at various times refined petroleum products such as gasoline, #1 and #2 fuel oil, diesel fuel, and jet aircraft fuel. This particular pipeline was constructed to higher quality standards and is used at lower pressures than the Mounds View pipeline. Amoco appears to have the best safety record in the pipeline industry, and has an extensive pipeline maintenance program which includes aerial patrol, rectifier inspections, cathodic protection surveys, river crossing inspections, check of overpressure safety devices, valve inspections, and pipeline inspections. Even with these precautionary safety measures implemented by Amoco Pipeline Company and their excellent safety record, the possibility for problems does exist. Therefore, you are asked to help yourselves and your neighbors by reporting anyone you see digging or pounding posts or other objects into the street or boulevards along Dupont Avenue North. Please dial 911 to report the location and the activity you see, so we may follow up before an accident occurs. Please understand this would be a proper use of the 911 number. Enclosed is a brochure published by the American Petroleum Institute which may be of interest to you. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the pipeline. With the cooperation of the City of Brooklyn Center, Amoco Pipeline Company, and the residents of our community, we hope that any potential for a crisis can be eliminated. Thanking you for your interest and cooperation I am, Sincerely, Gerald G. Splinter City Manager CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER GGS:sk enc. - 74 .So.ccet X aze PETROLEUM PIPELINE T ! � ,.r A e; t � ti; ?�`. '.� , ' � ,� �F }� •?� - ].t �c� �e '� r > `�'r , A y(� i ffi .1� .. � • to ,wftJ s.% = g .r . 11 44 I w 1 " ` y,_ „_ \4'�. sf 4 "6 � _ i• `_ � ry :,C,r. ” a � � - � ,� i # 4 �.:.: ., 4 e+ � 3- '�!, S .nP �z 5 �;«+ t ���T� �, a t ` x �r ��.� y •; rti c t k p� A ��t5 ✓1 -,�* r r -" ti - What Are Liquid Petroleum Pipelines? tw Our country is crisscrossed with thousands of miles of underground pipelines delivering petroleum and re- � lated products, such as gasoline, home heating oil, and diesel fuel. ' # Pipelines are the safest, most economical system of� " cross - country transportation for the oil and products so vital to our way of life. Today pipelines carry almost WARNING one - quarter of this nation's total freight, yet at a cost so low that it is less expensive to send one gallon of • gasoline from Houston to New York than it is to mail a first class letter. Furthermore, the federal government's statistics show that pipelines have a record of safety cKLL Ou unequalled by any other transportation mode.,"`` What Do Pipeline Companies Do To Ensure The Safe Operation Of Their Pipelines? A lot! Before a pipeline is ever placed in operation, it is tested to a higher pressure than would be encountered in actual !! day -to -day use. Once it has been placed in operation,.:± controls and protective devices monitor line pressures: and limit them to pre- determined safe levels. The pipeline is specially treated, where necessary, to prevent corrosion. When appropriate, additional protec- These other indicators are also evidence that a pipeline tive systems are installed to protect the pipe from the is nearby: effects of corrosive contents or surroundings. Pipeline operators make use of extensive safety sys- tems and programs. These can include: • Computer- assisted control centers capable of de- tecting and interpreting pressure or flow changes in a� ", x pipeline; • Regular air patrols in low- flying aircraft by experi- enced pilots and observers; •Periodic ground patrols for detailed inspection of the pipeline environment; N �: +WARNINGS, • Highly trained maintenance personnel located at "° =� PETROLEUM ., ,. � � � `^ -:° `� PIPELINE strategic points along the pipeline; and, • Continuous monitoring of the commodities flowing through the pipeline._ ► �_ •WARN ,... PETROL PIPEL How Do You Know Where A Pipeline Is Located? Since pipelines are buried underground, line markers are used to show their approximate location at numerous points along their routes. These markers list the commod- ity transported, the name of the operator and a telephone number where the operator's representative can be reached at all times. Though helpful, markers and indicators are limited in Certain roducts when released from i p a pipeline, will the information they provide. They are placed near pipe- vaporize and can be seen as a dense white cloud or fog lines, but not necessarily on top of them, and a pipeline originating near the pipeline location. A spot of dead or may not follow a straight line between adjacent markers. discolored vegetation in an otherwise green pipeline right Therefore, they cannot be relied upon to reveal the exact of way may indicate a small leak. position of the pipelines they mark. Furthermore, they If a leaked commodity has ignited, flames in the vicinity provide no information on the depth or number of would be the most obvious sign of a pipeline emergency. pipelines. • Sound. A liquid petroleum pipeline leak may be iden- So please remember that a backhoe, a bulldozer, a tified by a hissing or roaring sound, the loudness of which hole auger or a pick —any of these, as well as other would vary depending on the size of the leak. digging or drilling equipment —are dangerous ways to • Smell. One of the first indications of a leak may be find pipelines. The best way is to place a collect phone the odor of the escaping liquid petroleum or products. call to the number on the pipeline marker. This will bring a Most of the commodities carried in pipelines have a pipeline company representative to the site to locate the characteristic odor. Therefore,' any strange or unusual pipeline(s) before digging begins. odor in the area of pipelines may indicate a leak. What Should You Do If You Encounter A Leak? A Your first concern should be for your personal safety and the safety of those around you. I You should ... • LEAVE THE LEAK AREA IMMEDIATELY. r • Avoid driving into vapor clouds. e • Avoid direct contact with the escaping liquids. • Avoid creating sparks or sources of heat which could cause th au e e liquids, or vapor arising from them to ignite and q P 9 a 9 burn. If you find yourself in a suspected vapor area, do not light a match, start an engine or even switch on an electric light. " Q • Immediately notify the pipeline operator as soon as 1A you reach safety. Call collect. Give your name, a descrip- � s•�.''._ tion of the leak and its location. If the pipeline operator is not known, call your local fire, police or sheriff's depart - What D oes A Pi Leak Mean . P m nt r e , o the state police. Advise them of the location and It can mean danger! nature of the emergency. Despite the many built -in safety factors and the best safety record in the transportation industry, pipeline leaks can occur. Escaping petroleum or product may be dangerous and warrants cautious, immediate action when discovered. {9 How Can You Recognize A Pipeline Leak? In the event of a liquid petroleum pipeline leak, sight, >� .�, :) sound and smell may be helpful in detecting it. �', • Sight. Most liquid pipeline leaks can be detected visually. A liquid petroleum or product leak may appear as an accumulation of the material on the ground over the pipeline or in the form of a mist. Underground Pipelines Are the Safest Wa To Move Petroleum And Products And You. Can Help Keep It That Way. A gouge, scrape, dent, crease or other damage to the pipe or its coating may cause a leak or break. In fact, the � major ao f i cause o pipeline leaks ea s is earth moving J P P and con _ struction equipment and tools owned by parties other than the pipeline company. Should you discover or cause what seems to be even minor damage to a pipeline, immediately notify the operator. If the operator is not known, call your local fire, police, or sheriff's department, or the state police. WARNING If you are planning to engage in ... PETROLEUM • Construction; PIPELINE DO NOT EXCAVATE • Road construction or maintenance CALL COLLECT 3111 000 - • The deep plowing of fields; • Post -hole digging; • Laying of water lines; • Installation of drain tile; • Ditch cutting or deepening; ' • Ground clearing (especially blasting) or logging; • Laying of telephone or power cables; • Or any activity which you suspect could damage pipelines ... let the pipeline operator know before you start. If you see someone engaged in these activities near an under- ground pipeline, let the pipeline operator know. In either . case, call collect. American Petroleum Institute 1220 L Street, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20005 t r 1-1500-11/83-40M DUBUQUE, IOWA In Emergency Call Collect: 319-533-5488 MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Geralyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator DATE: October 9, 1986 SUBJECT: 59th Avenue North between Brooklyn Boulevard and Xerxes Avenue North The attached items provide a background of the traffic situation on 59th Avenue North and the surrounding area. Several neighborhood meetings have been held in the past year to obtain input from area residents, and minutes of those meetings are attached. In addition, a report prepared by the Director of Public Works and presented to the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group at its July 1, 1986 meeting is enclosed. Finally, an excerpt from the August 28, 1986 Planning Commission meeting is attached. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council direct staff to find ways to lessen the traffic problems in the area without adding barriers, such as through increased media publicity. In addition, the City Council should direct staff to look at the feasibility of installing a sidewalk along 59th Avenue North between Brooklyn Boulevard and Xerxes Avenue North. enc. • rl L'.! 1 1.1... LVc`:i L(:1• - . /: i_�_'l. City of Broo Center, Minnesota Date Initiated June 11, 1985 ( ) letter or petition (copy) Ocorded by: Sy Knapp ( ) metro ( x) telephone request Date: June 11. 1985 ( ) other Requested by: UPDATED: 6 -28 -85 8 -12-86 8 -26 -85 9 -24 -86 Name Michelle Starr 10 -24 -85 Address: 3301 59th Avenue North 12 -30 -85 3 -14 -86 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 4 -11 -86 Telephone No. 561 -1583 5 -12 -86 Location: 59th Avenue at Abbott Avenue rth 6-24-86 Problem Statement or Request: 1. Speeding traffic on 59th Avenue - she requested speed limit and /or warning signs (she has small children) 2. She reports that 6 to 10 cars per day drive into the Abbott Avenue dead -end, then make a U -turn. She notes that these are all East bound on 59th - "lockinq for a way to _get to Brookdale" - and don't see the in place Dean End sign. 3. She has heard about the plan to close 59th Avenue at Beard (in Comprehensive Plan) and "would be willing to circulate petitions asking for this ". cc: City Manager - Chief of Police Director of Public Works -- T.S.A.C. Secretary Record of Actions or Reco:wndations Date Comipleterd Step 1 T.S.A.C. Secretary notifies requesting party - acknawledging request, advising process to be followed, and transmitting other relevant info June 12, 1985 Step 2 Other referrals (State, County, etc.) Step 3 Reviewed by Administrative Traffic Conmittee Action: Another dead end sign will be installed-, a neighborhood meeting will be h eld in late summme to iscuss closing 59th @ Brooklyn Blvd. SEE ADDE 6 -20 -85 Step 4 T.S.A.C. Secretary notifies requesting party of A.T.C.'s action 6 -28 -85 Step 5 Appeals to T.S.A.C. and City Council 10 -29 -85 • Step 6 Final Disposition or Action: - 8 5 -020 • ADDENDUM TO TRAFFIC COi "PLAINT /R.E�IUEST FORM Michelle Star DAmE Jun 11, 1 98 5 LOCATION: 59th AVenue North at Abbott Avenue North S TEP 3 (cont'd.) B -22 -85 _. Knar.,p and Barone laill arrange for a neighborhood meeting, to discuss ?possible closure of 59th Avenue North at Beard Avenue North 10 -21 -85 Neighborhood. Meeting >- chedmled. for 11- 14 -85, 7.20 p.m. Arrangements to be Wade for reeting to be held at Brookdale Christian Center. 12- 19 - -85 - Knapp to review entire neighborhood -theme; ne::t neighbor'icxxI, m:meeting to be scheduled at January A.T.C. meeting. J 2 -10 -86 - Deferred to next A.T.C. meeting. 3 -11 -86 - A.T.C. agreed to inform the Planning Commission that the neighborhood advisory committee will consider this and be involved in the neighborhood meeting. 4 8 -86 - Ron Warren will contact nominees for a Neiqhborhood Advisory Group, to be Appointed by the City Council on April 21, 1986. The neighborhood meeting is scheduled for May 1, 1986, 7 :00 - 9:00 p.m. Barone will contact Rev. Bob Cilke, Brookdale Christian Center to arrange for the use of a room. Barone will cork with Engineering on the public notices. 5 -1 -86 - Neighborhood Meeting at Brookdale Christian Center. 5 -6 -86 - A:T.C. discussed comments received at neighborhood meeting. Anderson to get traffic counts for next meeting. Ron Warren to make arranaements for Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting. 6 -17 -86 - Organizational meeting of Central Neighborhood Advisory Group to discuss possible steps to take in handling this file. The NAG will meet in late July or early August and invite the neighborhood to the meeting. 6 -20 -86 - A.T.C. will prepare memo to be delivered to those attending the next neighborhood meeting. Traffic counts were reviewed, and new counts will be taken. 7 -30 -86 - Neighborhood meeting conducted by Central Neighborhood Advisory Group at Brookdale Library, recommendation to Planning Commission to encourage media publicity and look at installing a sidewalk along 59th Avenue North. 8 -12 -86 - A.T.C. will defer action until Planning Commission reviews advisory groups • recommendation 8 -24 -86 - Planning Commission confirmed recommendation of Neighborhood Advisory Group and will forward to City Council Fi le No. 8 -020 • ADDENDUM TO TRAFFIC COMPLAINT /RE;UEST FORM 71 .;ESTEL BY: Michelle S ta rr DATE: June 11, 1985 LOCr.TICN • 59th Ave North at Abbott Avenue North STEP 3 (cont'd) 9 -24 -86 - A.T.C. scheduled Planning Commission recommendation for 10 -13 -86 City Council meeting. • 0Zo NEIGHRBORHOCD MEETING 59TH AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN XERXES AVENUE NORTH AND BROOKLYN BOULEVARD • BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 14, 1985 ATTENDANCE Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager; Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works; Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police; and Geralyn Barone, Administrative Assistant. Also present were residents of the neighborhood, including Cecil Thayer, Matt Starr, Michelle Starr, Val Brosell, Ted Waite, Gerald Taylor, Virginia Taylor, Charles Audette, Jane Alford, Carol Kleven, Floyd Lemberg, Velma Lemberg, Carl DeWitz, Mabel DeWitz, Mark Dimon, and Robert Cilke. The City Manager highlighted the portion of the City's comprehensive plan that includes the possibility of closing 59th Avenue North at the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard. The Director of Public Works reviewed aerial photos of the neighborhood and explained the specific traffic problems related to the area. He presented four alternatives of what may be done to improve the traffic situation on 59th Avenue North, and pointed out that the City staff is not supporting any one of these ideas at this time. He added that the City intends to obtain a reaction from area residents prior to proceeding with any plans. The following comments and questions were expressed by the residents attending the meeting: - Much of the traffic is originating from southbound traffic on Brooklyn • Boulevard turning and traveling eastbound on 59th Avenue North - The intersection of 59th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard is hazardous because of the potential for accidents - If steps are taken to close the access to Brooklyn Boulevard from 59th Avenue North the increased traffic will be transferred to 60th Avenue North - A possible proposal could be to extend the island on Brooklyn Boulevard further south so that vehicles may not make a left turn from southbound Brooklyn Boulevard to eastbound 59th Avenue North - A hazardous situation currently is present when vehicles turning off of Brooklyn Boulevard onto 59th Avneue North and into the parking lot of the First Brookdale Bank do not use their turn signals to indicate a turn into the parking lot - There was concern that an interchange would be created at I -694 and Xerxes Avenue North (City staff stated that there will be no interchange at this intersection) - A request was "stop" made Q to install sto signs on 59th p g 59 Avenue North to slow down traffic (City staff noted that stop signs do not necessarily slow down taffic, but can increase the amount of noise and fumes, as well as creating a hazard because drivers ignore the "stop" signs) r . - Many of the residents have had their lawn dug up by vehicles traveling on 59th • Avenue North - A request was made to stop semi- trucks bound for Jerry's SuperValu - A request was made for installation of speed bumps ( City staff pointed out that speed bumps are especially hazardous to people on bicycles, and some vehicles find it easier to drive over speed bumps at a faster speed rate with a lesser impact) - Concern was expressed that if 59th Avenue North at Brooklyn Boulevard is closed off, emergency vehicles would have difficulty accessing the neighborhood - A request was made to post the deadend signs for the streets just south of 59th Avenue North where they are more visible to drivers ( City staff noted that the signs have been positioned so that they are more visible to drivers traveling eastbound on 59th Avenue North) The City Manager informed the residents that they would receive copies of the four alternative proposals as well as a copy of this evening's minutes. He added that another neighborhood meeting inviting residents from a larger area around 50th Avenue North will be held sometime in early 1986. Residents will be notified of that meeting. Meeting adjourned. • Z O r d W W Z Z J > > uj LU O CO Q ¢ > LU X Z �.. Z 0 Q OC H = Q w > J Q O H Y X Q Y LU m Z I m m O ¢ N m Lj __ �, --- �.- oo 59 TH AVE. NO. COMPLETE. STREET- CLOSURE ETWEEN ENTRANCE-TO RETAIN TWO WAY TRAFFIC ST BROOKDALE BANK BErt M XERXES AND BEARD AND BEARD AVENUE AVENUES 0 PROHIBITS SHORT CUTTING TO ROOKDALE FROM BROOKLYN BOULEVARD 0 PROHIBITS SHORT CUTTING TO IST BROOKDALE BANK FROM XERXES 0 PROHIBITS NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ACCESS O 1ST BROO(DALE BANK AND BROOKLYN BOULEVARD (EXCEPT VIA OTH AVENUE) 0 ALLOWS NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESS TO XERXES AVENUE Alternate 1 0 0 ae z z • 0. 0 e r W W z z r J > > W W (j m ¢ ¢ > ui x z a :D r i _ ¢ w > Y Lu co z cc X Q O N ui O I "�- ----' - 59 T H AVE. N O. i CLOSE SOUTH HALF OF 59 TH ESTABLISH "ONE - WAY (WESTBOUND) ONLY" AVENUE WITH ISLAND - TO REGULATJON ON ONE BLOCK OF 5 9TH PROHIBIT EASTBOUND AVENUE `BETWEEN ABBOTT & BEARD ,VENUES) TRAFFIC AT THIS POINT 0 PROHIBITS SHORT CUTTING TO ROOKDALE (FROM BROOKLYN BOULEVARD 0 ALLOWS WESTBOUND TRAFFIC TO IST BROOKDALE BANK & BROOKLYN BOULEVARD 0 ALLOWS NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC TO ENTER /EXIT FROM AV 0 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ENTERING FROM BROOKLYN BOULEVARD WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ENTER AT 60TH AVENUE Alternate 2 ! z z ! , o z O o r w w z z > > uj w� to Q uj z Q w > INSTALL O Y X Q SIGNS m Z 0 N O lion m1i I - r tr i m 59 TH AVE, NO. =-­ , T TWO -WAY TRAFFIC TO BEARD AVENUE ONLY - -- ONL WAY tWLgtbbUNb) THOM 81ONE LRbM �tNft§ to ttAND AVENUES 0 PROHIBITS SHORT CMI NO to tRUUkbALL 0 ALLOWS WESTBOUND TRAMt blkttt ktLSS TO 18T BROOKDALE BANK AND 8RUUkLY SUULLVARD BUT - REQUIRES RLTURN VIj MtH AVLNUL ALLOWS NEIGHBORHOOD tRALLft to LNtLR PROM XERXES AVENUE (UTIL L t tURN LANL At 9tH AVENUE) BUT - MUST EXIT At VtH AVLNUL Alternate 3 Z O • O p • w w Z Z e: m Q ¢ � LL! X O Q Z ir H = Q W j J ¢ O F— Y < w m Z oc O m m w O O Q N >— m I 59 TH AVE. NO. - . —..- -_ eo I CONSTRUCT AFPIC DIVERTER AT ABBOTT /BTH AVENUES 0 PROH.IBITS..SHORT- CUTTING TO BROOKDALE (FROM BROOKLYN BOULEVARD) 0 PROHIBITS SHORT CUTTING TO 1ST BROOKDALE BANK (FROM XERXES AVENUEI 0 ALLOWS NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESS TO XERXES AVENUE 0 ALLOWS NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESS TO 1ST BROOKDALE BANK AND BROOKLYN BOULEVARD (VIA CIRCUITOUS ROUTE TO 60TH AVENUE AND RETURN) Alternate 4 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDED BY COUNTY ROAD 10, BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, 63RD AVENUE NORTH AND XERXES AVENUE NORTH BROOKDALE CHRISTIAN CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA MAY 1, 1986 ATTENDANCE Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager; Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works; Ron Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection; and Geralyn Barone, Personnel Coordinator. Also in attendance were residents of the neighborhood. The City Manager reviewed the history of this case, explaining the concern for the amount of cut - through traffic on the east /west streets in the neighborhood, originating from Brooklyn Boulevard and Xerxes Avenue North. He explained that a neighborhood meeting had already been held on November 14, 1985 for residents living on 59th Avenue North between Xerxes Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. The City Manager said the purpose of the meeting this evening is to inform residents of the possible solutions to the problems, and he pointed out that no decisions will be reached this evening. He said that the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group will review the situation, and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. In turn, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council will make any final decisions. The Director of Public Works reviewed several proposals for 59th, 60th, and 62nd Avenues North. He pointed out that the City staff is not supporting or opposing any of these ideas at this time. The following comments and questions were expressed by the residents attending the meeting: - All of the problems are premised on a problem that no one has said anything about; that is, the left turn lane from southbound Brooklyn Boulevard to eastbound County Road 10. - A resident living at 63rd and Beard Avenues North said if he lived on 59th Avenue North, he would want the street closed off. However, he cannot get out of his driveway at this time onto 63rd Avenue North. If the traffic is rerouted, he feels he would not be able to get out onto Beard Avenue North either. - A request was made to extend the center island on Brooklyn Boulevard further south. This would allow residents to go • north out of the neighborhood onto Brooklyn Boulevard. - One of the biggest problems is commercial trucks cutting through on the residential streets heading for Super Valu. - This concern was seconded, and a request was made to post "No Trucks" signs. - A request was made to install four -way Stop signs on Beard Avenue North, at all intersections on 59th, 60th, and 62nd Avenues North. - The question was raised that if 59th Avenue North is a residential street, why is there a left turn lane from northbound Xerxes Avenue North to westbound 59th Avenue North. City staff noted that the left turn lane was installed for safety reasons. - If all of the neighborhood accesses are closed off, people will use 69th Avenue North and come down Xerxes Avenue North. - It was asked if this is just a morning problem. City staff said the problem appears to occur at all times of the day. - The biggest problem is that at the intersection of Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10, there are not enough lanes. - It was asked what the traffic count is on 59th Avenue North. City staff responded that approximately 2,200 cars per day travel on 59th Avenue North. The traffic counts on 60th and 62nd Avenues North are not as high as 59th Avenue North. The City will be conducting additional traffic counts in the area. - A resident who walks in the neighborhood every day feels safer walking along 59th, 60th, 61st, and 62nd Avenues North than walking on Xerxes Avenue North. - It was asked if the traffic count given is an average, and City staff responded affirmatively. - The possible solution could be to experiment by installing temporary road blocks. The City Manager noted that if safety standards are met, the City can consider this. - Beard Avenue North is getting to be used as a service road. - Cars driving through the neighborhood are driving faster than 30 mph. With no sidewalks and a lot of kids in the neighborhood, this is a problem. - It was asked what the normal traffic level is on a • residential street, and the Director of Public Works said the normal average is between 300 and 1,000 cars per day. - It was requested that additional traffic counts be taken on other streets in the neighborhood before continuing with any proposals. - It was asked where the traffic counter is placed on 59th Avenue North, and the Director of Public Works said it is placed between Abbott and Beard Avenues North. - It was requested that a "No Left Turn" sign be posted from southbound Xerxes Avenue North to eastbound Northway Drive. The City Manager pointed out that this intersection relieves some of the traffic pressure from the Xerxes Avenue North and County Road 10 intersection. - A request was made to install Stop signs on 59th and 60th Avenues North, which would make an inconvenience to short cutters. The City Manager pointed out that people will still short cut and will begin to slide through intersections with Stop signs, creating a serious accident potential. - A resident living near 62nd and Beard Avenues North said e there is a Stop sign at this intersection, and vehicles are travelling 45 mph half a block from the intersection. This resident noted that there are a lot of older people in the neighborhood who do not have any children and, therefore, are not outside much of the time to see what is happening. The younger residents have children and are outside to see some of the traffic problems. - There was another request for installation of Stop signs on every corner in the neighborhood. - The resident living near 62nd and Beard Avenues North said that 45% of the cars do not stop for the four -way Stop sign. - Concern was expressed that if all streets are closed to Brooklyn Boulevard, emergency vehicles would have a problem accessing the neighborhood. The City Manager pointed out that emergency vehicles are radio - directed into the neighborhoods. - It was requested that left turn lanes from Brooklyn Boulevard to 59th Avenue North be prohibited during certain hours, and also that the speed limit be lowered to 20 mph. The City Manager responded that it is difficult to enforce a left turn prohibition, and also that the ® State of Minnesota does not allow cities to post speed limits lower than 30 mph unless a school crossing is in the area. - A resident asked that at this time a voice vote for and against any changes be taken, and the City Manager said this meeting is for informational purposes only. Also, additional traffic counts need to be taken and other comments received from other residents in the neighborhood. - There was support for closing the accesses to Brooklyn Boulevard because of the high number of children living in the neighborhood. It was noted that the traffic travelling on 59th Avenue North is usually speeding, and support was voiced for using temporary barriers to see if the possible solutions work. The City Manager again expressed safety concerns for doing so. - If hammerhead turnarounds are installed, this will make snowplowing difficult. City staff agreed, but said this would not be an insurmountable problem. - A possible solution would be to make 59th Avenue North traffic one way westbound and 60th Avenue North traffic one way eastbound. The City Manager pointed out that the total traffic on both streets would probably average what it is now, but this is a possible solution. - It was requested that "No Left Turn" signs be placed on • Brooklyn Boulevard to 59th Avenue North between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. - It was suggested that Brooklyn Boulevard at 59th and 62nd Avenues North be closed off at Xerxes Avenue North rather than Brooklyn Boulevard. - The question was raised of how accurate the traffic counts are, and the Director of Public Works said accuracy is at about 95 %. - It was pointed out that a lot of the cars travelling fast through the neighborhood are people from outside the neighborhood who do not belong there. - It was requested that a semaphore be installed either at 59th and Xerxes Avenues North or at Xerxes and Northway Drive. - It was noted that far more people live in the rest of the neighborhood than live on 59th Avenue North, so problems from 59th Avenue North should not be diverted to the rest of the neighborhood. - Another request was made for installation of a semaphore at Xerxes Avenue North and Northway Drive. The City Manager said he does not know if the traffic levels meet State requirements for installation of a semaphore. - Another resident complained about the traffic problems at Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10. - A request was made to install a median barrier on Brooklyn Boulevard at 59th Avenue North. Although the bank may be hurt, people will still go there if they want to keep their money there. The City Manager pointed out that Hennepin County is responsible for Brooklyn Boulevard. - A comment was made that the residents on 59th Avenue North are not unanimous in their choice to close off 59th Avenue North at Brooklyn Boulevard, and, therefore, a few people should not dictate what the rest of the neighborhood wants. - Another resident stated the concern that installing barriers will hinder emergency service to the neighborhood. - It was asked that when 911 is dialed, if a rescue squad is sent from the fire station. The City Manager noted that Police Officers are trained in emergency medical treatment and are usually the first to the scene, with the Fire Department and ambulance following. - It was asked if additional traffic problems are i anticipated with the opening of the Target store. The City Manager pointed out that a retail development moratorium was placed on the City for three months while a traffic study was conducted. The findings of the study indicate that there are two traffic peaks in the City, one for employment and another for retail operations. It appears that little additional traffic will be generated on Xerxes Avenue North as a result of the Target development on Shingle Creek Parkway. It also appears that the present roadways in the Target area, with minor improvements, can handle the increased traffic. There was concern that if all streets are blocked off in the neighborhood, residents will be more vulnerable to crime. - A resident pointed out that proposals are being made without complete statistics. It was asked what information will be used and who will make any final decisions. The City Manager said the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group will review the proposals and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission if they choose. The Planning Commission would then review those recommendations and send its findings to the City Council. The City Council will make any final decisions. As • requested by either of these bodies, City staff will conduct additional studies. The City Manager stated the studies and statistics are not complete at this time because it is very early in the decision - making process. • - It was asked what the time frame for settling this issue is, and the City Manager said that the City Council could receive this issue no earlier than the fall of 1986. - It was asked who the Neighborhood Advisory Group representatives are, and the City Manager read them as follows: Tony Kuefler, Gordon Gunderson, Robert Cilke, Harold Uecker, Diane Reem, Ronald Turner, and Mike Nelson. The City Manager informed the residents that they would receive copies of this evening's minutes. Residents will also be notified of any future meetings. Meeting adjourned. • MEMORANDUM TO: Central Neighborhood Advisory Group Tony Kuefler, Chairman 561 -3251 Gordon Gunderson 561 -1826 Robert Cilke 566 -8583 Harold Uecker 561 -1841 Diane Reem 561 -2690 Ronald Turner 561 -3571 Michael Nelson 566 -0449 FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspecti�� J DATE: June 9 1986 SUBJECT: Central Neighborhood Advisory Group Organizational Meeting Tony Kuefler, Central Neighborhood Advisory Group Chairman, has proposed an organizational meeting of the Neighborhood Advisory Group for Tuesday evening, June 17, 1986 at 8:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in the City Council Chambers at City Hall. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the expanded role of the Neighborhood Advisory Group; review the history and background of the cut - through traffic issue; establish procedures for the advisory group's review and comment; and set a meeting date for additional review and comment from the neighborhood. This meeting is for organizational purposes only and the group is not expected to make any final decisions or recommendations regarding the issue at this time. It is an "open meeting ", meaning that it is open to the public, however, it is not a public hearing and the group is not required to open the meeting for public comment. The meeting should conclude by approximately 9 :30 p.m. Enclosed is a copy of the minutes of the May 1, 1986 meeting held at the Brookdale Christian Center which you were invited to. You previously received a packet of information related to this issue. If you have misplaced this or need additional copies of that information, please contact me at 561 -5440 ext. 118. If you are unable to attend the organizational meeting, please contact either Tony Kuefler (home phone no. 561 -3251, after 6:00 p.m.; office phone no. 330 -6628, before 4:30 p.m.) or myself. Your cooperation and willingness to serve on this advisory group are greatly appreciated. RAW:mlg CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP MEETING MINUTES 6 -17 -86 ATTENDANCE Gerald Splinter, City Manager; Geralyn Barone, Personnel Coordinator; Central Neighborhood Advisory Group Members Tony Kuefler, Mike Nelson, and Ron Turner. ROLE OF NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP Splinter explained that the initial role of the Advisory Groups was to provide input on the comprehensive guide plan development, in which the Advisory Groups served as advisors to the Planning Commission. In addition, the groups are used to review rezoning issues. He noted that the City also had Neighborhood Park Advisory Groups at the time of the park plan development, but these groups are no longer active. Splinter explained that the Year 2000 Report recommends the use of the Neighborhood Advisory Groups for issues related to neighborhood needs or problems. The Advisory Groups would meet only when issues relating to their neighborhood would arise. Splinter noted that the Planning Commission will be aware that the Neighborhood Advisory Group is being used to review the issue regarding 59th Avenue North, but there is no requirement that the Planning Commission comment on the Neighborhood Advisory Group's action. He added that the advisory groups are not asked to be experts on any particular issues. HISTORY OF THE ISSUES Splinter reviewed the issues relating to the east /west cut through traffic in the neighborhood around 59th Avenue North. The initial complaint was generated from a resident who complained that vehicles were turning onto the dead -end streets south of 59th Avenue North when looking for Brookdale Shopping Center. Splinter noted that there was a neighborhood meeting for residents living on 59th Avenue North in November, 1985 to discuss the possibilities for solving traffic problems on 59th Avenue North. Another neighborhood meeting was held in May, 1986 to which a larger neighborhood group was invited to attend. PROCEDURES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP REVIEW AND COMMENT Splinter suggested that if the Neighborhood Advisory Group holds a public meeting on the issues before them, both sides of 63rd Avenue North should be included and all areas east of Brooklyn Boulevard to Central Park should also be invited. Splinter said that staff can list those solutions and suggestions made by staff and the public, and on the more possible options the pros and cons can be listed. Such a list could be sent to residents invited to the public meeting. At the neighborhood meeting, staff could review the listing and the Neighborhood Advisory Group could hold a public hearing to receive input from the residents. Then, if the Neighborhood Advisory Group would like to hold another meeting to discuss possible solutions, the meeting could be publicized but public input could be limited. s Kuefler said that if the crowd at the first meeting is adamant, the Advisory Group could get together to act at another time. However, if things look alright, the Advisory Group could take action the night of the first meeting. There was some discussion of how many cars 59th Avenue North can handle. Kuefler asked what the timing would be for all of this, and Splinter said it will take approximately four to six weeks for the City to complete its report and conduct additional traffic counts on 59th Avenue North and the rest of the neighborhood. There was further discussion of issues related to 59th Avenue North. Turner made a request for installation of Stop signs, and Splinter pointed out that staff will try to list possible solutions and the affects of those solutions on the neighborhood. Kuefler said that a meeting date will be set after additional traffic counts are obtained, and the entire neighborhood hborhood g can be invited. Barone will attempt to contact Reverend Bob Cilke at Brookdale Christian Center for a meeting location. The date of the Advisory Group meeting with the neighborhood was tentatively set for July 30, 1986. Central Neighborhood Advisory Group member Diane Reem entered the meeting at this time. Splinter and Kuefler reviewed their previous discussions from this evening. Reem requested that any document prepared listing the alternatives be sent to the Advisory Group for review, with the opportunity for the members to contact the City to include any additional proposals or to make further comments. There was some general discussion on various topics related to traffic around the City. Meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Geralyn R. Barone Personnel Coordinator GRB:sk CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY • OF :BYROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 C ENTER TELEPHONE 561 -5440 ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Central Neighborhood Advisory Group FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: July 22, 1986 RE: Through Traffic in the Neighborhood Between Brooklyn Boulevard and Xerxes Avenue from County Road 10 to 63rd Avenue Definition of the Issue This matter was brought to the attention of City staff by a resident in June, 1985. That resident reported that there was heavy traffic on 59th Avenue and particularly noted that much of the traffic was oriented towards Brookdale. That resident stated that she was aware of a proposal (contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan) to close 59th Avenue at Beard in order to eliminate the cut - through traffic and requested that action be taken. Subsequent discussion of the issue by the Administrative Traffic Committee, by neighborhood residents who have attended two public meetings which have been held regarding the matter, and by others have raised other questions regarding t vehicular accident records, pedestrian safety, site distance at the intersections, speeding traffic and other items of concern. Traffic /Accident Information The Engineering Staff has taken traffic counts on various streets within the neighborhood at several different times. Following is a summary of counts which have been taken: A traffic count taken at 59th Avenue between Abbott and Beard Avenues in 1985 indicated average daily traffic of approximately 1,810 cars. On May 12 to 14, 1986 traffic counts were taken at four locations and are summarized as follows and shown on Exhibit B attached): Saom&4"q Naze r July 22, 1986 . Page. 2 . Average Daily Location Traffic Count 59th Avenue between Abbott and Beard 1,809 60th Avenue between Abbott and Beard 814 62nd Avenue between Xerxes and Beard 441 Beard Avenue between Mumford and 63rd 639 *Note: Attached (Exhibit C) is a data sheet which shows the distribution of traffic on 60th Avenue North on an hourly basis. During the week starting June 24, 1986 through June 30, 1986 a traffic count was taken on 59th Avenue North between Abbott Avenue and Beard Avenue. That count showed an average weekday traffic count of 1,922 vehicles per day and a weekend count of 1,134 vehicles per day. Attached (Exhibit D) is a data sheet which shows all of these counts on an hourly basis. Also attached (Exhibit E) is a summary of traffic accidents which have been recorded by the Brooklyn Center Police Department during the past three -and • one half years on 59th Avenue from Xerxes Avenue to Brooklyn Boulevard. It is noted that of the ten recorded accidents five occurred at the intersection of 59th Avenue and Xerxes, four occurred at the intersection of 59th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard and one occurred between Xerxes and Brooklyn Boulevard. None of the accidents involved pedestrians. Comprehensive Plan Proposal - 1980 The 1980 Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City Council with City Planning Commission approval includes an acknowledgement that a through traffic problem does exist on 59th Avenue, and includes a proposal to resolve that problem by constructing a traffic barrier on 59th Avenue just West of Beard Avenue. This proposal is shown as Alternate No. 1 on Exhibit F attached. This Exhibit also notes the operational characteristics resulting from this plan. Administrative Traffic Committee Proposal The Administrative Traffic Committee (composed of the City Manager, the Chief of Police and the Director of Public Works) has reviewed this matter and has suggested several alternatives to the plan as recommended within the Comprehensive Plan. These alternatives are shown as Alternates 2, 3 and 4 on the attached Exhibits G, H and I. Each of these Exhibits also notes the operational characteristics resulting from an implementation of each of the plans. July 22, 1986 • Page 3 The Administrative Traffic Committee also considered the fact that if through traffic is prohibited on 59th Avenue, it is highly probable that a major portion of that through traffic would shift to 60th Avenue North unless steps were taken to prohibit through traffic on 60th Avenue also. Accordingly the Administrative Traffic Committee recommends that if any of the alternatives are implemented on 59th Avenue, a hammerhead type of traffic turnaround be constructed on 60th Avenue just Westerly of Beard Avenue in order to prohibit through traffic on 60th Avenue (see Exhibit J). In addition, the Administrative Traffic Committee (ATC) considered the possibility that if through traffic were prohibited both on 59th and 60th Avenues it is possible that 62nd Avenue may experience a significant increase in the amount of through traffic. It is the opinion of ATC that this will not happen. However, in the event that it does occur, the ATC then also recommends the construction of a hammerhead type turnaround on 62nd Avenue just Westerly of Beard Avenue (see Exhibit K). After some consideration of the alternatives for 59th Avenue it is the opinion of the ATC that p alternates 1 and 4 are the most feasible and effective. Alternates 2 and 3 rely on the ability to enforce one way traffic regulations and it is noted that both of these alternatives still allow westbound traffic to continue uninterrupted through the neighborhood. While Alternate 1 would be the . most effective alternate when considering 59th Avenue only it is suggested that Alternate 4 should be considered in conjunction with the total neighborhood analysis (i.e. in conjunction with the consideration for hammerhead turnarounds on 60th Avenue and on 62nd Avenue). Alternate Proposals Attached (as Exhibit L) is a summary of options which have been suggested by residents of the neighborhood at meetings held on November 14, 1985 and on May 1, 1986, and /or by way of written communication to City officials. On that exhibit we have also r v' o ided staff aff commentary regarding each of the suggested options. Analysis and Recommendations There is little question that a good deal of shortcutting of traffic does occur on this section of 59th Avenue. It is our estimate that approximately two thirds of the total traffic on 59th Avenue is traffic which does not have an origin or destination within this residential neighborhood. On the other hand, it is noted that there is no traffic capacity problem, with the exception of some minor capacity problems at the Xerxes Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard intersections. July 22, 1986 Page 4 Our analysis of the traffic accidents during the past three and one half years indicates that the only significant accident problems which have occured are at Xerxes Avenue and at Brooklyn Boulevard. No accidents involving pedestrians have been recorded by the Police Department. Accordingly, it is recommended that any proposed change be considered on the basis of its effect on the entire neighborhood. It is important that a perceived problem not be solved by chasing that problem around the neighborhood. Respectful y submitted, Sy Knapp Director of Public Works SK: jn • FIRE oil - IN oil may mm mom mm MM mm MIM MM mm Mm MM am MM SU PAM I db db t .. 111II�j i� •i 1111o111�■I## cam �■ .. t I/ . �I� 111111111M. if �1 1 �i� ma ... �QIIII� m111 1 i1110 .�• / /1/m■��/II ■ - "- �. • �1 • • 11 � 11111 ■ / /t / / ►�� . � ■ �" ■ � '�1 �� ; � . /1111 1 1 1� '� " '� . �� ..■ '� 11111 1 • 111 1� I �1111iL1/ / /I� p ��■�11�111 11 = � - !11/11 11 11111 / /1 /� � - ' � • . , i 11 �// � _ . 11►�I ��� 111 X11 �' � w e r ©���i� ����I rr r •►� • rill. mill ANGSTAD PARK Mwj ■ ■ /ISII/ / 111111 /I�� .r.. �►�� ..!� =ice .■ �/'�� � / /�I������� ,1 �� .�� ����i�i��/ \'► • C.. " �� �', ; ���� � ■ � � D`= Cam' C '� .. C' 111 ■ .in mew M M PEN S1 = ■ i r� \111 � �. - ■ • • '' ��Ir 1111 1�7/■ ■C I�I��r � � ■iii .� i :• - �11111L 11 1 ♦ �1 mom ,......... �� ♦ '►�� p Form MHO 29176 (3 -73) PORTABLE TRAFFIC RECORDER DATA SHEET LOCATION 4 �OQ i9Uph O!1, COUNTY 0AI STATION N0. /� �Q (2/ �9� e if/. COUNT BEGINNING DATE DATA BY DATE AVERAGE of COUNT DAY M O N T U E WED THUR F R I SAT SUN WEEKDAY WEEK END 12 -IAM 5 6 1 -2 0 3 O 2 -3 / 0 O.s 3 -4 S O S 4 -5 oZ S I 3s� 5 -6 // /0 s -� /9 3 ��� 7 -8 39 3 s' 8 -9 543 3P7 o 9 -10 .?3 38 10 -II V4 11 .�� 2 i -12N 39 12-1 1-2 3 - 2-3 14 3 S.R 3 -4 (61 7- s' 5-6 e - 7 -8 V 1 60 SIJ.O 8-9 5e8 I v- 9 s 9 -10 19 1 1 0 a� 10-11 .9 5 .2 �: 5 11 -I2M 5 / 5 TOTAL 566 8a 5 d 37 SKETCH AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC O Remarks: V N L RECORDER TYPE HR 0 MR C �J�' MACH NO. TAPE NO. FILE EXHIBIT C Form MHO 29176 (3 -7 PORTABLE TRAFFIC RECORDER DATA SHEET LOCATION 9 1 O ZV"7 COUNTY STATION NO. 4.1'/ A a 7 COUNT BEGINNING DATE DATA BY crunQ V,..t tla.�t f�..• ..t VywC cf4ne DATE .30 ,r„ A. a >A � IV- tX AVERAGE of CO w 7.,_, � .�... d 9 NT � U DA 1 M ON I TUE "'ED THUR I FRI SAT SUN WEEKDAY WEEK END 12 -IAM I '7 I // 7 3 1 -z 1 5 1 3 7 9 /S 2 -3 4C 1 ? I & 8 G S 7 3-4 / / 3 S a 44 4 -5 I / / 3 a 3 3 5 -6 8 I 13 1 I44 1 /7 a 8 S 6-7 SS S 1 -5 1 9 S Sz 3 7 7 -e Jt ia7 I /.a /ao 1 131 1 /sZ a 8 /O /.Re I / 8 -9 I S q*7 6 7 fe 3 9 - 10 / o/ 9 6 e6 '7 / 5 1 • 10- / eq (9 //(0 14S 13 4L.;Z 16 91 11 -12N /3 19 /00 1 /3� 191 66 //5 12 - 1 168 1Qo i o 15SG 6 /Sc6 1 -2 /6a 1 /a9 /37 1 /9/ /sG / % / eA / 8 2- / 57 1// /A 137 ^4j4 1 75 7 / 3 -4 / //3 is /Sa /7-Z 63 H 1141 d • /6 /SS 159 /77 ;, 69 G 3 /1% G 5- 6 / 7 t /36 /16 ;.; 7 55 /4 93 87 / o 165' 61 a 8 // uS 7 -8 9 7u 90 9 //0 9 6,R 93 56 8 -9 69 60 78 7 6a 4c3 3S 6 39 9 -lo 55 7 617 S 1�4 7 Se4 S40 6/ C4 - to -11 -Q 3 .?8 /e A S4 ad 39 3 0 11 -120 / i,,? -;5 a 8 30 -/ 7 I TOTA l k L a !637 /'y /9/� a�8.z / � 3 � 1(5 SKETCH Z AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC W o Remarks: n N m • w 59TH AVE N. m RECORDER TYPE = HR 0 MR ❑ EXHIBIT D MACH N0. TAPE NO. FILE ACCIDENT SUMMARY ® 59TH AVENUE NORTH FROM XERXES AVENUE TO BROOKLYN BOULEVARD 1983 83 -01693 59TH & XERXES AVENUE 02 -04 -83 1432 MV PD 83 -5875 59TH & XERXES AVENUE 05 -05 -83 1436 MV MV PD 83 -07807 59TH & BROOKLYN BOULEVARD 06 -10 -83 1605 PI 1984 84 -19336 59TH & XERXES AVENUE 12 -31 -84 1209 MV MV PD 84 -18326 59TH & ABBOTT AVENUE 12 -13 -84 0938 MV MV PD 1985 85 -209 59TH & BROOKLYN BOULEVARD 01 -04 -85 1741 MV MV PD 85 -3065 59TH & XERXES AVENUE 02 -27 -85 2148 MV RAN OFF . 85 -2444 59TH & BROOKLYN BOULEVARD 02 -15 -85 2256 MV MV PI 85 -16677 59TH & BROOKLYN BOULEVARD 10 -25 -85 0934 MV MV Pi JANUARY 1986 THROUGH MAY 1986 86 -2438 59TH & XERXES AVENUE 02 -13 -86 1610 MV MV PI EXHIBIT E • • • O z O O o W u.i z z o W w crw W> J Q 0 F Y X Q CD Y m m W p Ir O ¢ N } c m , I i r, . --,v- --� --.�• ____� 59 T H AVE, N 0, I I COMPLETE-STREET-CLOSURE RETAIN TWO WAY TRAFFIC BETWEEN ENTRANCE-TO 1ST BROOKDALE BANK BETWEEN XERXES AND BEARD AND BEARD AVENUE AVENUES 0 PROHIBITS SHORT CUTTING TO I ROOKDALE FROM BROOKLYN BOULEVARD 0 PROHIBITS SHORT CUTTING TO ST BROOKDALE 1 ANK FROM XERXES 0 PROHIBITS NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ACCESS z8 ST BROO DALE BANK m 0 AND BROOKLYN - BOULEVARD (EXCEPT VIA tL�TH AVENUE x AND NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESS TO XERXES AVENUE x x -� Alternate 1 O 0 O 0 0 W LU z Z i > LLJ W CA Q Q > W X Z Q Q Z cr I-- = d Ct > Lij Lu co z cc O m m w O O Q N } m 59 T H AVE. N O, CLOSE SOUTH HALF OF 59TH ESTABLISH 'ONE-WAY (WESTBOUND) ONLY" AVENUE WITH ISLAND - TO REGULAT ONS ON ONE BLOCK OF 59TH PROHIBIT EASTBOUND AVENUE BETWEEN ABBOTT & BEARD AVENUES) TRAFFIC AT THIS POINT 0 PROHIBITS SHORT CUTTING TO ROOKDALE (FROM BROOKLYN BOULEVARD 0 ALLOWS WESTBOUND TRAFFIC TO 1ST BROOKDALE BANK & BROOKLYN BOULEVARD m 0 ALLOWS NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC TO ENTER/EXIT-FROM _ XERXES AVENUE ay 0 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ENTERING FROM BROOKLYN BOULEVARD i WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ENTER AT 60TH AVENUE Alternate 2 O G O ? z O p w ui z i > w cj) O m Q Q > W X z Q Lij 7Z — Q = Q W > INSTALL O x Q Y O m SIGNS m z O O Q N LLJ 0 CO �M 59 TH AVE, NO, TWO -WAY TRAFFIC TO BEARD AVENUE %T 7 ONLY ONE WAY (WESTBOUND) TRAFFIC SIGNS FROM XERXES TO BEARD AVENUES 0 PROHIBITS SHORT CUTTING TO BROOKDALE 0 ALLOWS WESTBOUND TRAFFIC DIRECT ACCESS TO 1ST BROOKDALE BANK AND BROOKLYN� BOULEVARD rri BUT - REQUIRES RETURN VIA t:QTH AVENUE 0 ALLOWS NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC TO ENTER ROM XERXES . AVENUE (UTILIZING L T TURN LANE AT �TH AVENUE) a' BUT - MUST EXIT Al FTH AVENUE z Alternate 3 0 Z 0 w z w co z o F_ Q D x CcW J Q 0 F_ Y X Q Y W m O m m W 0 O Q N >- m m 59 TH AVE, NO, CONSTRUCT RAFFIC DIVERTER AT A& 9TH AVENUES O PROH.IBITS.. SHORT. CUTTING TO BROOKDALE (FROM BROOKLYN-BOULEVARD) 0 PROHIBITS SHORT CUTTI(V G TO 1ST BROOKDALE BANK (FROM XERXES AVENUEI 0 ALLOWS NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESS TO XERXES AVENUE 0 ALLOWS NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESS TO 1ST BROOKDALE BANK TO AND 60THOAVENUEOAND- RETTURN)(VIA CIRCUITOUS ROUTE Alternate 4 '� aq LI � ..a 1a.�A4'x r '�•+ q q'i! 1 t � t. .1 "{ � + �± 1.r r f � {,j�( .r ♦. i �,`� f � �' r'�.� •��,�„ ��. � ,f' ,,�'. tr k �! bbl 7 «:' v,,•y�ta:• ,n y �y a fit' . •�.. gyp`y., f I ran _ z � #' r l . R ATM.:' �s ,d 7" .�`. a `. •il 1• t v � a t �� t 8 -�'�. t4y - i • � � � da l �� � r'. � .Il d 'Y �L. ♦r� � r ' A y S � t - •+ .1.. � i ' � M1 � - Y f v .i �' k '>f, rt � s7 _rL '��'jR ^ �; • d �r�,,. + "���> � ' � Cc� �a . ��. ' K V ''a � ,. �,}N.�ay^ y .t. �„k,, .i�'s. 5�� y�. , �, ` �L - t � k l'_ i?tiJC.- ..R, �"' .�'�w1. "- D! ,t.� ?�.�� ��,�' k � t ,{�. y � .r, •�� t t , �� • 't3 ��/ r a 8 Y3 r.s: PN�.: i•ZwI °[" 1. �{S {` }� . n. 'T {` -F... •R :\�`..�r a t ' , \ .ra. .fir. -•p� ' • . ,Ma , � I �• r �� . J q '� .`# . - r • J i. 11. r ' A"••„t,., .n....':a?�• "�!+ ,. �.s...'•. . •1_ :�lv • r9 .r .',-2•; '�',}��'t;L� .., ..��y �i ,K '�' - a � a f ��'` A �hti '."'• .G,'.r .y .:;.,•�„� ��.1�1.... ,. •x r.� .1 r � .11 � � ' - ' ` r ( ��yVti \r.lr���- c� -n -:�. t �,n� , r . e�Y �; .� + `M . ,, . * . N , _ � � `a .� �, ;1 k,1.. �l'.�,a {�1�C.�K•..� ! i 5 {:�t. � Y• �r» ( •r .. C.? .r` "i..y♦ � ` ,� . 'n'•„':p'•`• �- S zv - , i•� , � t �r'�� �•r t •�• r r . �S . _ \�. « � f t':,, • 1'' '...4*` .a � 1 - � h ... ,�i, �.0 VS- + �.��,�' f -.�� «�.;+ � ,�.. T - •oj �r 1�' .�' '. :t, ±�..i: .j�/ �t.tt' �:�c" �t v:. •.., �••i'w� �� y. ^Q"., t C ;�iJ. a.�.�iS+r� y =ryryr sJ }. ✓� �..�1' .- [ � f — •r'la f ' {� ). ` « ,i _ '` �z ��, p, C.�w � �, + � ��Ic� :,} ' +� ".:X t. 1r1� •� �a;�� � f ^�,t -� + ��IyiR' 1. .:. .V..� s �'2 ,r,+. .t �,' r rf �, .� tt. 'S+ M Y� y�rt. t Y v !: '� �'�•,•� I'. . �'� �+,' �...`i.`:..s. �- +..r er•.�w' -' _ �' ...i �°�c+�ri,., a•L��. ��'! J 1+ �,T" �.fr �• A r7 �.. aJ � � �F � t a,�V� o'.i .'h ;'•:�`Yf i �,t� 'f x r `"r' � y%;`` yy �YL�K :�� � y. ��, { ' f3 ", {., y` ti t.::i � r;l " cN' 7. �.:Jf:!r:.�.! ' a. �' i�.. ?? �."`.. �' t - � " .. �i�r "' t �rt �'_�y j: . ., .•�"'� c.'Y+���'• _t•.. �, y'tA+ � I+ . ��'�y r •�.••� �� �.K ...••n `'+:.y'•1? � 'li" r?�+ � t � i� `�i`• f.t tS q�7!.jrYF",�. .��;J�,��•� < i,f:� •�. Y W,.�, fl•��+ 4 ,� �'�'��' vk -,t, � ).YS�S- ��11' � ^t�"t, .�' . "?e��.y'°,`��t ;► � < ,' - 'j,^,. �.i'r�"' r.:�.�r�„•. t : a l , r` ➢�,.a h•'' a .!MR r/.: i ' 1C�Y" r: T�fiI,.R� e Y r•77. 'r -•�-zo—: �..'W F. rr_.:_�C••f . '.d?�'�t� � i:v� .y ` '. "L l ��. �,i•?�1�_ ` •�✓i� „J �., �• q ,l .t i .�•Q ,,.:. "- .�.�•�,, r ;' `l { -:�s�� .t;; e. ��ri �� ~ :•, �. Y �,�. i "` ��,« ^" ,. 'i"'A iY r .� ��,iii��� �� n`r. .;� � 'w �: �f” tc� t �,,.' r♦ "�' ",�• r e' �f^ i..,. ��• /i,. 'a' ��.•'• i. J i�L� i .L r..<... ? �[,�•:•:'.+. • .'�. �. -'✓. "�v,, R`. Y '�t: •<'. s ;tea • , 6 .: * � �� " �," _ � r . t '.�_ .. r l r ,c.., i� �• _ .. p- •{,�ls' rs,i .,� *. . Z �'�' �� _ ,��, � ' u �t,� ^ '. i._: �t�/� w, �iJSC C-t + ,Y * � ; ���,.} t -�: 7,7y". J, � �•P��!!�+•�ar+s�.ati. Y`'a�.-,- ',:rll+� �j�{ +Z. al � , � �• L 1 i T « 5 ' �s! '� _ L, t +(} � � +1•• - 1 v � � ^ , ' J 7 f ,.� . . !:- ..r :' f _ :, r^ t�J j .F ' .nt:.� -, r `'S �' �:. �'�'!�� • L 4 r w �'� � `�y T1'" n.. FT ao+' � K r 1,. � � ~t_.. '!� f. '�.'i '�. aA+:,.,rya_,�.� 34 -' .f.'��` �;', �' �, ��"' ,f'^ �) 4 ���y.i al` - -� .r • �-"t r ': Jw ir•• ♦.. f .� t � ✓ •�, 'l� '� •k ; 4,T�' .i.�.,'''�'6�rt�utT�"'� '"r`�'v,,,M } ^c� �` 7- .�w.r. 41 (� '��.• , • �L� �a� '' ►' �`,,• �•3' ' EC•t`d.+vt.c' A r.�,� '7. wig X � } '" f t a .� r j� /11 �i7 + 1 r"'''a r : +:l anr• .��• �. r /•t », �� ~ 7 ^�' / q_ F � -.�".� �i/'�� .+. �l . � 'f r ♦ . t .•••••111111 ° ,f4r 7'.1: � ; '+� .* t ♦ b' .K� � {~ ?. _ ar~++•r- .r.w,r�+y�•� �` ,rte Z-� _ .l •_ , '-= r �riti" � { ~� I V f .i� +. i.. iA f,FJ:. �J�`�, ..w// ✓ ...JIB.,.- "u•' ' F� , ' �;• - ,$.. . a..: 'E7V , ' y��'!1'•/C�'~wT¢� .:A ♦_. ._.+.. •�' +• ,, t ,.,... � .f P ���rp2..C ,, ry�T . = 1i�"'q`. .,�T�'t:'XL`�` .. 1 ..I. - '�- ,.�. .,•....A. --•yR. <..+ � _ - _� r � t� - � f '�' SS rt'�"� :�' , -r , I � � ., �• �y �J. i1P /:��Lt"�'���G'c'f ♦ 7 } Fl � � � ( � 1��[ ?! " 1 �����Jd^ r��' .- i-..n'wN:?+��:t.,�.��+�'• r ThL•+' ♦' . �' ./, -: f.l ,,. - •��.< `• �P.*/�Y . -" _r • H ��,I�.i �y ,cDZ+�+'Y'_•""24' 4.. J'�h''•� 6 i, f" • ` 5 � �. 1 " A.Kn , �+�,�'+.'y'C•)YST+r"+`��.�a " y1 .f'� �. ` � '` Y�Yy�: fF7-•'1 • .... • � �.... � h �`� .+ C.►!1!`Rf "s✓.t�1 t , - , �/l h �' �^ r M .4 + r .y. �� . • ` r. •c ..j i,i .. F' i it °- ,v' - E.�.l•. i14 �•1 a i, �` �• �'�� I r te' a l.r 4. � w' �7� ya,��i r' .� ♦. `� �� �� � ' 4. t :j,., .. Y7C ({ f . }" ( //,•�1{, - \ 7 � +{•, t'. ► �.I � l�ij':�'�� �:a _�l•My 4! . ....■ ♦� � L, L� i � _._. ++ '1 , i' Li' .,'.w .aaf� !�•. « � �, ". �► `�W�w LL•:.r t Ri I • t • 4 � '` , • • :.l R = . }- ••t' :: Y8a }' 1' N� 7'7 r 'a't. )'�•� .4'x"-°1. - 1'. �.... w J�P" A'. ��.��♦ ten. +M .lv.fr.•.w. �� ..� .aM ^.1.. r -� M '..�. ..•. .4 r Ifr+ � • D•% .y5. .. .! � ' f , ,... ON . 1 a {T�3*�' : r Jt,� v A• 4 �r�•^�t�'!'Z : � , j ' y "" .: ° n 1 �►I. .. . � i • � !} 4 • , • ...w:, J ti 'r.'llr1�'t�� '.JrIMM wI, t yC i .MRM. r �. + #Y1'. R, M1MP��; +4iaa �..ST .:.a '� �t.� .. �Ir�"r �,�y� "_:'. aC' i�i � v. e.W .+� � n t l,nh .Pr� fir ' � 7 '�" �•� v . T7 � � 'if ': *•f K : .rr�1 .+. .�{ L:�" Ll 1 �tir �: }��tZ r "'Myi� � r rG�� r , G � 4 , f � •• ( .w y N � jl l 7 +•L .'C A Y ► • .1.1Ji/... .y w' i �: �. ►,a•� ..*.'!L'•' . tir • 1 1 � xl l.: }• :X:.�a' � r. 1 °, a x •., y5 ` �� ♦ � '.,. *K �. {µ� ' '� •,k S, Y. X �.. r. •. � t su Fiji• -.+ . . w. rY• .� . ' 1•.e z " �v , LLJ i y � F' '� � � '°""fit; � : ����'k' i� • :+ «w^ :'�, ,w , - t • -'� 1 ✓"L /. lr +4l wf I elgv h � ' yl ,. 4. a ry +� 1 � - .7 • �1 J ' ��� � '•+�`s�,� �f � d 1 x - d * r 'it'`� �arr .r, �' a . Nr : +�•4r ev AW � •. w � t L- CUM r l rt �c►Y k r t ± , w' mss.:'•. vi t . N ., � •. 1 �6 i r - t •.I . Y �4r+r� •• ` Y: - ♦ _� .,�� •;J� '� ^$ c `.• • w v v I , e { - v"'S ,� (rat -4, i'� ,f�/� • � ♦ h � i �� 1 . "•,µ . 1 a # .. . ,, �. . ^ 1 �' Z . 1 .�w� ,+y •` V ' +� � t �� 1 if ~ t f + .i t, � �1'�r•'r �I � ;: ;�yl.�j�' ,� t • �� 3 t'��l'�. /' r ` • _ . ? � ' 7 . ` M ;(� �7'NSI tM. . 1{ J' �a �.r � l•• z ° r a 'J^ �• r h. _ / � + �_ '', �+IS.�at � �� �'.♦ •1 •'�, � r'1. ' r"'f�" 7 ` ' ,!` .� Y.; c C n� ti1 �daA� i �•' .r '+ f I :;7,� ., ,. • ..•• -''�: n �� C «� I ♦° ,a� r'`'k• F �.i� ;,. 1 r • r T Lea 7 "�• »�•``�°� Y,?K. '� r� `it T r�y r.�1 't`'; _ � t.►,.•t• .� '" y.� °f:1C• raft J Y t •4v • ,r: r � '1 r + � 1 ;� r ') y � a• � ' Z ;� w . � . � `I.G 5.:� '4. ''• 4 4r r .•ic^ T _ r1 -' � �,!!.l. r�f r�r...�S�'�. :f •�•' -�r. ": +i�n�.J , .��. tt r��� _ . f � L - Jf. 1{ ��� j . a•' . A .�. ..Ir• f r h t � - ? ?fir .1 �' ,•. 6 • "r' ' '- 1 ;fit' # It ,I y lfry )11[i 4 t',� tlt�l v� ,�. ? 'G ��w.' �aa�i �,•� 4 �� N. �N y t J u . '/x'+' J H +. iJ.. 'T 1- 4i i .• fi rl�1 11 ,y "€. f i �~ t " • F • ,... I ,•; t, ti.. •�.r. �_� x� t 1 ! !'�" i/!A�� ,•� �•t'h�?y'}�� ' 4. J " � (' '�aJ"'�• t •,( �? q '• �. • K �,�t'.�: ;,r ., , ��..: �{ , T r �'� n i � d � y • 4 3: �y; f S_ 1 -r.r .�. y t .d ri � •w ,t s" �'i�•� �' �i� � t �d�. _'. �. *"o+►''�E'�";,'-Pa � , *. 1 � J ��.� t y � ��� •1 `9i 1 n tr s , � f , � . • r r r .� Z't•�r `1f f •v ,'` `v t. �' • � , } �.. ?. ,i ,F +� 3.' ►. w' t ' r �`i+r!� rii 1te� ' -� /r L ' y ; * t ! * ,•rte' .Ja. f `i n Ll I`r •&" 7 , ► f yy >t I - .d . + J. r .yJ s � a •r' yy,� 4�;r. .`. f° -� S a� ,� ".. afi t�w .�'`i 1�•�•y:,y�� ��`K' ��t .v .;•..� v � 'y g✓ • � '} � f:' `.�re. '..� ���� ^ `�� . � '1%' t. -doff Y a J • 1 •. t { '� .0 t_ Q Y 7 i Jrtl - x xi a r _.1„'a%tr. t * ,1� I�� r. � t;.•f_: 9� '< Lam' t ,� �, } . •• 3 r • �' _ �+•4 a. S y �n}I •tit.1. �`f J'�'.'�:,1: � *.'fI. 'tf'Sft •y? ° e7"��' s .r - � ,r•• ��,:Qt" • ! :`y Y Yy j � 'w' ' S ; +' { Y�1�r _$ jr'm " '�± ? f _ J . '- ✓i r . r rylr �• } j V •'T'S'Y T' ?_ �,7y: _ •�^ , i� i l �"' '• •, `•1 Y ✓ 7e1Y w1; �Y �r�� .~ �'TF v ' ; �ti l •�i3t ^ ' +y � �1.�:��3' �`•yrF`y�yY; /y'.'' t.. }�. �r .Z ;r }' ;�•• �7' t ._ � �,: y�:.F3�i h `� ♦y *;i y r""+.1'.F j � �rnmA.4R - x�'� 5 ' i -,• •Y 7 .'•' _ �• , 1 t;y ,S7r ••�yl.t, "- .Fr�}i ".'"a f' r•�.� j..-t ��' `' t yf�i '.► r• +.X �,� J. 1' Y. �C: `r, i 1���7L�rmy�"�� yr 1 v • E!'uHIBIT L Note: Following are options suggested by citizens at the November 14, 1985 meeting, at the May 1, 1986 meeting and /or by way of written communications to City officials. Option 1 - Improve intersection of County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard, especially left turn lane from southbound Brooklyn Boulevard to eastbound County Road 10. Staff Comment: Brooklyn Boulevard was recently improved by the Minnesota Department of Transportation prior to the transfer of jurisdiction for this roadway from MNDOT to Hennepin County. It is the opinion of Hennepin County officials that this roadway currently provides an acceptable level of service. The cost for further upgrading this intersection would be very substantial and it is very doubtful that Hennepin County would place a high priority on such a project. Option 2 - Add more lanes at the intersection of Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10. Staff Comments: Similar to comments for Option 1 • Option 3,- Extend center island on Brooklyn Boulevard farther North so as to prohibit southbound vehicles on Brooklyn Boulevard to from making a left turn to 59th Avenue while allowing northbound traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard to turn right on 59th Avenue, and while allowing westbound traffic on 59th Avenue to turn right onto Brooklyn Boulevard. Staff Comment: The City's Comprehensive Plan suggests the possibility of constructing center islands on Brooklyn Boulevard from County Road 10 to the North City Limits, with openings at major intersections. City staff supports this concept as a long range goal. However, it is important that the effects of such construction be considered before proceeding either with implementation of the total plan or with a staged implementation plan. If the island is extended only to a point North of 59th Avenue, the effects would include: Diversion of cut through traffic to 60th Avenue Loss of two way access from Brooklyn Boulevard to the commercial establishments located on both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard at 59th Avenue. EXHIBIT L Exhibit L - Page 2 Option 4 - Prohibit left turn from southbound Brooklyn Boulevard to eastbound 59th Avenue North during certain hours (i.e. 7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6 P.M.). Staff Comment: Enforcement of turn prohibitions during specified hours can be generally effective in concentrated downtown areas. However, studies have shown that limited turn restrictions at isolated intersections are generally ineffective and extremely difficult to enforce. The relatively low numbers of vehicles involved at this location would not justify a high priority enforcement program. Option 5 - Install four way stop signs at all or some intersections on 59th Avenue North. Staff Comment: A stop sign is one of our most valuable and effective traffic control devices ... when used at the right place and under the right conditions. It is intended to help drivers and P edestrians at an intersection decide who has the . right of way. y Quite often cities use stop signs along a roadway for the expressed purpose of interrupting traffic and reducing speed. However, a number of studies have indicated that stop signs do not slow traffic at locations where the stop sign is not justified by traffic volumes. Where stop signs are installed with the intent of controlling speed or interrupting traffic the following observations have been reported: 1. There is a high incidence of intentional violations. When stop signs are erected arbitrarily and without apparent reason, violations increase rapidly. 2. Speed reduction may be effective only in the immediate vicinity of the stop sign. However, the speed between intersections often increases. 3. The noise level at intersections increases dramatically. Drivers impatient with so many stop signs begin stopping quickly and then "peeling out" quickly thereafter. Many other drivers simply "roll through" the signs. (Note: Residents near 62nd Avenue and Beard Avenue, where a 4 -Way Stop exists, have reported that a high percentage of traffic rolls through those signs.) 4. Law enforcement agencies monitoring these type of installations report that the majority of arrests and citations generally are issued to residents of the neighborhood who may have petitioned for the signs in the first place. r Exhibit L - Page 3 • 5. In addition to the above, the general increase of the use of stop signs for speed control purposes or for traffic diversion greatly increases the air pollution levels in the city, wastes gas and generally increases vehicle operation costs. Option 6 - Post "No Trucks" signs on 59th Avenue. Staff Comments: It is recognized that some of the traffic on 59th Avenue does consist of delivery trucks with a destination in the Brookdale area. The City does have any Ordinance allowing the posting of weight limits on residential streets when a problem exists. However, because this Ordinance is also difficult to enforce, and because staff does not regard the 59th Avenue truck traffic volume as a critical problem, staff recommends denial of this option. Option 7 - Install temporary road blocks to experiment with the various alternatives to closure or partial closure of 59th Avenue. Staff Comment: Temporary measures such as this should only be used • when (a) it is not possible to accurately predict the results of a permanent measure; or (b) when the problem to be resolved is temporary and will be resolved permanently by other measures. Neither of these conditions exist in this instance. In addition it is noted that whenever traffic patterns are changed there is a period of time when confusion exists and the number of accidents rise. Accordingly, it is not recommended that temporary closures be used on an experimental basis. Option 8 - Make 59th Avenue one way westbound and 60th Avenue one way eastbound. Staff Comment: The establishment of one way pairs of streets is normally done as a capacity improvement measure. As noted above, no capacity problem exists on these streets. In addition, it is noted that establishment of one way streets would not reduce the volume of traffic shortcutting through the neighborhood and would very probably have the adverse effect, i.e. to increase the volume. In addition, there would be substantial mis- direction of traffic in the neighborhood. Option 9 - Close 59th and 62nd Avenues at Xerxes Avenue North rather than an Brooklyn Boulevard. Exhibit L - Page 4 Staff Comment: If only 59th and 62nd Avenues were closed to traffic the shortcutting traffic would very probably be rerouted to 60th Avenue. Closure of median openings on Xerxes Avenue at the various intersections could reduce some of the shortcutting traffic. However, the loss of convenient access to Xerxes Avenue would probably be more detrimental to the neighborhood than the loss of direct access to Brooklyn Boulevard. In addition, the closure of medians along Xerxes Avenue would adversely affect access to the residential neighborhood East of Xerxes Avenue. If the intent of this suggested option was to construct turnarounds on the East -West streets at a point West of Xerxes Avenue, it is noted that the location of homes and driveways in this area would make this difficult if not impossible. Option 10 Reduce speed limit to 20 miles per hour. Staff Comment: State law provides that the speed limit in all urban areas is 30 miles per hour unless a different one:is approved by the Commissioner of Transportation. Experience has shown that the Commissioner will not grant a reduced speed limit in residential • areas similar to this one. Option 11 Install a semafore (traffic signal) at 59th Avenue and Xerxes Avenue. Staff Comment: The volume of traffic which exists at this intersection does not justify the installation of a traffic signal. In addition, it is noted that the installation of a traffic signal would tend to accentuate the problem rather than to decrease the traffic volumes. Option 12 Install a semi -four (traffic signal) at Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive. Staff Comment: The traffic volumes now present at this intersection are close to meeting the established warrants for installation of a traffic signal. However, the four -way stop signs which were installed at this intersection in 1985 are effectively controlling the traffic. Installation of a traffic control signal at this location would tend to make the shortcut through the neighborhood more attractive, thereby increasing traffic on 59th Avenue and possibly 60th Avenue. 4 .ti Exhibit L - Page 5 Option 13 Post "No Left Turn" restrictions for southbound traffic on Xerxes Avenue to eastbound Northway Drive. Staff Comment: A number of the drivers who shortcut by way of 59th Avenue do make this left turn from Xerxes to Northway Drive. Posting of this restriction would have some tendency to discourage the shortcutting traffic. However, such restrictions would also apply to traffic originating from the central neighborhood thereby prohibiting the use of a very convenient route from the neighborhood to Brookdale. Option 14 Install speed bumps. Staff Comment: Reasons for avoiding use of the the speed bump include the following: 1. Speed bumps do not control all types of vehicles effectively. Some cars and trucks actually have a better ride over speed bumps at faster speeds. 2. Many people try to avoid speed bumps by swerving to take the bump at an angle and driving with one wheel at the edge of the road. These are dangerous but common reactions to speed bumps. r 3. Speed bumps create noise and cause much vehicle damage. 4. Bicyclist often catch their bike pedals on the bumps causing dangerous spills. This is especially true of small children's bikes. 5. It is. difficult to remove snow at speed bumps with conventional snowplow equipment. 6. Policemen, firemen and other emergency vehicles can have their vehicles damaged at speed bumps while responding to emergencies. For these reasons the City of Brooklyn Center reject the speed bump as a standard traffic control device on public streets and alleys. Option 15 Install sidewalks in the neighborhood. Staff Comment: The City has a policy of constructing sidewalks in neighborhoods on the basis of a planned system which serves the corridors of demand for pedestrian traffic. It is possible that enough pedestrian traffic exists at one or more locations within this neighborhood to justify the installation of • sidewalks connecting to the established sidewalk system. However, to date, staff has not been able to identify such corridors of demand. a CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP MEETING MINUTES 7 -30 -86 CALL TO ORDER The Central Neighborhood Advisory P g Group meeting was called to order by Chairman Tony Kuefler at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Central Neighborhood Advisory Group members Tony Kuefler, Harold Uecker, Diane Reem, and Gordy Gunderson; Planning Commission Representative Mike Nelson; and City staff members City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, and Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone. Chairman Kuefler noted that Advisory Group members Robert Cilke and Ronald Turner were absent from this his ev ening ' s meeting. INTRODUCTIONS Chairman Kuefler introduced himself and briefly reviewed the agenda for this evening's meeting, explaining the purpose of it. Central Neighborhood Advisory Group members and City staff introduced themselves to the neighborhood residents. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE OF MEETING Chairman Kuefler explained that the purpose of the meeting this evening is to understand the issue and give a background and description of the problem, as well as to hear the views of the local residents. STAFF PRESENTATION The City Manager explained the history of the problem, noting that several neighborhood meetings have already been held on this subject. He noted that any suggestions have been listed in the past minutes, and an analysis has been conducted by the Director of Public Works regarding this. The City Manager said there is nothing the City can do to solve all the problems. He added that the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group is being involved to gain input and information from the community. The City Manager noted that the City's study of the problem indicates no traffic capacity problem and not much of an accident problem in the area. However, there is significantly higher traffic levels on 59th Avenue North as compared to other residential streets due to the amount of cut through traffic. He reviewed the traffic counts and noted that the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan indicates that this is an area of concern for cut through traffic. He continued noting that the various options for solving the problem have been reviewed at past meetings, and the viable options suggested by the City are Alternates 1 and 4. Alternates 1 and 4 were reviewed", and the City Manager said if 7 -30 -86 -1- • something is done on 59th Avenue North to change the traffic patterns, something will also have to be done on 60th Avenue North and possibly on 62nd Avenue North. He added that even if traffic movement at County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard is improved, it still may not solve all the problems because 59th is still a quick and convenient way to avoid the signal. The City Manager noted that staff considered the option of making changes on a temporary basis, but there has not been much justification for doing this. The Director of Public Works said that when traffic counts were taken at the time of the November neighborhood meeting, the traffic count on 59th Avenue North between Abbott and Beard Avenues North was approximately 1,800 vehicles per day. At the May neighborhood meeting, he did not have the traffic statistics available at his fingertips, and when asked at that meeting for the traffic counts, he estimated that approximately 2,200 cars per day traveled on the street. He apologized for providing this misinformation. The Director of Public Works proceeded to review new traffic counts taken in May, 1986. After reviewing the traffic counts, he reviewed the summary of accidents and the various alternatives available. When reviewing the first alternate, a resident asked what traffic control there would be on southbound Beard Avenue North to eastbound 59th Avenue North. The Director of Public Works responded that a "Stop" sign is in place now, and after reviewing the situation, it is possible that there would be no need for the Stop sign. The Director of Public Works continued to review the various options, noting that if either Alternate 1 or 4 is implemented on 59th Avenue North, something would also be needed on 60th Avenue North. He said there is a possibility that if traffic is detoured from 59th and 60th Avenues North, some of it could be rerouted to 62nd Avenue North. However, he stated that staff does not feel this would happen to a significant degree. If it did happen, there would be the possibility of implementing an option of a turnaround on 62nd Avenue North just west of Beard Avenue North. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS Chairman Kuefler recognized Mr. Phil Brosell, 5835 Abbott Avenue North, who asked why a barricade should be placed on Beard Avenue North, when it should be put all the way to Brooklyn Boulevard. The City Manager responded that if 59th Avenue North is blocked off at Brooklyn Boulevard, it is possible that some provisions will have to be made for the bank. He noted this option of closing 59th at Beard would be the least disruptive of traffic. Chairman Kuefler recognized Mrs. Ann Euteneuer, 5919 Xerxes Avenue North, who stated that she has heard there are not that many on 59th Avenue North complaining about this. She asked what is going to stop the traffic from moving over to 63rd Avenue 7 -30 -86 -2- North. The City Manager noted the perception is that people are cutting through on 59th Avenue North when they are travelling southbound on Brooklyn Boulevard and see the red light at the intersection of Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10. As a result, City staff does not think that the short cutters will end up using 63rd Avenue North. Mrs. Euteneuer asked if the traffic will still cut through on 63rd Avenue North, and the City Manager noted that because it is a longer trip for traffic to go this way, he doubts it. Mrs. Euteneuer asked if a traffic count has ever been conducted on Xerxes Avenue North, and the Director of Public Works estimated that approximately 7,000 vehicles per day travel on Xerxes Avenue North. The City Manager pointed out that traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard is approximately 30,000 vehicles per .day. Mrs.. Euteneuer said that the traffic should not be shoved down Xerxes Avenue North. Chairman Kuefler asked if the traffic would cut over to Xerxes Avenue North from 63rd Avenue North, and the City Manager said.that he did not think so. Chairman Kuefler recognized Ms. Jane Alford, representing First Brookdale Bank at. 5920- Brooklyn Boulevard.. Ms. Alford asked. why "S top " Stop signs are not tried and the _ City Manager noted that liv' in at �� people . g the where Stop' signs are installed are not happy will all the noise. He added that drivers end up sliding through the "Stop ",signs_.and squeal away. He added the bank was aware at the time of its construction of the possibility. that 59th Avenue- North might be closed off to through traffic. Chairman Kuefler recognized Ms. Scharmone Woodford, 5836 Brooklyn Boulevard, who pointed out that when the bank opened there were only three drive through lanes, and now there are six. She asked if this has caused an increase in traffic. The City Manager said the traffic has increased and noted that the bank did indicate their intention when first constructed to expand to the current level of service. Chairman Kuefler asked if City staff knows how much traffic is going to the bank, and the Director of Public Works said there is no count available and such a count would have to be done manually. Chairman Kuefler recognized Dr. John Lescault, 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard, who asked how many residents lodged a complaint on 59th Avenue North to initiate this whole project. He added that the people living n 60th Avenue North should uld have a majority 7 Y of the input on this subject. The City Manager responded that more than 60 percent of the residents living on 59th Avenue North felt that something should be done. Dr. Lescault noted that he did not see a lot of the residents living on 59th Avenue North at the meeting this evening. Chairman Kuefler recognized Mr. Tom Slupske, 5918 Abbott Avenue North, who pointed out that the major reason for the short cutting traffic on 59th Avenue North is the stop light at 7 -30 -86 -3- Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10. He suggested that if "Stop" signs are installed along 59th Avenue North, people would use this route less often. The City Manager stated that other problems will be created in the neighborhood if "Stop" signs are installed. Mr. Slupske noted that if Alternate 4 is implemented, it will affect his street. The City Manager said any diversion systems will discourage traffic through the neighborhood. Chairman Kuefler recognized Mr. Robert May, 3113 Lawrence Road, who asked if the City staff is absolutely convinced that something is needed on 60th Avenue North, or if the City would just try a temporary road block. After some discussion by staff, the Director of Public Works said at least 70 to 80 percent of the 59th Avenue North short cut traffic would move to 60th Avenue North if only 59th is closed. The City Manager noted that if 59th and 60th are closed, it is unlikely that all of the traffic will be transferred to 62nd Avenue North. Mr. May pointed out that there is an extremely high amount of traffic rushing to the bank. Chairman Kuefler recognized Mr. Joe Dobesh, 5937 York Avenue North, who asked what raises all the concerns, as he has no trouble getting onto 59th Avenue North or Brooklyn Boulevard. The City Manager noted that the problem is the short cutting traffic, and this is addressed by the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. Mr. Dobesh suggested that if traffic is blocked at Northway Drive and Xerxes Avenue North (near St. Paul Book and Stationary) , the problem would be eliminated. The City Manager pointed out that much of the traffic is avoiding the traffic signal at County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard. The Director of Public Works stated that the problem is strictly related to the traffic count and the number of cars using 59th Avenue North is higher than what would be expected on a regular residential street. He added that from a traffic capacity standpoint, there is no problem, and there is no unusual amount of accidents in the neighborhood either. The Director of Public Works said the problem is strictly that 59th Avenue North carries more traffic than a normal residential street. He said the question is whether or not the effects of the changes would offset the benefits it would provide. Chairman Kuefler posed the question that if the residents on 59th do not have a problem with the traffic, why should anything be done. Mr. Robert May noted that if the streets are blocked, the residents who live in the neighborhood will have more difficulty getting out of the neighborhood. Chairman Kuefler recognized Mr. Matt Starr, 3301 59th Avenue North, who said he has small children and the traffic is a problem. He said sooner or later there will be more children living in the homes along 59th Avenue North, as well as the addition of another office building on Northway Drive. The City Manager noted that five one -story buildings are to be constructed on Northway Drive west of the F - & M Marquette Bank. Chairman 7 -30 -86 -4- Kuefler asked if the traffic is now going to the office buildings at Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10, and the City Manager said it is not. Chairman Kuefler recognized Ms. Janet Schmidt, 5942 Xerxes Avenue North, who asked if barricades are installed, would signs be posted for the dead end streets. The City Manager responded affirmatively, noting that any type of diversion will be posted for and it will take awhile for drivers to become. accustomed to Mr. Robert May asked if the same flow of traffic from three five years ago will.be the same in five years from now, or if it will increase. The City Manager said the City expects that the Xerxes. Avenue North count will remain about stable and Brooklyn Boulevard traffic is expected.to increase. Chairman Kuefler recognized Mr. Cecil Thayer, 5901 Abbott Avenue North, who noted that this topic is nothing new on 59th Avenue North, because the traffic has been terrifically busy on this street since- 1960. Chairman Kuefler asked about a rumor.that there will be a freeway access from Xerxes Avenue North, and the City Manager responded that such an access will not be built. He noted that when the access was moved.- from Humboldt Avenue North to Shingle Creek Parkway, it made it impossible to install an access at Xerxes Avenue North because such an access would be too close to the Shingle Creek Parkway one. The City Manager added that the I -694 bridge over the Mississippi River.will.:be widened and lengthened, and lanes on either side of the River will also be widened. Because of this, the Xerxes Avenue bridge will be widened but will still have.one lane across it in each direction. Mrs. Ann Euteneuer said she heard when T.H. 252 is completed, an access to I -694 will be added at Xerxes Avenue North. The City Manager said the state is vacating the property at Xerxes Avenue North, so there will not be an added access to I -694 from Xerxes Avenue North. The Director of Public Works noted that four traffic lanes plus a shoulder will be part of the new I -694 project. Mrs. Ann Euteneuer pointed out that there are no traffic jams and not a lot of accidents on 59th Avenue North, so the City should leave the street as it is. Mr. Cecil Thayer stated that whether or not the street should be closed depends on whether or not you live on 59th Avenue North. Chairman Kuefler asked for a show of hands from those living on 59th Avenue North who would be in favor of the closure, and all of those living on 59th Avenue North present at the meeting raised their hands in favor of the closure. One of the residents requested installation of speed bumps, and the Director of Public Works noted that this is not an effective 7 30 -86 -5- speed control because it is a hazard, nuisance, creates noise, is hard on vehicles, and is a hazard to bicyclists. He added that on most speed bumps, drivers who speed get a better ride over the speed bumps by speeding up rather than slowing down. Chairman Kuefler recognized Mr. Larry Bolton, 3207 62nd Avenue North, who noted that if 59th and 60th Avenues North are blocked off, there will be more traffic diverted to 62nd Avenue North. Chairman Kuefler recognized Mrs. Val Brosell, 5835 Abbott Avenue North, who said that there is no way to know how the traffic will do unless something is tried, and she asked if a vote could be taken. Chairman Kuefler said the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group will review the input and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission, who may then refer it on to the City Council. Chairman Kuefler recognized Mr. Fred Dobesh, 6007 Abbott Avenue North, who said he hates to see the street blocked off, especially in the winter because the streets will not be plowed as quickly. Mr. Phil Brosell said the traffic should be diverted to 63rd Avenue North because it is a County road anyway. Ms. Ann Britton, 3001 63rd Avenue North said 63rd Avenue North does not need any more traffic than it already has, and requested information on the amount of traffic travelling n 63rd Avenue ue North. The Director of Public lic Works said c id his guesstimate 5,000 to � timate is that 6,000 vehicles per p day travel on 63rd Avenue North. Mr. Matt Starr said it is not fair to compare. 59th Avenue North to 63rd Avenue North because there are no sidewalks or parking lanes on 59th Avenue North as there are on 63rd Avenue North. Ms. Britton posed the question of whether or not 63rd Avenue North is a residential street, and Mr. Matt St responded that his children have to walk in the street rather than on a sidewalk. Ms. Britton pointed out that there are small children living on 63rd Avenue North. Chairman Kuefler asked what the feeling of the City would be for installation of sidewalks, and the City Manager noted that sidewalks are usually installed on thoroughfares and near schools, so 59th Avenue North does not qualify under these general guidelines. Mr. Matt Starr asked if City staff thinks the traffic counts on 59th Avenue North will increase, and the Director of Public Works said there will be some increase but not dramatically. He added that the general traffic within the neighborhood has peaked out, and there will be some additional traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10 because of the new development. The Director of Public Works added that within the next ten years there may be a ten to twenty percent increase in traffic. Mr. Matt Starr asked if this would be approximately 250 to 300 more vehicles, and the Director of Public Works responded affirmatively. e Chairman Kuefler recognized Mrs. - Susan Bolton 3207 62nd Ave . nue 7 -30 -86 -6- North, who asked how long it would be before problems on 62nd Avenue North are acted on if 59th and 60th Avenues North are closed. The City Manager noted that the problems would be dealt with as soon as possible. One resident asked how much time is saved by vehicles short cutting, and the City Manager noted that it is not that much time. Chairman Kuefler closed the public hearing at this time. ADVISORY-GROUP-DISCUSSION Group member Gordy Gunderson asked if Alternative 1 is selected, whether or not a problem would be created for people coming from the north or the east in the neighborhood to get to the bank, and the City Manager responded affirmatively. Member Gunderson pointed out that anyone living in the neighborhood will have a problem getting to the bank, and the City Manager noted that not one of the options has all positives, and there will be some trade offs necessary. Group member Harold Uecker said at . least three people had recommended installation of a temporary divider on Brooklyn Boulevard making it impossible to turn onto 59th Avenue North. The Director of Public Works said if the median is extended on Brooklyn Boulevard,_ left turns onto 59th Avenue North from southbound Brooklyn Boulevard will no.longer be allowed. He added that the westbound. afternoon traffic on 59th Avenue North will still be using this street, and the morning traffic would then use 60th Avenue North. The City Manager pointed out general design problems with Brooklyn Boulevard and noted that Hennepin County is now responsible for maintenance of Brooklyn Boulevard. Chairman Kuefler asked if it would be possible to close Northway Drive at Xerxes Avenue North, and the. City Manager noted that this will transfer traffic to County Road 10 and Xerxes Avenue North. The Director of Planning and Inspection noted that there are no accesses off of County Road 10 or Xerxes Avenue North for the Brookdale Office Tower building and the apartments in that area. The Director of Public Works noted that some of the traffic would be decreased on 59th Avenue North, but problems would be created at County Road 10 and Northway Drive near the Brookdale Towers. Group member Diane Reem noted that if traffic is cut off of 59th Avenue North, the problem would be transferred to another street. She noted that the turn lane from northbound Xerxes Avenue North to westbound 59th Avenue North encourages traffic to follow this cut through on 59th Avenue North. The City Manager noted that this turn lane was installed to protect those turning at this intersection. He added that there have not been any changes in the traffic counts before and after adding this turn lane. Chairman Kuefler pointed out that if 59th Avenue North is closed, traffic would increase on Beard Avenue North, and the City Manager said this would be probable. 7 -30 -86 -7- 1 Member Reem asked if the media has been informed of the problems here, and the City Manager responded affirmatively. Member Reem asked if some information could be published in the paper requesting drivers not to use this neighborhood for their short cuts. Chairman Kuefler requested staff to consider the possibility of installing sidewalks on 59th Avenue North. He added that closing off 59th Avenue North does solve some of the problems, but not all. The City Manager said staff can look at the feasibility of the sidewalks by taking pedestrian counts and following the patterns of children going to school. Chairman Kuefler asked what the feeling would be for installation of the sidewalk. Mr. Matt Starr pointed out that there is a lot of cable buried underneath the roadway, and the City Manager said staff would look into this. Member Uecker noted that the sidewalk is not for use by bicycle riders. Member Gunderson said Alternate 4 is the least painful of the Alternates, and Mr. Matt Starr pointed out that there would be a lot of turnarounds with this option. There was a motion by Member Reem and seconded by Member Uecker to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission that City staff find ways to lessen the traffic without barriers, such as increased media publicity. In addition, staff should look at the feasibility of installation of sidewalks. The motion passed unanimously. The Director of Planning and Inspection noted that this item will appear on the August 28, 1986 Planning Commission agenda. Chairman Kuefler asked if anybody would be notified of this Planning Commission meeting, and the City Manager stated that notices will not be mailed to the area residents. The Central Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Geralyn R. Barone Personnel Coordinator 7 -30 -86 -8- t Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECO"rENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86034 (Lombard Properties) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend approval of Application No. 86034, subject to the following conditions: 1. The revised declaration establishing parking rights for the Ramada Hotel, RCM Plaza, Parkway Place, and Shingle Creek Eleven shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Official and the City Attorney prior to filing at the County. 2. The performance agreement and financial guarantee for the central lot and the agreement between the City and Lombard Properties for the possible construction of a ramp within that lot shall remain in effect until all need for the ramp has been removed by approved and constructed developments within the Shingle Creek Business Center. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Planner left at approximately 9:40 p.m. and returned at approximately 9 :45 P.m. OTHER BUSINESS (Central Neighborhood Advisory Group Recommendation) ie ecretary then reviewed wit he Pl n ng ommission the traffic study . concerning cut - through traffic between Brooklyn Boulevard and Xerxes Avenue North along 59th Avenue North. He explained that in 1985 requests had been made by people living along 59th Avenue North to address the high volume of traffic using 59th Avenue North to short -cut between Brooklyn Boulevard and Xerxes Avenue North. He noted that the City Manager and Director of Public Works had met with these people and the matter referred to the Administrative Traffic Safety Advisory Committee. It was believed that this kind of issue was the type that should be referred to a neighborhood advisory group for review and comment. Therefore, the matter had been referred to the Planning Commission which in turn referred it to the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group on March 27, 1986. The Secretary further reported that a public meeting, conducted by City staff members, was held at the Brookdale Christian Center on May 1, 1986 at which time the issue was reviewed; various alternatives were discussed; and comments from people living in the general area bounded by County Road 10 on the south, 63rd Avenue on the north, Xerxes on the east and Brooklyn Boulevard on the west were taken and recorded. The Secretary further explained that the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group had held an organizational meeting on June 17, 1986 to review the issues, alternatives and procedures for making their recommendations to the Planning Commission. That group also held a public hearing at the Hennepin County Library on July 30, 1986 at which time they deliberated and made their recommendations regarding this matter. The Secretary concluded his report by noting that the Planning Commission had received copies of all reports relating to the issue, all correspondence and comments received as well as minutes of various meetings held. He stated that the 8 -28 -86 -7- Central Neighborhood Advisory Group had recommended to the Planning Commission that the staff find ways to lessen traffic without barriers, such as through increased media publicity. In addition, staff should look at the feasibility of installing sidewalk along 59th Avenue between Brookyn Boulevard and Xerxes Avenue North. Commissioner Malecki asked whether signs indicating "no through traffic" had been considered or recommended. The Secretary stated that such signs had not been recommended by staff. In fact, he stated, they were opposed by staff because they become unenforceable. He offered an example of a sign on Wingard Lane which generated neighborhood opposition after a time. The Secretary further reviewed with the Commission the process of gathering public input on questions such as this through the Neighborhood Advisory Groups. ACTION REFERRING TRAFFIC STUDY (Central Neighborhood Advisory Group) Following further discussion and review there was a motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to refer the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group recommendation regarding cut - through traffic in the central neighborhood on 59th Avenue North to the City Council and to concur with its recommendations and conclusions. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Chairman Lucht stated that he would be unable to attend the September 11th and September 25th meetings. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Wallerstedt and seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9.58 p.m. Chairman 8 -28 -86 -8- /3 Licenses to be approved by the City Council on October 13, 1986: COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE Northbrook Animal Hospital 413 66th Ave. N. �I�ijr Pet Centers, Inc. Brookdale Center I, Sanitarian oQ ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Brooklyn Center Lioness 6700 France Ave. N. -� Lutheran Church of the Triune God 5827 Humboldt Ave. N. Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Bergman Heating & Air Cond. 9072 Taylor St. NE Master Mechanical, Inc. 9864 James Circle Midwestern Mechanical Corp. 9103 Davenport St. NE New Mech Companies, Inc. 1633 Eustis St. Rouse Mechanical, Inc. 11348 K -Tel Drive /) Snelling Mechanical 1402 Concordia Ave. (� Building Official Ak GENERAL APPROVAL: D. K. Weeks, City Clerk