Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1986 05-19 CCP Regular Session
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MAY 19, 1986 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum 5. 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 Council member 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 - May 5, 1986 - Regular Session 7. Presentation: a. 75th Anniversary Celebration Committee Report *8. Performance Bond Reduction: a. 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard *9. Proclamation Declaring May 18 -24 as Minnesota Small Business Week 10. Resolutions: *a. Amending the Appropriation for Improvement Project No. 1985 -28, Contract 1986 -E (Water Tower No. 3 Reconditioning) *b. Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1986 -A (Reconditioning of Wells No. 5 and 7, Project No. 1986- 03) c. Approving Agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and the Brooklyn Center Housing Redevelopment Authority Relating to Streetscape Improvements within the Earle Brown Farm Tax Increment District d. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract for Earle Brown Farm Tax Increment District Phase I Streetscape Improvement (Project No. 1986 -09, Contract 1986 -H CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- May 19, 1986 e. Accepting Proposal and Awarding Contract for Construction of Sidewalk on South Side of Summit Drive from Shingle Creek Parkway to Approximately 1,000 Feet Easterly of Shingle Creek Parkway (Project No. 1986 -14, Contract 1986 -L) f. Approving Agreement with Westwood Planning and Engineering Company to Provide Final Design Services Relating to Earle Brown Farm Tax Increment District Phase II Streetscape Improvement (Project No. 1986 -15) g. Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Centerbrook Golf Course Buildings (Project No. 1985 -23, Phase II, Contract 1986 -K) h. Amending the 1986 General Fund Budget -This item would allow for the purchase of a television for the communications van. 11. Public Hearing: (7:30 p.m.) a. Hearing on Modification of Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan 1. Resolution Approving Plan Modifications - Acquisition of right -of -way along Earle Brown Drive (Tract H). 12. Planning Commission Items: (7:45 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 86018 submitted by Richard Whitley requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel of land at 5327 Bryant Avenue North. This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its May 8, 1986 meeting. b. Planning Commission Application No. 86019 submitted by E and H Properties requesting site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a three story office building on the vacant land between the Brookdale Motel and the Atkins Mechanical office building on the east side of West River Road, south of 66th Avenue North. This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its May 8, 1986 meeting. C. Planning Commission Application No. 86020 submitted by E and H Properties requesting preliminary plat approval to resubdivide into two lots the land at the southeast quadrant of West River Road and 66th Avenue North, south to the Brookdale Motel. This item was • recommended fora approval b pp y the Plannin g Commission at its May 8, 1986 meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- May 19, 1986 13. Discussion Items: a. Consideration of Plans, Specifications, and Agreements Relating to Proposed Construction of T.H. 252 -MN /DOT staff and City staff will be prepared to discuss this project with the City Council. The Council will then be asked to consider each of the following resolutions: 1. Approving Plans and Specifications for Construction of T.H. 252 in Brooklyn Center 2. Approving Intersection Control Signal Agreement No. 63390 between the City of Brooklyn Center and the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation 3. Approving Cooperative Construction Agreement No. 63405 between the City of Brooklyn Center and the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation 4. Establishing Brooklyn Center Improvement Project No. 1986 -16 (Intersection Control Signal Improvement on T.H. 252) and Appropriating Funds Therefor 5. Establishing Brooklyn Center Improvement Project No. 1986 -17 (Roadway, Drainage and Utility Improvements on T.H. 252) and Appropriating Funds Therefor 6. Establishing Parking Restrictions on 66th Avenue North, on 70th Avenue North and on 73rd Avenue North between T.H. 252 and Camden Avenue North b. Insurance Requirements for Temporary On -Sale Nonintoxicating Liquor Licenses 1. Temporary On -Sale Nonintoxicating Liquor License for Budweiser Merchants (Vietnam Veterans Softball Tournament) 14. Approval of Class C Liquor License for Green Mill Inn *15. Licenses 16. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MAY 5, 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 7:03 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 Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, Liquor Stores Manager nag r Jerry Olson, City Attorney Richard Schie f f er HRA Coordinator Y y Brad Hoffman, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Administrative Aid Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Lhotka. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted that he had received a request from Douglas Eidem, 7207 Logan Avenue North, to use the Open Forum session this evening. Mr. Eidem stated he was under the impression the Council would be addressing the issue of R.V., trailer, and boat parking in residential areas. He stated that he felt homeowners should be allowed to park such vehicles on their property. He noted that these items are very costly to purchase and that most owners prefer to keep these items close to them and not at an off -site storage facility. Councilmember Lhotka stated that this item is not on the Council agenda this evening but that it would be before the Council in the future. He added that it is not so much the storage of these items but where and the manner in which these items are stored on the property that the Council will be addressing. Mayor Nyquist stated that he thought arrangements could be made so that Mr. Eidem would be notified when this issue was before the Council. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Council members requested any items removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Lhotka requested that items 9b and 9h be removed and Councilmember Hawes requested 9a and 13 be removed from the Consent Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 21 1986 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the minutes of the April 21, 1986 City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Y MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS - NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMISSION There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka 5 -5 -86 -1- t to reappoint Fran Gunberg to a term expiring December 31, 1987. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to appoint John Casey to a term expiring December 31, 1986. The motion passed unanimously. PERFORMANCE BOND REDUCTION - 6849 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to reduce the performance bond from $20,000 to $2,000 for Brooklyn Service Center, 6849 Brooklyn Boulevard. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 86 -70 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE MORTGAGE ORIGINATION AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR MORTGAGES ORIGINATED IN COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, RELATING TO THE 1982 SINGLE MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND PROGRAM UNDERTAKEN JOINTLY BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, THE CITY OF MOORHEAD AND THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF ROBBINSDALE, MINNESOTA The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -71 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PAYMENT TO STS CONSULTANTS LTD. FOR SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION FOR FRANCE AVENUE NORTH AREA The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION N0. 86 -72 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING SEAL COATING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -12, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1986 -J) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -73 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1985 -A (RAMADA LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1984 -05) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. r 5 -5 -86 _2_ The City Manager presented a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 85 -114 Establishing a Municipal Golf Course Enterprise Fund and Authorizing an Interfund Loan. Councilmember Hawes asked about the difference in figures between item Noy. 3 and item No. 4 in the resolution. The City Manager stated that there had been a typographical error in No. 4 and that the amount should be $1,100,000. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -74 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85 -114 ESTABLISHING A MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE ENTERPRISE FUND AND AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the Domestic Assault Intervention Project. Councilmember Lhotka stated he would like to see a report which would explain how the money is being spent. The City Manager stated he would speak to Chief Lindsay regarding a statistical report. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -75 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DOMESTIC ASSAULT INTERVENTION PROJECT 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 Accepting Bid and Approving Contract for Installation of Water Utility Control System Improvement Project No. 1985- 19 (Contract 1986 -D). The Director of Public Works briefly reviewed the memorandum which was prepared for this item and stated that there are representatives from Orr - Schelen - Mayron & Associates (OSM) here this evening to answer any questions which the Council may have. Councilmember Lhotka asked if staff or the representatives from OSM had seen the report from Edison Controls which was presented this evening. The Director of Public Works stated that neither he nor the representatives from OSM had reviewed the report from Edison Controls. There was a general consensus among Council members that the Resolution Accepting Bid and Approving Contract for Installation of Water Utility Control System Improvement Project No. 1985 -19 (Contract 1986 -D) be held over until later in the meeting when the representatives from OSM have had a chance to review the report. The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving Agreement with Westwood Planning & Engineering Company to Provide Construction Management Services Relating to Brooklyn Farm Area Storm Drainage Improvement Project No. 1986 -08. 5 -5 -86 -3- He stated that staff is proposing to use the same firm which developed the construction plans and specifications for this project, to now provide administration, inspection and surveying as needed during construction of the project. The Director of Public Works stated that because of the requirements placed by the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission and the changes made by Ryan himself, the cost had increased. Councilmember Lhotka asked if Ryan was still paying 86% of the project. The Director of Public Works responded affirmatively. Mayor Nyquist asked if the requirements placed by the Watershed Commission were legitimate. The Director of Public Works stated that the rules and regulations adopted by the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission are very meaningful and necessary. Councilmember Hawes asked whether the City Council or the Watershed Commission has the final say on these matters. The Director of Public Works stated that the City must assure compliance with the Watershed rules and regulations. He noted that the Commission does not want to be responsible for the enforcement of the rules and regulations, but would have the authority to enforce them if necessary. He added that if the rules and regulations were not followed, the City could be assessed for downstream problems if they occurred in the future. Councilmember Lhotka asked if a report had been done by the Watershed Commission on this project. The Director of Public Works stated that a report had been completed by the Watershed Committee, and that it basically said the pond did comply with their rules and regulations. Councilmember Hawes stated that in theory he agrees with what the Watershed Commission is trying to accomplish but that he hates to see someone else decide how much money the City will spend. Councilmember Theis stated that he would like to see the rules and regulations as stringent as possible. He noted that the tighter the rules and regulations are, the less problems the City is apt to have. The Director of Public Works stated that the original pond was to be constructed only for the benefit of Ryan's project. He noted that after the changes were made by the Watershed Commission and Ryan, the pond would also serve the Earle Brown Farm area. He explained that it is the City as a property owner /developer that is paying this fee, not the City itself. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -76 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH WESTWOOD PLANNING AND ENGINEERING COMPANY TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES RELATING TO BROOKLYN FARM AREA STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -08 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 Authorizing Purchase of Outside Signs for the Boulevard and the Northbrook Liquor Stores. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -77 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF OUTSIDE SIGNS FOR THE BOULEVARD AND THE NORTHBROOK LIQUOR STORES 5 -5 -86 -4- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEM TRUNK HIGHWAY 252 The Director of Public Works stated that the purpose of this discussion this evening was to prepare the Council for the final construction plan approval and agreements which would be before the Council in two weeks. He noted that the bids will be opened on June 6, 1986, and that MN /DOT must have municipal approvals before the bid opening date. He added that a representative from MN /DOT was present this evening to answer any questions that the Council may have. Councilmember Lhotka asked what will happen if the Council does not approve the cost participation agreements for the project. The Director of Public Works stated that staff and MN /DOT have reached a number of verbal agreements regarding the project, and that staff expects these agreements to be reflected in the written contract papers. The Director of Public Works went on to review the transparencies indicating the construction areas within Brooklyn Center, and how the connected to the le in Brooklyn y g Park. The Director of Public Works stated that some of the P ast concerns of the Cit Council have also been addressed. He noted that each intersection (66th, 70th & 73rd Avenues North) will be signaled and have turn lanes installed and that this item is fully covered by the MN /DOT specs. He stated that sidewalk would be installed from Camden Avenue east on all three intersections. He noted • that MN /DOT has agreed to make certain improvements to old West River Road prior to turning the street back over to the City. The Director of Public Works stated that MN /DOT will provide a "bench" for the entire__length of the project; all that would be required of the City is the laying of the cement for the sidewalk. He also noted that MN /DOT will salvage and relocate as many trees as possible from the project area to the easements. Councilmember Scott stated that she would like the Director of Public Works to make sure that all of these verbal agreements are put in writing since verbal agreements have a tendency to not become reality. Councilmember Lhotka asked if there would be any ramp changes from I -694 to T.H. 252. The Director of Public Works stated that there would no ramp changes included in this project. The Director of Public Works then introduced Mr. Glen Ellis, Acting Assistant District Engineer for MN /DOT. Mr. Ellis stated that the official starting day of the project would be July 7, 1986, and that the end of the construction period for 1986 would be October 23. He stated that the project is to be completed through 70th Avenue by October 23, 1986, and added that the contractor will be paid extra for each day that he finishes before October 23; likewise, the contractor must pay MN /DOT for each day he works past October 23. He stated that the final completion date for the project is September 15, 1987. Mr. Ellis stated that the construction around the 66th Avenue intersection would be done without any closures. He added that the intersections at 70th and 73rd would have a short closure period and the traffic would be rerouted. Councilmember Hawes asked 5 -5 -86 -5- if a temporary cross over could be left open for police or fire emergencies on the east side of West River Road. Mr. Ellis stated that he was sure arrangements could be made for a temporary cross over. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:47 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING The City Manager stated that a public hearing had been scheduled this evening on a proposed assessment for nuisance and hazard abatement at 5800 Drew Avenue North. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on proposed assessment for nuisance and hazard abatement at 5800 Drew Avenue North. He inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to speak at the public hearing. There being none, 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 a proposed assessment for nuisance and hazard abatement at 5800 Drew Avenue North. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -78 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE COST OF HAZARD ABATEMENT TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Parking Requirements for Retail Buildings. He stated this item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its April 24, 1986 meeting and is offered this evening for a first reading. He added that this item requires a 4/5 vote by the City Council. Councilmember Scott stated that she appreciates the thoroughness of this report. Councilmember Theis asked if the parking formula would control density as development takes place. He added that he feels this proposed ordinance defeats the purpose of the present ordinance. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the expansion of the building space would not be directly proportional to the decrease in parking. He added that there would only be an 8% building expansion rate. Councilmember Theis asked if traffic generation problems have been looked at in conjunction with this ordinance change. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that staff does not feel this ordinance change will have a major impact on traffic generation. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City 5 -5 -86 -6- Ordinances Regarding Parking Requirements for Retail Buildings. The motion failed, with Councilmembers Lhotka and Theis opposed. Councilmember Theis requested the staff to look at the different areas in Brooklyn Center and determine if there would be an expansion in density of uses and if this would affect traffic generation. He added that this may very well be a good change but he feels the Council has not looked at the issue close enough to be able to make such a quick decision. Mayor Nyquist asked the City Attorney if there would be any problems in bringing this ordinance back again for a first reading. The City Attorney responded negatively. The Director of Planning & Inspection asked if there were any other areas the Council would like the staff to look into. Councilmember Theis asked about the possibility of adding more green areas instead of parking spaces. LICENSES Councilmember Hawes stated that he had asked to have the licenses removed from the Consent Agenda because of the rental dwelling license for 3614 50th Avenue North. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that a memorandum had been prepared on this application and was included in the agenda packet. Councilmember Hawes asked if the units are required to have two entrances /exits. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the units had met the minimum requirements for exits. He added that the dwelling is now licensed as a tri -plex. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the following list of licenses: AMUSEMENT DEVICE - OPERATOR Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Drive BULK VENDING LICENSE Brooklyn Center Lions 7131 Knox Avenue N. CATERING FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE John Licciardi 1709 Polk Street NE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Alano Society 4938 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Babe Ruth 72nd and Camden Brooklyn Center Babe Ruth 1600 59th Ave. N. B. C. National Little League Hwy. 100 and Lilac Dr. Chuck's Q. 1505 69th Avenue North 50's Grill 5524 Brooklyn Boulevard Harron United Methodist Church 5452 Dupont Ave. N. Kentucky Fried Chicken 5512 Brooklyn Boulevard Korean Presbyterian Church 6830 Quail Ave. N. St. Alphonsus Church 7025 Halifax Ave. N. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Earle Brown PTA 5900 Humboldt Ave. N. 5 -5 -86 -7- MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Burner Service & Combustion Control 2119 Lyndale Ave. S. Cronstrom's Heating & Air Cond., Inc. 4410 Excelsior Blvd. Egan & Sons Co. 7100 Medicine Lake Road Furnace Care Inc. 8733 Humboldt Ave. N. Golden Valley Heating & Air Cond. 5182 West Broadway Harris Mechanical Contracting Co. 2300 Territorial Road Hutton & Rowe, Inc. 2126 2nd Avenue Marsh Heating & Air Cond. 6248 Lakeland Ave. N. Riccar Heating 3095 162nd Lane NW G. Sedgwick Heating & Air Cond. 1001 Xenia Ave. S. Superior Contractors, Inc. 6121 42nd Ave. N. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Northern Vending Co. 403 98th Ave. NE Brookdale Towers 2810 Cty. Road 10 PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Northern Vending Co. 403 98th Ave. NE Brookdale Towers 2810 Cty. Road 10 RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Renewal: Kenneth E. Patterson 3614 50th Ave. N. SIGN HANGERS LICENSE Sign Service, Inc. 1016 N. 5th Street SWIMMING POOL LICENSE Earle Brown Farm Apartments 1701, 07 69th Ave. N. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Bid and Approving Contract for Installation of Water Utility Control System Improvement Project No. 1985- 19 (Contract 1986 -D). The Director of Public Works stated he and the representatives from OSM have now had an opportunity to review the material presented by Edison Controls this evening. He stated that he and the representatives from OSM have concluded that Edison Controls (Collins Electric) does not meet specs because they do not have a proven track record for the proposed system. Mayor Nyquist noted that the primary reason for not awarding to Collins Electric was because of the lack of a proven track record for the entire system. The Director of Public Works stated that was correct and added that staff and OSM feel it is important to meet that portion of the specifications. Councilmember Scott noted that Edison Controls indicated that none of their references had been contacted but that OSM stated five references had been contacted. The Director of Public Works stated that after the first bid some of Edison Controls references had been checked, and that after the second bid some additional references not previously checked had been contacted. He added that the references were not the primary problem but that not meeting specifications was. 5 -5 -86 _g_ Councilmember Lhotka asked the representatives from Edison Controls to respond regarding their proven track record. Mr. Jim Edison, from Edison Controls, stated that his firm handles a lot of water systems around the country and in the Twin Cities area, and noted that his firm is computer oriented. Councilmember Lhotka asked if his firm has a proven track record for the total system required by our specifications. Mr. Jim Edison stated that there are no other systems which are identical to the one Brooklyn Center proposed. The Director of Public Works stated that the system that Edison Controls is proposing has not been installed anywhere. Mr. Edison stated that the standard modules have all been installed and have proven track records, and noted that Edison Controls uses standard hardware and software modules and builds in the variables. The Director of Public Works stated that Mr. Edison has basically noted it is his company's policy to build the system the way they (Edison Controls) feel is correct, not according to the City's specifications. He added that the specifications were written to allow for objections before the bid opening date and that no objections were received. Mayor Nyquist asked if Dynamic Systems and Aquarol Corporation have systems identical to the one the City is requesting. The Director of Public Works stated that Dynamic Systems has five or six such systems. Councilmember Theis noted that in the report from OSM it had been indicated that Columbia Heights had been using Edison Controls system but had removed that system; he asked why the system had been removed. The Director of Public Works stated that there had been some difficulties bringing the system on line and that once the system was on line, there were difficulties getting the 0 system up and running properly. He also noted that service from Edison Controls had been slow in coming. Mr. Edison stated that his company does not force their philosophy on anyone, and that Edison Controls will use standard modules to achieve what is in the specifications. He stated that his company feels this was not an objective decision. He added that the system at Columbia Heights had been an old system which was hard wired, not a micro processor. He stated that there had been a telephone line problem with that system. The City Manager stated that when the specifications were written the City had purposely asked for a total system with a proven track record because the City did not want to be a guinea pig with an unproven product. Mr. Edison stated that he feels the City and OSM have not spent enough time analyzing his systems because if they were thoroughly analyzed the City would realize that Edison Controls does have a proven track record. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he felt Mr. Edison had not addressed his questions well enough to change his mind. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -79 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF WATER UTILITY CONTROL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -19 (CONTRACT 1986 -D) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by 5 -5 -86 -9- member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT - ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FINANCE Councilmember Theis asked how much experience Mr. Hanson has with other municipalities. The City Manager stated that Mr. Hanson previously was employed by the City of Robbinsdale for eight years and the City of Circle Pines for two years before that. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to allow Charles R. Hanson three weeks of vacation accrual for his first ten years of employment with the City and then according to the personnel ordinance and a 100 hour block of sick leave, which can be used in the first year, but must be earned according to the City plan before additional hours accrue. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lhotka presented the Mayor with an award from the Minnesota Association of Planners recognizing the City for its planning efforts on the Year 2000 Report. COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE Mayor Nyquist noted that there was a Council meeting scheduled for June 9, 1986 and stated that he would be out of town accepting the award for t p g he All - America City during that time. He requested the June 9, 1986 City Council meeting be rescheduled for June 16, 1986. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to reschedule the June 9, 1986 City Council meeting for June 16, 1986. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9:44 p.m. City Clerk Mayor I 5 -5 -86 -10- I 7h McGLADREY Hendrickson & Pullen Internationally CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS DUNWOODY ROBSON McGLADREY & PULLEN May 13, 1986 Ms. Geralyn Barone 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Ms. Barone: Please find attached a summary of the 75th Anniversary Committee's Budget Activities through April. This will be the basis for our discussion on May 19th. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, 41 Z, Michael V. Nelson, Budget Director MVN:mlw Enc. 1300 Midwest Plaza East, 800 Marquette Avenue, 41 inneapolis, !Minnesota 55402, (612) 332-4300 Brooklyn Center ter 75th Anniversary Budget Report - Activity Through April 30, 1986 Projected Actual Through Through April April Cash Generated by Project Button Sales $ 125 $ - Birthday Party 1,150 218 Fireworks ( 3,000) ( 3,000) Ramada Inn - Final Event - - Parade ( 1,600) ( 2,565) Circus ( 395) ( 395) Carnival (100) - Merchandise Sales ( 1,365) - General Overhead ( 2,150) ( 686) Unallocated City Appropriation 5,000 7,500 Hot Air Balloons - - All America City x - y penses - Other - 1,697 $( 2,335 All- America City Expenses Actual Budget Through 4 -30 -86 All America City Banner $ 400 $ - Washington Trip 5,000 - Logo Design and Graphics 200 - Slide Show Graphics 1,840 - Display Booth Design /Community Use 1,290 - Other 1,270 - $ 10,000 $ - s Hot Air Balloon Race Actual Budget Through 4 -30 -86 Income Allocation of City Funds $ 400 $ - Expenses Prize money 1,725 Publicity 50 Insurance 250 Security 400 Participation fee 1,275 Banners 400 Total Expense $ 4,100 $ - Net Cost 3 700) Fireworks Displays Actual Budget Through 4 -30 -86 Income Allocation From City Budget $ 5,000 $ - Cost of Fireworks Displays* $11,000 $(3,000 Net Cost $(6,000) 3 000) * 1 @ $5,000 2 @ $3,000 r General Overhead Actual Budget Through 4 -30 -86 Stationary & Letterhead $ 500 $ 343.31 Photocopying 150 Postage 110 Care Bear 50 Publicity 1,000 Unallocated Insurance 1,000 322.50 Miscellaneous 150 2.50 Supplies 100 17.53 Net Cost $(3,060) Parade June 26 Actual Budget Through 4 -30 -86 Income Allocation of City Allowance $ 7,100 $ - Expenses Judge 150 140 Paid Marching Units 1,000 1,425 Security 7,100 Trophies 250 Mailings 75 Sanitation 950 Food for Bands & Other 850 Prize Money for Bands 2,000 Other 150 Insurance 1,000 1,000 Total Expense $13,525 $ 2,565 Net Cost $(6,425) 2 565) Button Sales Actual Budget Through 4 -30 -86 Income Prize Buttons 1,500 @ $1 $ 1,500 Lapel Pins 250 @ $2.50 625 Total Income $ 2,125 Expenses Cost of Buttons (3,000 @ .23) $ 690 Prizes 700 Cost of Lapel Pins (500 @ $1) 500 Total Expenses $ 1,890 $ - Net Income 235 Circus July 31 1 Performance Actual Budget Through 4 -30 -86 Income - Ticket Sales (1,300 @ $5 + 1,300 @ $3) $10,400 - Ad Sales 5 @ $150 750 - City Funds 500 - Total Income $11,650 $ - Expenses Reservation Fee $ 395 $ 395 Tickets to Advertisers (25 child each) 450 Insurance - Revenue Sharing 100% of 1st 250 adult tickets 1,250 50% of excess adult tickets 2,625 75% of childrens tickets 2,925 Water & Electricity 100 Security 500 Permits - Clean Up 100 Sanitation 150 Publicity 500 - Total Expenses $ 8,995 $ 395 Net Profit (Loss) 2,655 395) Carnival Mem. Day Week Actual Budget Through 4 -30 -86 Income Allocation of City Funds $ 2,000 Income 1,150 Total Income $ 3,150 Expenses Utilities $ 450 Insurance - Clean Up 100 Security 2,000 Sanitation 500 Publicity 100 Total Expenses $ 3,150 $ - Net Cost $ _ _- 0 Birthday Party February 15, 1985 Actual Budget Through 4 -30 -86 Income 300 @ $15 /each $ 4,500 $ 2,940.00 (196) Expenses Meals 300 @ $7.75 /each $ 2,325 1,588.00 Beverages 150 - Insurance Allocation - - Entertainment 75 600.00 Publicity 200 77.75 Licenses & Permits - - Decorations & Place Settings 150 112.95 Donation to MADD or SADD 300 100.00 Lunch for School Principles (25 @ $6) 150 85.18 Other - 158.15 Total Expenses $ 3,350 $2,722.03 Net Profit 1,150 217.97 Project Complete Merchandise Sales Actual Budget Through 4 -30 -86 Income Baseball Caps (250 @ $5) $ 1,250 Wind Socks (125 @ $3.50) 437 Mugs (250 @ $3) 750 Balloons (250 @ $1) 250 - Total Income $ 2,687 $ - Expenses Baseball Caps (500 @ $1.30) $ 650 Wind Socks (250 @ $1.79) 448 Mugs (500 @ $1.29) 645 Balloons (500 for $87) 87 Shoulder Patches 200 - Total Expenses $ 2,030 $ - Net Profit 657 Ramada Inn - Final Event Actual Budget Through 4 -30 -86 Income (75 couples @ $50) $ 3,750 $ - Expenses Awards for volunteers $ 250 Entertainment 400 - Total Expenses $ 650 $ - Net Profit 3,100 BROOKLYN CENTER'S 75TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION SCHEDULE OF EVENTS DATE ACTIVITY May 17 "Fashions From Yesteryear "* (Style Show, Luncheon) May 26 - June 6 "My Neighbor's The Greatest" Essay Contest May 30 - June 10 +Carnival* June 1 Happy Face Square Dance Club Performance June 7 Hot -Air Balloon Show (Rain date is June 8) June 7, 8 Annual Swim Meet, Brooklyn Swim Club June 14, 15 Women's Early Bird Softball Tournament June 17 +Senior Ball with King, Queen Coronation June 20, 21, 22 Dudley Classic Softball Tournament* (Includes Celebrity Softball Game featuring Channel 11 and Brooklyn Center Police 'Association on June 21) June 25 - 29 Earle Brown Days Activities +Coloring Contest Hide -A -Key Contest June 25 Ice Cream Social and Brooklyn Community Band Concert, Brookdale Center June 26 +Parade June 27 - 29 Tennis Tournament June 28 +Auction June 28 +Antique Show June 28 +Fishing Contest June 29 +Sunday in Central Park 2:30 pm Brooklyn Community Children's Chorus 3:30 pm Brooklyn Community Harmonettes 4:30 pm Dudley Riggs Brave New Workshop 6:30 pm Celebrity Softball Game - local celebrities play WCCO television 8:15 pm Dedication of Central Park 8:30 pm Brooklyn Community Band Concert Dusk Fireworks (OVER) S June 29 +75th Anniversary Swim Special* July 11, 12, 13 Vietnam Vets Softball Tournament July 12 +Fun Run July 26, 27 Jaycee Men's Softball Tournament July 26,27 Volksmarch (10K) July 31 +Circus* September 7 A Major Event of Great Historical Significance September 8 - 26 "Why I Like Brooklyn Center" Essay Contest October +75th Anniversary Closing Ceremonies *Denotes admission charge +Denotes events sponsored by the 75th Anniversary Committee FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL 561 -5440 or 561 -5448 Entertainment in the Park i In honor of Brooklyn Centers 75th Anniversary the Brooklyn Center Parks and Recreation Department is proud to introduce an exciting new program called Entertainment In The Park. r � Entertainment In 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. Every week there will 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 Hall of the Community Center. This Summer's programs were set up with some input from the Entertainment In The Park Commission. The below schedule is subject to change. Please call 561 -5448 for further information. Entertainment In the Park 1986 Schedule Tuesday, June 10, 7:00 p.m. Zuhrah Shrine Concert Band One of the best concert bands in the area 8:15 p.m. Brooklyn Community Band Band music at its finest Tuesday, June' 17, 7:00 p.m. North Hennepin Jazz Ensemble Big band music from Duke Ellington to the Jazz Rock of Weather Report Tuesday, June 24, 7:00 & 8:00 p.m. The Decades Vocal entertainment group singing songs from the 1940's to present Tuesday, July 1, 7:00 p.m. Foxfire Traditional country music Tuesday, July 8, 7:00 p.m. Mouldy Figs Dixieland Jazz Band Tuesday, July 15, 7:00 p.m. Happy Face Square Dance Square Dance Demonstration i 8:15 p.m. Brooklyn Community Band Band music at its finest Tuesday, July 22, 7:00 p.m. The Rockin' Hollywoods The hottest 50's group in the Twin Cities area Tuesday, July 29, 7:00 p.m. An Euening with Chopin y Piano concert featuring Tadeusz Majewski Tuesday, August 5, 7:00 p.m. Brooklyn Center Puppet Playhouse �) In this special evening performance children will see some of their favorite puppets 7:30 p.m. The Enchanted Fish Children's theatre performance featuring the Climb Theatre Company P 8:15 p.m. Barbershop Quartet - Minneapolis Commodores � i I Tuesday, August 12, 7:00 p.m. Hardly Herd Lively, foot tapping bluegrass mixed with western swing "From truck farming to the market basket of the northwest suburbs" By Mary Jane Gustafson, president Brooklyn Historical Society Part of the Fort Snelling Reserve and protected from village had a planning study made of the farm in the early settlement by a separate treaty with the Dakota tribes, the 1960's and the plan has been pretty much adhered to. area that would eventually become Brooklyn Center The five acres where the original Earle Brown Farm build - opened to settlement after the U.S. government signed ings stand have been declared a state historic site. the Sioux treaties of 1851 and 1852. The Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment First families began moving into this general area to Authority purchased 14 acres of the farm, including the clear land for farming and to build homes in the summer farm buildings, in August, 1985. An ad hoc committee of 1852, and within three years there was considerable has been appointed to study and make a recommenda- population. The area was heavily populated by Indians. tion on the uses of the buildings. They were not hostile. The early settlers were mostly A vestige of the early settlers still remaining is Mound former residents of New England. Many of them came Cemetery, established in 1862. First school was held in from Maine. the fall of 1854, but now there are four school districts Brooklyn Center as we know it today is composed of within Brooklyn Center. The history of Brooklyn Center parts of Brooklyn Township, created in 1858, the year of United Methodist Church dates back to 1854, making it statehood; and Crystal Township, created in 1860. Truck the oldest congregation in Brooklyn Center. farmers here, afraid that Minneapolis would annex Crystal Between the time of incorporation in 1911 and 1950, Township, took legal action to create the village of Brook- the population increased by about 3,800 residents, but lyn Center in 1911. An election was held Feb 14, 1911 in from 1950 to 1960 there was a gain of over 19,000. The Earle Brown's garage on the old Martin farm. Eighty -three peak home building years were 1954 to 1959. There was votes were cast, 69 in favor and 15 against. On Feb. 18 some land development after World War 1; however a that same year the incorporation papers for the village of market gardening economy continued until land value Brooklyn Center were filed in the Secretary of State's increased to a point it was more lucrative to sell than to office. Contrary to what most people think, that Brooklyn engage in agriculture. Center was named after Brooklyn, New York, Brooklyn In 1966 voters approved a city charter and the council- Center was named after Brooklyn, Michigan. manager form of government, and in 1968, a $2,250,000 Perhaps the most famous person ever living in Brook- bond issue to build a new city hall and community center lyn Center was Earle Brown, the onlygrandson and heir to with olympic -size pool, fire station and municipal service Captain John Martin who moved to the Brooklyn Center building. Also included were monies for park area in the 1880's. development. Earle Brown was a former Hennepin County sheriff, a Brooklyn Center celebrates its heritage each year with a candidate for Minnesota Governor and founder of the civic festival called "Earle Brown Days." This festival is State Highway Patrol. He gave his 750 -acre farm, which is held the last weekend in June and features sporting con - in the heart of Brooklyn Center, to the University of Minne- tests, senior adult activities, fireworks, a parade, fun run, a sota in 1949 with the stipulation he be allowed to live there treasure hunt, ecumenical service and pancake breakfast, until his death. He died in 1963 at the age of 83. Prior to his among others. death, Brown gave the University title to 200 acres where a In 1986 this festival culminates Brooklyn Center's year - housing development was built. The University sold the long 75th anniversary celebration. remaining acreage to developers for $1.7 million in 1965, The city covers 8.5 square miles, features a large Indus- and with the monies from the sale built the Earle Brown trial park and Brookdale, a regional shopping center, Continuation Center on the St. Paul Campus. making Brooklyn Center commercial hub of the North - Preparing for the eventual development of the land, the west suburbs of Minneapolis. f - Fh MEMORANDUM TO: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection FROM: Gary Shallcross, Planner DATE: May 15, 1986 SUBJECT: Performance Guarantee The following performance guarantee is recommended for reduction: 1. 7100 Corporate Plaza (Edina Realty) 7100 Brooklyn Blvd. Planning Commission Application No. 85011 Amount of Guarantee - $40,000 letter of credit Obligor - Uhde /Nelson, Inc. Site utilities, paving, curb and gutter have been installed. Most trees have been planted, but a number of shrubs have not. The cedar hedge along the north lot line has not been extended. In addition, the improvements on the easterly portion of the site are being deferred until a later phase of the development. Also, an as -built utility survey must be submitted. As a result of the number of outstanding items, it is recommended that the guarantee not be reduced below $15,000. Approved bye J Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection PROCLAMATION DECLARING MAY 18 - 24 1986 AS MINNESOTA SMALL BUSINESS WEEK WHEREAS, there are 15.2 million small businesses in the United States; and WHEREAS, businesses employing fewer than 500 persons comprise more than 99% of Minnesota's 105,516 private enterprises; and WHEREAS, Minnesota businesses with fewer than 20 employees employ more than 85% of the State's work force; and WHEREAS, from 1969 -1976, businesses with fewer than 500 employees generated 86.7% of all new jobs nationwide and 66% of employment growth from businesses with 20 or fewer employees; and WHEREAS, 50% of all inventions, innovations and patents are developed by small businesses; and WHEREAS, the growth and prosperity of Minnesota's small business is essential to the economic well being of our State. NOW, THEREFORE,', Ir AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State of Minnesota, do hereby proclaim the week of May 18 through May 24, 1986 to be Minnesota Small Business Week in the City of Brooklyn Center. Date Mayor Seal Attest Clerk �o Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE APPROPRIATION FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -28, CONTRACT 1986 -E (WATER TOWER NO. 3 RECONDITIONING) WHEREAS, Resolution No. 85 -198 specified that the accounting for Project No. 1985 -28 would be in the Public Utility Fund; and WHEREAS, funding for the project should be appropriated from Revenue Bond unspent proceeds to eliminate a balance in that fund: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1. Improvement Project No. 1986 -28 will be financed through the appropriation of $38,653.95 taken from Revenue Bond unspent proceeds. 2. The balance of the project financing shall be through an appropriation from the Public Utilities Fund. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B TT �J R ®O�L 1 N 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: May 5, 1986 RE: Improvement Project No. 1985 -28 Water Tower No. 3 Reconditioning The Auditor requested that $38,653.95 be appropriated from the 1963 Revenue Bond unspent proceeds to eliminate a nuisance balance. Only certain Public Utilities projects qualify for use of this funding. Improvement Project No. 1985 -28 qualifies for funding by the Revenue Bond unspent proceeds. It is therefor recommended that the attached resolution be adopted in order to transfer that balance of Revenue bond unspent proceeds as requested. e y- A4Kapp ed for submittal, 1' Sp rrier Sy City Eta 'neer Director of Public Works HRS : j n ��� . &:� rn4ze „ Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1986 -A (RECONDITIONING OF WELLS NO. 5 AND 7, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -03) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1986 -A signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Keys Well Drilling Company of St. Paul, Minnesota has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: RECONDITIONING OF WELLS NO. 5 AND 7 PROJECT NO. 1986 -03 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract and Supplemental Agreement is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: Original Contract $ 38,867.00 Supplemental Agreement No. 1 290.00 Quantity Change 51.50 Total $ 39,208.50 2. The value of work performed is more than the original contract and Supplemental Agreement amount by $51.50 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 $39,208.50. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that there be appropriated the sum of $341.50 for additional costs. The appropriation will be financed in the Utility Fund. Date Mayor ATTEST: _ Clerk RESOLUTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. f Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center as follows: 1. The document entitled: "Agreement Regarding Construction of and Payment for Certain Public Improvements" (Agreement) a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby approved. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. AGREEMENT REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF AND PAYMENT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into as of this 19th day of May, 1986 by and between the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, a Minnesota municipal corporation (City) and the HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, a body corporate and politic under the laws of, the State of Minne- sota (HRA). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the HRA has duly approved a Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing District (TIF District) described in that certain document entitled "Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan (Project), City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, July 22 , 1985 and has by appropriate action established the TIF District and applied to the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center for approval of the Project and the related Tax Increment Financing Plan (Plan); and WHEREAS, the City has by resolution duly approved the Project, the Plan and the TIF District; and WHEREAS, the Project provides for the construction of certain public improvements (Public Improvements) to be con- structed and financed by the proceeds of the TIF Bonds; and WHEREAS, the City has caused plans and specifications for the construction of such Public Improvements to be prepared and has prepared estimates for the cost of construction of such Public Improvements; and { WHEREAS, the HRA has reviewed the plans and specifications and finds them to be consistent with the Project and for the accomplishment of the purposes and objectives for which the Project has been undertaken; and WHEREAS, the HRA has reviewed the estimated costs for the construction of such Public Improvements, and finds the same to be capable of being financed through the proceeds of the TIF Bonds; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to proceed with the construc- tion of the Public Improvements provided that the HRA agrees and consents to fund the cost of such Public Improvements through the TIF Bond proceeds. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. The City agrees to proceed to award the. contract for construction of the Public Improvements to the lowest responsible bidder on the same basis and subject to all terms, conditions and requirements as are usual and customary in the City's contracting for the construction of Public Improvements. 2. At such times as the City shall approve the payment (or payments) from its contractor for work done in connection with the construction of the Public Improvements, the HRA shall, upon written request of the City, and upon verification of the request for payment, pay over to the City amounts equal to such verified requests for payment; provided, however, that the HRA shall not be required to pay over to the City any amounts in excess of the 2 r estimated costs (Excess Amounts) , unless the HRA shall subse- quently determine such Excess Amounts to be (i) reasonable and necessary to complete the Public Improvements, and (ii) capable of being financed by the portion of the TIF Bond proceeds allo- cated to the construction of Public Improvements. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By Its Mayor By Its City Manager HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By Its Chairman BY Its Executive Director 0007AAOl.El4 3 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FOR EARLE BROWN FARM TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT PHASE I STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT (PROJECT NO. 1986 -09, CONTRACT 1986 -H) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1986 -09, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 15th day of May, 1986. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Alber Construction, Inc. $71,669.30 D.H. Blattner & Sons, Inc. $73,000.00 C.S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. $75,565.05 WHEREAS, it appears the Alber Construction, Inc. of Plymouth, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of > y Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $71,669.30 with Alber Construction, Inc, of Plymouth, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1986 -09 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated cost of Improvement Project No. 1986 -09 is hereby amended according to the following schedule: As Approved As Bid Contract $ 58,630.00 $ 71,669.30 Engineering 5,280.00 6,450.00 Administration 590.00 717.00 $ 64,500.00 $ 78,836.30 RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly, passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK ON SOUTH SIDE OF SUMMIT DRIVE FROM SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY TO APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET EASTERLY OF SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY (PROJECT NO. 1986 -14 CONTRACT 1986 -L) WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that it is desirable and necessary to make part of the Earle Brown Tax Increment District Streetscape improvements; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has received a proposal from C.S. McCrossan, Inc. for subgrade preparation for sidewalk in conjunction with site grading along Summit Drive in the amount of $4,990.00; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has received proposals for Sidewalk Project No. 1986 -14 submitted bids being as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Alber Construction, Inc. $ 7,395.00 C.S. McCrossan, Inc. 8,925.00 WHEREAS, the proposal of Alber Construction, Inc. in the amount of $7,395.00 is the lowest responsible proposal received and the Director of Public Works has recommended that a contract be awarded to said firm in that amount. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The following project is hereby established: SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -14 (Sidewalk on the South side of Summit Drive, Shingle Creek Parkway to approximately 1,000 feet Easterly of Shingle Creek Parkway) 2. The costs for Project No. 1986 -14 are estimated as follows: Contract Cost (subgrade Preparation) $ 4,990 Contract Cost (Sidewalk Construction) 7.395 Subtotal $12,385 Engineering Costs (6%) 743 Total $13,128 3. The proposal of Alber Construction, Inc. in the amount of $7,395.00, is hereby accepted. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said firm in that amount. 4. Payment for work completed under the contract shall be charged to the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF : BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C E NTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: H.R. Spurrier, City Engineer DATE: May 15, 1986 RE: Earle Brown Farm Tax Increment District Phase I Streetscape Improvements Project No. 1986 -09, Contract 1986 -H and Project No. 1986 -14, Contract 1986 -L On May 15, 1986 the City of Brooklyn Center received bids for Phase I Streetscape Improvements. The bids for the improvements exceeded the Engineer,'s Estimate by approximately $12,750.00 or $2,125.00 per note. I have concluded _in review of the bid that the proposed work was bid at a reasonable cost. The difference between the Engineer's Estimate and the bid was primarily due to the fact that we were unable to find current comparable work on which to base the estimate. The work is competitively priced and it is recommended that the attached resolution accepting the bid and approving contract for Earle Brown Farm Tax Increment District Phase I Streetscape Improvement be adopted. The City has also received proposals related to the construction of sidewalk on the South side of Summit Drive from Shingle Creek Parkway to approximately 1,000 feet Easterly of Shingle Creek Parkway (Project No. .1986 -14, Contract 1986 -L). There are two proposals related to this work. One is a proposal received by the Director of Public Works for subgrade preparation for the sidewalk. The second is a proposal received from two contractors for construction of sidewalk on the prepared subgrade. This work was separated primarily because the subgrade preparation could be coordinated with the contractor responsible for the grading for the Target and Shingle Creek Shopping Center site. The cost estimate in the attached resolution summarizes the subgrade preparation and sidewalk construction and accepts the proposal and awards the contract for construction of sidewalk. ,• 'else Sasft&lu cq� V o te (?ma ,• May 15, 1986 Page 2 This work is reasonably priced and is recommended for approval. Therefore, it is my recommendation that the work be approved by the adoption of the attached resolution. Res V mitted, Approved for submittal, R Sy app ity E Director of Public Works HRS : j BID TABULATION CONTRACT 1986 -H PROJECT NO. 1986 -09 Engineer's ALBER D.H. BLATTNER C.S. McCROSSAN Estimate 1 2 3 Item # Contract Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount - - -- - -- -- ---- -- ------------ - -- --- - --- ---- - -- --- ---- - - - - -- -- -- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- - -- - - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - --- --- - - - - - -- -- -- - - - - -- 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 1100.00 1100.00 1100.00 1100.00 5595.35 5595.35 6500.00 6500.00 2 CONCRETE RETAINING WALL SY 203 192.50 39077.50 200.00 40600.00 130.00 26390.00 235.00 47705.00 3 UNI -DECOR PAVING SF 4,331 3.30 14292.30 4.65 20139.15 8.00 34648.00 3.80 16457.80 4 SIGN SLEEVES EA 10 55.00 550.00 26.50 265.00 50.00 500.00 30.00 300.00 5 4 INCH CONRETE SIDEWALK SF 425 1.93 820.25 4.40 1870.00 3.00 1275.00 1.65 701.25 6 REMOVE CONCRETE SIDEWALK SF 127 1.65 209.55 6.45 819.15 1.20 152.40 0.50 63.50 7 SAWCUT CONCRETE SIDEWALK LF 40 5.50 220.00 2.15 86.00 5.75 230.00 3.00 120.00 8 DESIGN "V" CONCRETE CURB - 4" LF 265 4.95 1311.75 10.20 2703.00 8.00 2120.00 10.00 2650.00 9 COMMON BORROW CY 305 4.40 1342.00 13.40 4087.00 6.85 2089.25 3.50 1067.50 ---- - - - - -- - --- - ----- ---- --- - -- -- -- - - - - -- $58,923.35 $71,669.30 $73,000.00 $75,565.05 10F Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH WESTWOOD PLANNING AND ENGINEERING COMPANY TO PROVIDE FINAL DESIGN SERVICES RELATING TO EARLE BROWN FARM TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT PHASE II STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT (PROJECT NO. 1986 -15) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute an agreement with Westwood Planning and Engineering to provide final design services relating to the Earle Brown Farm Tax Increment District Phase II Streetscape Improvement (Project No. 1986 -15) at an estimated cost of $15,000. 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 T ^ ®KL j �� j Y�T l�j BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 =Ma C E NTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE hn 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: May 14, 1986 RE: Status of Earle Brown Farm Tax Increment District Streetscape Improvements Following is a summary of plan development status and work completed to -date relating to the proposed Streetscape improvements within the Earle Brown Farm Tax Increment District: 1. Preliminary concept plans and cost estimates developed by Westwood Planning and Engineering March, 1985 2. Detailed conceptual designs and cost estimate (see copy attached) developed by Westwood Planning and Engineering (with $8,000 design fee, as per agreement approved by City HRA on 11/4/85) February, 1986 3. Obtain easements for construction of landscape nodes (still in process) February - June, 1986 4. Soil borings and analysis obtained for all landscape nodes March, 1986 5. Construction elements placed under contract to -date: installation of retaining wall as required to allow extension of the right turn lane for Northbound traffic on Shingle Creek Parkway between Summit Drive and I694 ramp terminal April, 1986 6. Construction elements for which bids and /or quotations will be submitted to the City Council for consideration at the 5/19/86 Council meeting: "71c� .So.Ke 44cq maze &ry May 14, 1986 Page 2 (a) Phase I Streetscape improvements (Project No. 1986 -09, Contract 1986 -H) Note: this project consists of the construction of the retaining walls and pavers at the 6 nodes adjacent to the Target /Shingle Creek Shopping Center May 19, 1986 (b) Installation of sidewalk on South side of Summit Drive adjacent to the Target /Shingle Creek Shopping Center May 19, 1986 As shown on the attached cost estimate, one of the major cost items included in the project is the proposed street lighting. The $386,250 cost estimate would provide for "code lighting" on all streets within the district. Based on our staff meeting with Tim Erkkila on May 12, 1986 we now recommend that the number of street lighting fixtures be reduced to about half of the number required for code lighting, and that pedestrian lights be included at the nodes and along the sidewalk on the North side of Summit Drive (since this will be the "arterial" sidewalk serving the District). With that policy question now resolved, we have requested Westwood Planning and Engineering to submit a proposal to provide design services as required to allow preparation of construction plans and specifications for the remaining work. It is our plan to have Westwood develop the plans and specifications relating to lighting, to landscaping and to street furniture. With some design assistance from Westwood, our office will develop detailed plans and specifications for construction of the retaining walls, pavers, and sidewalks. Our office will then assume responsibility for "packaging" the remaining work into contracts so as to complete all work in coordination with site developments within the District. It now appears that this work may have to be staged as follows: (1) work adjacent to Lombard Development Companies shopping Center ( "Brookview Plaza ") i.e. nodes and sidewalks (2) work adjacent to Ryan Construction's Phase III office building i.e. nodes and sidewalks (3) a general contract which includes installation of the lighting system for the entire district, most of the remaining nodes, landscaping for all nodes built to that date, some sidewalks, pavers and street furniture May 14, 1986 Page 3 (4) construction of sidewalks adjacent to Ryan's Phase IV development, adjacent to the Earle Brown Farm, and adjacent to the proposed Earle Brown Commons will be scheduled in conjunction with these developments. Attached hereto is a proposal from Westwood Planning and Engineering to provide the services described above. A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. Resp ctfully submitted, Sy app Director of Public Works Attachments SK: jn�� U � n✓ ':: " ae uk' �. �> x r�..r>`l.a+kwelr`°°wr�x� xa^r+`FJ+u`h"w+��,CCe 5Y"pm _' _.,_# WESTWOOD PLANNING & ENGINEERING COMPANY STREETSCAPE - REVISED PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE EARLE BROWN FARM AREA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING STUDY February 7, 1986 This estimate is based on the following assumptions: A. Seven node designs consisting of 24 corners as shown on the conceptual designs dated January 27, 1986. B. The area included is bounded by the access ramp to I -94 on the north, the east R.O.W. line of Earle Brown Drive, the south R.O.W. line of John Martin Drive, and the west R.O.W. line of Shingle Creek Parkway. C. A totally new street lighting system is provided for all public streets within the study area. D. Street tree planting at 50 feet on center (for estimating the number of trees only); the actual design effect will be determined later. The estimate includes additional trees for planting the I -94 R.O.W. The following breakdown is provided: 1. Special Paving (17,500 s.f.) $ 52,500.00 Unidecor precast pavers or exposed aggregate 2. Retaining wall (1,200 l.f.) 120,000.00 Board textured concrete, 30" high 3. Shrubs, mulch, and edger 38,400.00 4. Fill /grading (700 c.y.) 5,250.00 5. Demolition 3,000.00 6. Resoddiag around damaged areas (1,200 s.y.) 2,400.00 7. Street trees (including node trees) 390 trees 85,000.00 8. Lighting (103 fixtures and poles) Sterner 386,250.00 "Marquette" style, 250 watt high pressure sodium, 30 feet high steel pole 9. New Sidewalk by others 7415 WAYZATA BOUIEVARO. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55425 (612) 54&0155 A f February 7, 1986 Streetscape - Revised Preliminary Cost Estimate Earle Brown Farm Area page 2. 10. Directional Signage to farm (4 signs) $ 3,076.00 White letters on dark bronze aluminum, 2 x 6' panel 11. Street address / bollard system (30 bollards) 6,000.00 Subtotal $ 701,876.00 Contingency 5% 35,093.80 TOTAL $ 736,969.80 i M WESTWOOD PLANNING & ENGINEERING COMPANY May 1 y 3, 1986 Mr. Bo Spurrier, Engineer City Administrative Offices 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Subject: Earle Brown Farm T.I.F. Streetscape Planning & Design Services Proposal Dear Mr. Spurrier: In response to your inquiry with regard to Westwood Planning & Engineering. Company providing Professional Services to the City of Brooklyn Center for detailed planning and design for the proposed streetscape and nodes in the Earle Brown Farm Tax Increment District, we present the following: PLANNING AND ENGINEERING SERVICES AND COSTS We propose to provide the following services at the listed estimated prices: 1. Meet with the developers on proposed project within - hourly as incurred project area (estimate $400) 2. Revise site plans for "problem" nodes and advisory - hourly as incurred services to City staff on their engineering design (estimate $1,200) of walls and sidewalks 3. Fixtures and materials selection for improvements $1,200.00 (signage, bollards, benches, etc.) 4. Develop preliminary lighting plan, conduit location $2,000.00 map and cost estimate. 5. Provide landscape plans, specifications and bid $4,200.00 documents for each node 6. Develop electrical plans, specifications and bid 3% of construction 1. documents for street light system cost 7. Limited administration and Inspection n of Installation llatio -hourly hourly as incurred (estimate $1,000) All fees shall be billed as incurred based on the attached fee schedule. he ule. Prices stated above are estimates. The total services are estimated at having a cost of approximately pp 1 15 000 Y $ , It is expected that first priority be given to resolving lighting types and conduit locations to coordinate with projects now under construction. 7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55426 (612) 546 -0155 Mr. Bo Spurrier May 13, 1986 Page 2 All work will be billed monthly, based on the pro -rata amount of work performed during the previous month. All invoices are due and payable thirty days from date of invoice. All invoices outstanding sixty days or more from date of invoice will be charged a finance (interest) charge at the rate of 1.25 percent per month. Any additional reports, studies or other work ordered by the Owner shall be performed on a per diem basis in accordance with the attached fee schedule. MATERIALS, DOCUMENTS AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY OWNER The Owner shall provide the Engineer with the following: - Project base maps for all improvement areas (nodes, streetscape area, etc.) - Copies of related developer plans in project area. - Copies of current engineering plans for related improvements in project area. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT This agreement may be terminated by either party upon fourteen days written notice to the other party. In the event of such termination, Westwood shall be paid compensation for services performed to the termination date. Upon payment, any and all obligations and liabilities of the parties hereto shall terminate. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are, and shall remain, the property of Westwood, whether the project for which they are made is executed, or not. Westwood is not to reuse these drawings, or any part thereof, for any other client that Westwood may have, without the written approval of the Owner. These drawings are not to be used by the Owner on other projects, or extensions to this project, except by agreement in writing and with appropriate compensation to Westwood. Westwood Planning & Engineering, upon request, shall provide the Owner with a copy of his engineering calculations upon which his designs are based. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS The Owner and Westwood each binds itself, its successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party of this agreement and to the successors, assigns and legal representatives of such other party with respect to all provisions of the agreement. Neither the Owner nor Westwood shall assign, set over or transfer his interest, in whole, or in part, in this agreement without Mr. Bo Spurrier May 13, 1986 Page 3 the prior written consent of the other, and any act in derogation hereof, shall, at the option of the non - assigning party, render the written agreement terminated. Minor changes in Westwood - s partnership shall not operate to cancel this agreement. ARBITRATION All claims, disputes and other matters in question arising out of, or relating to, this Agreement or the breach thereof shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association then obtaining unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. This agreement to arbitrate shall be specifi- cally enforceable under the prevailing arbitration law. Notice of the demand for arbitration shall be filed in writing with the other party to this agreement and with the American Arbitration Association. The demand shall be made within a reasonable time after the claim, dispute or other matter in question has arisen. In no event, shall the demand for arbitra- tion be made after the date when institution of legal or equitable g proceedings based on such claim, dispute or other matter in question would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The award rendered b the arbitrators rs shall be final and ud ement may � g Y be entered upon it in accordance with applicable law in any court having Jurisdiction thereof. EXTENT OF AGREEMENT This Agreement represents the entire and integrated Agreement between the Owner and the Engineer and supersedes all prior negotiations, representa- tions or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both the Owner and Engineer. It is mutually agreed that Y g at this Agreement dated May 13, 1986 shall be extended to include the work herein described through December 31 987 g 1 Mr. Bo Spurrier May 13, 1986 Page 4 GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. THE OWNER AND ENGINEER AGREE AS SET FORTH ABOVE Owner: Engineer: City of Brooklyn Center Westwood Planning & Engineering Company 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 7415 Wayzata Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Minneapolis, MN 55426 C�1 GL� Signature Signature Title Title Dated D / F-6 Dated Attachment: Fee Schedule WESTWOOD PLANNING & ENGINEERING COMPANY FEE SCHEDULE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MAY 1, 1986 Classification Hourly Rate Principal Engineer..... $ 66.00 Principal Planner /Landscape Architect .................. 66.00 Project Engineer ........ ............................... 48.00 Project Landscape Architect ............................ 48.00 Engineer ................ ............................... 44.00 Landscape Architect / Planner .....................0...... .44.00 Senior Engineering Technician ........................... 36.00 Engineering /Planning Technician ........................ 30.00 Associate Landscape Architect /Planner .................. 34.00 Draftsman, ... o . o . 00 .... o ... o ........ o ....... oo ......... 24.50 Typist ......... ............................... .. .... 21.00 - Senior Construction Coordinator...... ....... 000 ........ 40.00 Construction Observer ... ............................... 36.00 Two —Man Survey Crew ..... ............................... 66.00 Three —Man Survey Crew... ............................... 77.00 7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55426 (612) 546.0155 J Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE BUILDINGS (PROJECT NO. 1985 -23, PHASE II, CONTRACT 1986 -K) WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 85 -119 adopted by the City Council the 24th day of June, 1986, Brauer and Associates, Ltd., and Architectural Design Group, Inc. have prepared plans and specifications for Improvement Project No. 1985 -23, Phase II and have presented such plans and specifications to the City Council for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The plans and specifications for the following improvements as prepared by the Brauer and Associates, Ltd, and Architectural Design Group, Inc. are approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk: CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE BUILDINGS PROJECT NO. 1985 -23, PHASE II CONTRACT 1986 -K 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least twice in the official newspaper and in the Dodge Reports an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than twenty -one (21) days prior to the date for receipt of bids, and specify the work to be done, state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. on June 12, 1986 at which time will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers at City Hall by the City Clerk and City Engineer, will then be tabulated and will be considered by the City Council within the time period specified for consideration of bids, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of such bid. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk RESOLUTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B:YROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: May 14, 1986 RE: Building Plans for Centerbrook Golf Course Plans and specifications for construction of the buildings at Centerbrook Golf Course have been completed by the Architectural Design Group, Inc. in cooperation with Brauer and Associates. Attached hereto are copies of floor plans and elevations for the clubhouse and for the Little League Concession /Garage Building. Also attached is a cross - section showing a dugout for the baseball field. Estimated costs for these buildings total $299,000. Alternate bids are requested for the furnishing of metal roofs in lieu of the asphalt shingles specified in the base bid. It is recommended that the City Council approve the plans and specifications and approve a bid opening date of June 12, 1986. We would then expect to award the contract on June 23rd, or within 30 days of the bid opening. Specifications for the project provide for substantial completion on or before July 10, 1987. A resolution is submitted for consideration by the City Council. Respectfully submitted, Sy app Director of Public Works SK: 3'� 1 119 mss-' = .��.ZPtaG ::r�•,� 'yC� � S'K��••wG ii .��'""_ - Entrance I _ I mo. Eating i Ia F1 Area VV 4 De i RPl FtR. 844.5 — I �� Illy fit% !� tIL I . '--- ----------- +, ---- -- --- 1 ilk � - I � i • Deck. r' k. _N ' E.J['QT.1 1 � - . _ _ a_ -_ter- - _ _ _; -- '• -�- -: _. .--� -- - - .... - - -- - - -- - -- .. _ ! - -_.: t Ili GCyi�'� rF��GIw ttlo _. I � , �lol.101..I "tE -t- t�oKs.� FVtt'1E5 i H_—_ �' UR�tz 6err - t,c �d –I o Ile 7 i rV i 1 � � ri 'III' l it. All Zr r 4 ^ FitsL FLR. 843.5'"; a � f ' i �1 b� �A�. -�� t E I law 3 5 A id • j '� � - ... �t i a l0� Ofi . t ti •sjp • O �'� 10l� �LI��: - � [.� Cwt. -�•t� :� w " _ l + oil �-- Tv- • M L 4 • 9K1 r 4Yd p`,L t i t( � � b - �a•i � ,ro� - tt� „G•t}ri/� •1: I iI I RO NOICN 'a r I s . • old 4� h yya7r'� t - - -- . - f 'O�.L�4/��'t� lr rz� I _._ 6 v ) _ ( . � , ,.:.. _. t -.� :an Y - ' - ” _�`= -. - _ _ - __ ...... _ -� �. ;_.�± ► .. �..; �. .'.:) .- - - t - - • . � - — T �= ��7 - � - -i r �_ ! J. r - _ I Toll- �.�'1� - 1r�1� - '�-r19 (+01��0- ' fi -- - - -- (�o�l����� �r�i -'��� rol��ho� I �t0�orso9 - ;wmrhai -not 5(rNI(ro7101,i;) _ fTi T1 r. j ty"1+,..�'J." -kt hi DCJ Of: S+I•i_ t -T ' - y' • . 'Kc�.. � - I�' (aA Za'G F/�'�IIp'• ��,+rD•� { DE -st? •+ SFl.� -o+I"[ t rJt`T'-iLk." . '�-- - -- t ,b%i'T• plu'-@ Pa•.i'T ('c''rkSPtG) � ; �- ' , Eo2taa5.:� 1F >+ -+•G� '(a Z'•'�4'f¢Fi -r..4� Ptt ?.. -�" `iiv Gfa1•.G, tS '4°.G2'G 'y&u1RES,15- rt•1E- �+j ���"J ,� ' �;:. 'SPLG.. T+•{c►i0R i'�ot -'jS +i4b� O.L. �� f :aj � � sF� �e rep c1eEr,�h� -ea T t'"5k 14�A' 41 ^�,�',�,ti -� � F ��.� : — -- �.G. er�.rJ�i+3�.G ro¢J� •��TY�•i "a � � r ° s I-(s" 6:.A... G.°J. 'sCC Ste• �•a^, � r .t. Member introduced the following resolution and moved it adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1986 GENERAL FUND BUDGET WHEREAS, in the 1986 General Fund Budget, $1,950 was approved for the purchase of three flack vests; and WHEREAS, after the purchase of these vests there are surplus funds; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that there is a need for a television set in the mobile communications van and that this item had not been approved in the budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend the 1986 General Fund Budget as follows: Transfer an appropriation of $200 from the Police Capital Outlay Budget (Acct. No. 01- 4552- 000 -31) to the Emergency Preparedness Capital Outlay Budget (Acct. No. 01- 4553 - 000 -34) to allow for the urchase o P f a television set for the mobile communications van i Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police`, DATE: May 12, 1986 SUBJECT: Purchase of Color TV for Communications Van Submitted and approved in the 1986 Budget were three flack vests for the EOU team for a total of $1,950.00. This item was submitted by Sergeant Werner who was then head of the EOU team. The present leader, Sergeant McComb, reviewed the item when it came time to order. McComb reported that the vests were more of the type used by the military. The vests are much heavier than those currently being used by the team. McComb felt that the extra protection afforded did not offset the loss of mobility enough to warrant their purchase. He requested that we purchase vests comparable to those already being used by the team. This purchase came to approximately $1,000.00 which left some surplus. In going over supplies for the communications van, it was determined that it would be advisable to have a television set in the van. This would be useful for monitoring newscasts during an emergency as there would probably be several news crews on the scene. This item would not be a matchable item from the Federal Government funds. Since it would not be, we are requesting that this item be purchased out of the money budgeted for the flack vests which was not used. The cost of the television set would be $169.95. N Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION TO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Minnesota (Authority) has approved a Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing District (TIF District) described in that certain document entitled "Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan, City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, July 22, 1985 and has by appropriate action established d the TIF District, and applied to the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center for approval of the Project and the Related Tax Increment Financing Plan (Plan); and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center (City) has by resolution adopted July 22, 1985, duly approved the Project, the Plan and the TIF District; and WHEREAS, the Authority has determined that it is necessary and appropriate in furtherance of the redevelopment of the District that the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan lan be modified to designate for acquisition, by condemnation if necessary, a parcel of land included within the TIF District and legally described as: Tract H, Registered Land Survey No. 1380 and to allocate within the budget for the District monies necessary for the cost of such acquisition, such modifications being more fully described in the proposed amendment attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Authority has proposed that the Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan dated July 22, 1985 be modified as described above and in Exhibit A and has requested that the City schedule a public hearing to .consider the proposed modification of the Plan in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 273; and WHEREAS, the City has duly scheduled and held such public hearing and fully reviewed the proposal of the Authority and finds the same to be in the vital best interests of the City, the District and to the accomplishment of the purposes for which the district was established and for which development was undertaken; and WHEREAS, the City further determines that the findings made at the time the District was established and the TIF Plan RESOLUTION NO. was approved apply as well to the proposed modification. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the modification to the Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan initiated and proposed by the Authority and contained in Exhibit A is 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. Exhibit A AMENDMENT TO EARLE BROWN FARM REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND TAX INCREMENT PLAN The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center, having duly considered the amendments to the Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment Program and Tax Increment Financ- ing Plan hereinafter contained, approves such amendments and requests the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to give its approval to the amendments. 1. Page 8: Amend the paragraph entitled "Acquisition, Reloca- tion and Clearance Activities" to read as follows: ACQUISITION, RELOCATION AND CLEARANCE ACTIVITIES It is the intent of the HRA to acquire the Earle Brown Farm in order to assure its renovation and preservation. It is further the intent of the HRA to acquire all or part of Tract H, Registered Land Survey No. 1380. The purpose of the acquisition is to provide additional lands for development of the elderly housing project and to provide pedes- trian walkways and similar public amenities. Professional property appraisers will recommend a fair market value for the property, and the owners will have a right to obtain independent apprais- als. Businesses and residents whose property is acquired and are dislocated because of such acquisition will be assisted with their reloca- tion. If the HRA determines it to be necessary, condemnation will be used to acquire the prop- erties designated for acquisition. 2. Page 12: Amend the paragraph entitled "Acquisition Plan" to read as follows: ACQUISITION PLAN Property will be acquired within the tax increment financing district in order to accomplish the objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan. Properties to be acquired include 35- 119 -21 -44 -001, 35- 119 -21 -44 -002, Tract H, RLS 1380, and such other properties as the Authority shall, from time to time, determine necessary to accomplish the objectives. All acquisition activities will be according to applicable state and federal laws and regulations. A professional appraiser will recommend fair market value for each property to be acquired and owners will have the right to obtain independent appraisals and contest the offer in a court of law. 3. Page 14, Table I: Amend Table I to read as follows: TABLE I PROJECTED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS Uses of Funds Land Acquisition $2,920,000 Redevelopment 2,000,000 Maintenance 500,000 Administration 239,000 Consultant /Legal 30,000 Contingencies 501,900 Issuance Costs 40,000 Discount 99,750 Capitalized Interest 509,617 Sale Total $6,840,267 Additional Costs: Streetscape 500,000 Improvements 1,300,000 Total Costs $8,640,267 Sources of Funds 1985 Bond Issue $5,250,000 Grants 680,000 Assessments /MSA 1,300,000 Land Sales 650,000 Investment Earnings /Other 760,267 Total $8,640,267 0007AMO1.E14 2 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MAY 8, 1986 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Carl Sandstrom, Lowell Ainas, Mike Nelson, and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier, and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioner Malecki had been excused and that Commissioner Wallerstedt had called to say that she would be late. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 24, 1986 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Bernards to approve the minutes of the April 24, 1986 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Ainas and Bernards. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Sandstrom and Nelson. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 86018 (Richard Whitley) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel of land at 5327 Bryant Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86018 attached). Commissioner Ainas asked about the parcel labeled State Land Department shown on the preliminary plat drawing. The Secretary responded that he did not know how that parcel came to be, but suspected that it was created somehow by metes and bounds in the past and the taxes were not paid so that it wound up forfeited to the State. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Whitley responded in the negative. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 86018) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86018 (Richard Whitley) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 86018, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 5 -8 -86 -1- T 3. The applicant shall enter into a utility hookup agreement with the City prior to final plat approval. 4. The existing house shall be relocated and properly situated onto Lot 2, and the existing foundation removed prior to final plat approval. 5. No building permit shall be issued for Lot 1 until the plat receives final approval and is filed at the County. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Sandstrom, Ainas, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 86019 and 86020 (E and H Properties) The Secretary then introduced the next two items of business together, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a three storey office building on the vacant land between the Brookdale Motel and the Atkins Mechanical office building on the east side of West River Road, south of 66th Avenue North. He also introduced an application for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the land in the above application and also the Atkins Mechanical site. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports (See Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 86019 and 86020 attached) . The Secretary noted that the plans called for a 6' high fence around the parking lot area. He pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance limits fences adjacent to public right -of -way to 4' and stated that this would apply in the greenstrip along Willow Lane. Commissioner Wallerstedt arrived during the review of the staff report at approximately 7:55 P.m. The Secretary also noted that the development in question is not large enough to require review by the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission. He then reviewed the conditions for both applications. The City Engineer pointed out that a triangle of land at the far northwest tip of the plat may need to be dedicated for right -of -way for West River Road. Commissioner Wallerstedt noted the statement in the report that traffic in this area was "not terribly high ". She disagreed with this comment. The Secretary pointed out that it was referring to traffic on 66th Avenue North, east of West River Road, not to West River Road or to 66th Avenue North west of West River Road. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Howard Atkins, the owner of the property, stated that he had been a resident of Brooklyn Center for 20 years and has had an office in this particular neighborhood for seven years. He stated that he felt that he had been a good neighbor and that he has a good development plan. He then introduced Hal Pierce, the architect for the project. Mr. Pierce noted the deferral of improvements in the northeast portion of the property. He stated that the applicant does not wish to irrigate this area. The Secrtary stated that he had no problem with not irrigating this undeveloped area, but that it should not be used for storage of fill, etc. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. (86019 and 86020) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on both the preliminary plat application (Application No. 86020) and the special use permit application 5 -8 -86 -2- l (Application No. 86019). He asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Jim Neuberger of 65+6 Willow Lane referred to the colored rendering of the building shown by the architect, Hal Pierce, and noted that the south and west sides were shown. He asked what the east and north sides would look like. The Secretary stated that there would be the same exterior treatment around the building. Mr. Pierce agreed. He noted that there would be a stairwell on the east side of the building as well, but that it would not protrude out from the building. Mr. Neuberger of 65 Willow Lane asked who would own the 66th Avenue North right -of -way after the highway project was completed. The Secretary stated that this area might be considered surplus right -of -way by the Highway Department and that it might be vacated in the future. He stated that this decision would be made later. The City Engineer then explained the nature of the highway project improvements along 66th Avenue North including the installation of the median and moving the roadway north by approximately 25 feet. He pointed out that the City would have to hold a public hearing on the vacation of any surplus right -of -way. Mr. Richard Jewett of 6552 Willow Lane stated that he was concerned regarding the vacant land at the northeast corner of the plat. Chairman Lucht stated that the property was probably not big enough by itself for development, but would have to be combined with the existing Atkins Mechanical site for a larger development. Mr. Jewett asked whether the building could be five or six stories high. Chairman Lucht pointed out that the property was zoned the same and subject to the Critical Area limitations. Mr. Jewett went on to complain about the level of traffic in the area. He stated that people take a circuitous route down to 65th Avenue North and then over to Willow Lane and back up to 66th in order to get out. Chairman Lucht asked Mr. Jewett whether he would prefer to see an apartment development or a restaurant or some other kind of development. Mr. Jewett stated that he would prefer to see an office development that takes up the entire land area available. He stated that leaving the parcel vacant allows the possibility for another development that might not be compatible with the neighborhood. The Secretary pointed out that the City cannot force the owner to develop that portion of this property. He stated that it is likely to be office. Asked whether there would be another meeting to review this separate development, the Secretary responded that there would be a notice of any special use permit. There followed a brief discussion of traffic problems in the area. The City Engineer again reviewed the improvements proposed by the Highway Department for this area of West River Road, for Interstate 694, and for 66th Avenue North. He stated that if cars are using Willow Lane to turn around in because of backups on the Freeway, that this was an enforcement problem. Mr. Joe Schleppenbach of 6600 Willow Lane expressed concern about the traffic situation in the area. The Secretary responded that those traffic problems are unrelated to the development of this property and cannot be solved through this application. Mr. Pat Murphy of 6524 Willow Lane expressed concern that the parking lot adjacent to Willow Lane would cause problems with snow removal in the public street because of storing snow in the greenstrip area. The Secretary pointed out that the greenstrip is 15' wide and that, in addition to the greenstrip, there is approximately 15' of boulevard area. He stated that this is normally large enough for snow storage from parking lots and public streets without conflict. 5 -8 -86 -3- 1 Mr. Murphy noted that the building in question is 35' high. He pointed out that if a 35' high building were built on the higher ground where the Atkins Mechanical building is presently located, it would be 10' higher. He asked whether that would be allowed. The Secretary responded that there would probably be some leveling out in the land before another building was built, but that the 35' height limit would also apply in that area, calculated from ground level. Mr. Murphy also asked about the possibility of access onto Willow Lane. The Secretary stated that he saw no need for access onto Willow Lane and that it should not be allowed. Mr. Schleppenbach asked when construction would begin. The Secretary stated that the conditions would have to be met and the plat filed before the permit could be issued. Mr. Atkins stated that his intention was to begin construction later this summer. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone else present wished to speak. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. The Planner then explained to the residents the possibility that a rezoning application concerning this property would be initiated either by the owner or the City in the near future and that this would be apart from a development of the northern portion of the plat. He explained that the property presently has a split zoning of R5 and C2 which allows the office development by special use permit, but that a consolidated zoning would probably be pursued within the relatively near future. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86019 (E and H Properties) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 86019, subject to the following conditions: 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. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of all approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 5 -8 -86 -4- 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas with the exception of the northeast corner of the lot and the access drive where permanent curb may be deferred for up to five years. The performance guarantee shall not be released until completion of all permanent improvements. g. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property prior to the release of the performance guarantee. 10. The applicant shall provide drainage calculations for the site to the City Engineer for evaluation of possible on -site storage of runoff, prior to issuance of permits. 11. The replat of this site combining the land into a single parcel shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits. 12. Site lighting shall provide adequate illumination of the parking lot, but light intensity shall not exceed 3 foot candles along the south property line in accordance with Section 35 -712 of the Zoning Ordinance. 13. The special use standards are deemed to be met in this case, in consideration of the following: a) the proposed office use is an appropriate buffer between Highway 252 and the single - family residences along the Mississippi River. b) the proposed office use is consistent and compatible with all adjacent land uses. c traffic generated by the proposed office use can be accommodated by the abutting nonresidential streets and on the subject site and should not overburden public streets and signals in the area. 1 No access to the site shall be allowed from Willow Lane. Access onto 66th Avenue North shall line up with the median opening indicated on the MN /DOT plans for road construction of the Highway 252 project. 15. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. 16. The lans shall be modified in dicate ' h' ed to ind c e a �4 high fence along P o g g Willow Lane and a 6' high fence adjacent to the R5 development to the south o th to meet parking lot screening requirements of the Zoning Ordinance prior to the issuance of permits. 5 -8 -86 -5- Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Sandstrom, Ainas, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86020 (E and H Properties) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 86020, 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. Setback lines indicated on the preliminary plat are non - binding and are subject to ordinance interpretation by the City Council. 4. The applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City relating to utility hookups and abandonments and other items deemed appropriate by the City Engineer prior to final plat approval. 5. The City Engineer shall report on the need, if any, of right -of- way dedication for 66th Avenue North prior to consideration of the preliminary plat by the City Council. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Sandstrom, Ainas, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT 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 9:02 p.m. Chairman 5 -8 -86 _6_ Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86018 Applicant: Richard Whitley Location: 5327 Bryant Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the property at 5327 Bryant Avenue North. The property in question is zoned R2 and is bounded by Bryant Avenue North on the east and by single - family homes on the south, west, and north. It is located on the west side of Bryant almost a block north of 53rd Avenue North. The existing house is located in the middle of the lot and is being relocated to the southerly portion of the property. It will then be properly situated on the southerly lot of this plat. The existing lot is 18,391 sq. ft. (approximately 126' x 146 The proposed subdivision would create a northerly lot (Lot 1) which would be 65.78' wide and 9,618 sq. ft. in area; also a southerly lot (Lot 2) which would be 60' wide and 8,773 sq. ft. in area. The minimum requirements for interior lots in the R2 zoning district are 60 width and 7,600 sq. ft. in area for single - family homes. Both lots, therefore, meet the requirements for single - family lots. It should be noted, however, that while the existing lot is large enough for a two - family dwelling (minimum requirements are 75' width and 6,200 sq. ft. of land per unit) , neither of the two new lots are large enough to meet the two - family requirements. The existing legal description of the property is that part of Lot 6, Block 4, Bellvue Acres Addition lying east of the west 155' thereof. The proposed legal description is Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Whitley Addition. There is currently one water and one sanitary sewer service to the property. The subdivision will require the installation of one new service for both water and sewer and the existing services will have to be reconnected as a result of the relocation of the existing house. These service connections should be subject to a utility hookup agreement. Drainage and utility easements of 5' along the rear and 10' along the front property lines are indicated. Altogether the plat appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3• The applicant shall enter into a utility hookup agreement with the City prior to final plat approval. 5 -8 -86 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86019 Applicant: E and H Properties Location: 66th and West River Road v o d Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a three storey office building between the easterly frontage road of Highway 252 and Willow Lane, south of 66th Avenue North and south of Atkins Mechanical. The property in question is zoned C2 on the west and R5 on the east and is bounded by Atkins Mechanical and 66th Avenue North on the north, by Willow Lane on the east, by an 18 unit apartment complex and Brookdale Motel on the south, and by the easterly Highway 252 frontage road on the west. Office developments are permitted uses in the C2 zone and are special uses in the R5 zone. It is expected that a rezoning application to Cl and /or C2 will be filed in the future to put the entire property under a single zoning classification. However, it is not necessary for the rezoning to precede the approval or construction of the proposed development since that development is already acknowledged under existing zoning. Access /Parking Access to the site will be available from the West River Road frontage road on the west and from 66th Avenue North on the north via an extended access drive which lines up with a median opening in 66th Avenue North. The site plan calls for 86 parking stalls for a 15,875 sq. ft. office building. This does allow for some medical space within the building since it is more than the 79 stalls required for general office use. (Note: general office use requires 1 space /200 sq. ft.; medical uses require 1 space per 150 sq. ft.) Approximately 4,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area can be devoted to medical tenants. The City Engineer has expressed concern that the access onto 66th Avenue North needs a wider radius to avoid a need for a third lane. Landscaping /Screening The proposed landscape plan calls for plantings concentrated around the building and along the greenstrip adjacent to Willow Lane. The landscape schedule calls for 8 shade trees (all Marshall's Ash), 3 coniferous trees (Colorado Spruce), 7 decorative trees (Red Splendor Crab) and 93 shrubs (including Arcadia Juniper, Mint Julep Juniper, Gold Flame Spirea, Compact Viburnum, and Dwarf Euonymus) . The point total of the proposed plan, based on the point system policy recently agreed upon by the Planning Commission is 155 points. The site area in question is approximately 1.06 acres (this does not include an approximate .43 acre area on the northeast portion of the parcel that is to be left undeveloped apart from the access drive to 66th Avenue North) . Based on the requirement of 100 points per acre for an office development up to 2 acres, the site in question is required to have 106 points (149 if the undeveloped area is included) . It, therefore, appears that the proposed plan meets the landscape standard policy. The plans also indicate a 6' high board on board wood fence for parking lot screening along Willow Lane. Grading, Drainage, Utilities The City Engineer has indicated that the grading, drainage, and utility plan must be modified to take account of a new 8 water line to be installed in the West River Road frontage road which will result in the need to abandon some existing services. He has also indicated that the storm sewer system downstream (15" line in Willow Lane) may not be adequate to accommodate a five year storm. He requests that drainage calculations be provided so that the need for allowing occasional ponding on the 5 -8 -86 -1- I ` Application No. 86019 continued site may be determined. One possible way of dealing with a lack of storm sewer capacity would be to depress the berm in the Willow Lane greenstrip to allow any sizeable backup in the parking lot to overflow toward Willow Lane. Again, the drainage calculations should help determine the need, if any, for ponding on the site. Sanitary sewer service will be provided via a connection to an 18" line in Willow Lane. The plans also indicate bituminous curb at the northeast corner of the parking lot in anticipation of future expansion to the north. The remainder of the lot is to be appropriately delineated with B612 curb and gutter. Building The proposed building is set back 35' from the westerly frontage road of West River Road. Although Highway 252 is a major thoroughfare normally requiring a 50' setback, the intervening frontage road eliminates the need for the extraordinary setback. The building height is 35', the maximum permitted in the Mississippi River Critical Area. The exterior treatment is to be face brick with bronze aluminum window frames. The main access will be on the south side of the building with a second access on the east end. Lighting The plan proposes a single light standard with two high pressure sodium (amber) luminaires located roughly in the middle of the site. The plans do not indicate specifications, but the architect has stated that the pole will likely be 20' to 25' high to provide 5 foot candles of illumination over the parking lot. The fixture will likely be a box type that directs the beam downward. The Zoning Ordinance limits light intensity to 3 foot candles at a property line adjacent to a residential district and to 10 foot candles adjacent to a public street or to commercially zoned property. In this case, the south lot line is adjacent to a residential district along the easterly 135' . We would also encourage an adequate, but subdued level of lighting on the east side of the site, given the single - family homes across Willow Lane. The plans show an outside trash enclosure, north of the parking lot, just off the access drive leading to 66th Avenue North. Special Use Standards The proposed office building is a permitted use in the C2 zoning district, but it a special use in the R5 zoning district. The site in question is zoned C2 on the west half and R5 on the east half. The proposal is, therefore, subject to the standards set forth in Section 35 -220 and Section 35- 314.3b (attached) Many of these standards have to do with the relationship of the proposed office use with surrounding development; whether it is consistent and compatible with surrounding uses and whether it will have any adverse effect on neighboring property values or the development of adjacent land. Staff believe that the proposed office use answers all of these concerns in a positive manner. It is a use compatible on the one hand with Highway 252 on the west and the hotel to the south, but also with the residences to the east. Given the alternatives (such as retail, convenience food restaurants, apartments), it appears to us that the proposed office use is the best possible buffer between the residential neighborhood along the river and the busy highway to the west. In terms of ingress, egress and parking, the proposed development plan is appropriate in keeping access onto the frontage road and 66th Avenue North. No access will be allowed onto Willow Lane. The parking and stacking space 10 available to the proposed office development should be more than adequate. While it will create some additional traffic in this neighborhood, it will occur primarily 5 -8 -86 -2- i Application No. 86019 continued ` on 66th Avenue North during the 4 -6 p.m. period. The existing level of traffic in this area is not terribly high at present and the addition of 45 peak hour trips (assuming a trip generation rate of 2.8 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area) will not be critical though it will be noticeable. The proposed development will have the drawback of increasing the traffic on 66th Avenue North during the 4-6 p.m. period, but should generate less traffic than retail, restaurant, or apartment e e d v lopments during evening and weekend periods. In general, we feel that the traffic standards are met in this case. All in all, this application appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 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. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) 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. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas with the exception of the northeast corner of the lot and the access drive where permanent curb may be deferred for up to five years. 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property prior prior to the release of the performance guarantee. 10. The applicant shall provide drainage calculations for the site to the City Engineer for evaluation of possible on -site storage of runoff, prior to issuance of permits. 11. The replat of this site combining the land into a single parcel shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits. 5 -8 -86 -3- Application No. 86019 continued 12. Site lighting shall provide adequate illumination of the parking lot, but light intensity shall not exceed 3 foot candles along the south property line in accordance with Section 35 -712 of the Zoning Ordinance. 13. The special use standards are deemed to be met in this case, in consideration of the following: a) the proposed office use is an appropriate buffer between Highway 252 and the single - family residences along the Mississippi River. b) the proposed office use is consistent and compatible with all adjacent land uses. c) traffic generated by the proposed office use can be accommodated by the abutting nonresidential streets and on the subject site and should not overburden public streets and signals in the area. 14. No access to the site shall be allowed from Willow Lane. Access onto 66th Avenue North shall line up with the median opening indicated on the MN /DOT plans for road construction of the Highway 252 project. 15. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. 5 -8 -86 -4- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86020 Applicant: E and H Properties Location: 66th and West River Road Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to resubdivide into two parcels the land south of 66th Avenue North, east of the Highway 252 right -of -way. The land in question has a split zoning with C2 zoning on approximately the west half of the plat and R5 on the eastern half. It is bounded by the easterly frontage road of Highway 252 (West River Road) on the west, by 66th Avenue North on the north, by Willow Lane on the east, and by an 18 unit apartment complex and the Brookdale Motel on the south. The plat consists of Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 1 of Olson's Island View Terrace Addition and two unplatted parcels from Lot 15, Auditor's Subdivision Number 310. The northwest quadrant of the plat is occupied by the Atkins Mechanical office building. The remaining area is vacant. The proposed plat places the existing office building on the new Lot 1. The vacant land is to be Lot 2. The office development proposed under Application No. 86019 is to be located on the southerly portion of Lot 2, with the northeast portion of the property left vacant for future development. The two lots are contained in one block, the plat to be titled E and H Properties Addition. The proposed plat is 1.916 acres in area. No lot areas have been provided, but Lot 2 is approximately 1.5 acres and Lot 1, approximately .65 acres. The setback lines shown on the preliminary plat are not entirely consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, but with the complexity of Lot 2, which abuts three different streets, it is difficult to judge precisely which setback provisions apply where. Because the abutment with Highway 252 is buffered by a frontage road, it is staff's judgment that neither lot width, setback, nor 1 acre lot area requirements for office uses adjacent to major thoroughfares apply in this case. Drainage and utility easements are designated at 10' widths adjacent to public right -of -way and 5' widths adjacent to interior property lines in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance. There are four sets of water and sanitary sewer services within Willow Lane which serve Lot 2 of this plat. Most of these services will have to be abandoned. Disposition of these services should be handled under a Subdivision agreement to be concluded prior to final plat approval. No right -of -way dedication has been indicated on the proposed plat. The needs for widening 66th Avenue North to allow for a median and other improvements in association with the upgrading of Highway 252 should be evaluated prior to approval of the final plat. Approval of the proposed plat should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 5 -8 -86 -1- j Application No. 86020 continued 3. Setback lines indicated on the preliminary plat are non - binding and are subject to ordinance interpretation by the City Council. 4. The applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City relating to utility hookups and abandonments and other items deemed appropriate by the City Engineer prior to final plat approval. 5. The City Engineer shall report on the need, if any, of right -of -way dedication for 66th Avenue North prior to consideration of the preliminary plat by the City Council. 5 -8 -86 -2- oil oil Emil M MIEN son loll MEN so 1 ■nllll lll� oil ■ ■ oil �� -&-JLJLJLJL X X X X-j- xx long NEWER 60 14// / �' o . v A -- W V. Ho / %r7bec — Fro ,T aces A Q /+, ! • I l. Pe. � ,v ± #e /e/7 C. SC, g42 5 r , sgz o Q U — � aq qo /; h` �3° ss Cu rfis Rync Q 51 9 843' r� q� � _ 43- g 2 3S, io �' t 6 a e, 842 - � y a /sh ICS Q L. ✓. I.L. p uz 439 �! /' i 12 SBA 35- � n Stofe I - - 1�'e 22 -4" 8�2 Lon I ; �� ti arc. � C oru. r, t / F. n y ✓ohnson c/ohl7so I ' I 60 IFM �, n I loom Nos- CAMDEN MKMI M1 . y , tri ti r rr r, y �1y,- t •. t S X s�� � e`���nTt# .w x., i,�•r�'+.: i'` rT •t i_• r t <7 .r t a�4l a. kyJJctF lL �'A>�c`ti j T SY: *s' � v J /� :r :Y . 1. CI t .•✓,.`!�- . r�j t �,•.��,,• .lit` +.�, s ;' ryL < t 1 4. T �, , y• jz �fi ,� .T .t; 7M1 -R,i. � : Jl�i',�r"f�r,� -�''{ i k Y - •� n �' ' �. �, 1 is r L. • r - •t r � s � s ,t� ) � •c i t� � S f, fit' ij. t" ^ ,. 4 s j ' rk ` K t .r t ill ii+ #z ,: b'Z*��'. "zt.�+�.i� �, {+ t y ,. . _ i ,e,. .,_ 71 - 't i 4t "'r S2 �! / -�.F ti `c �[ t , 1 sltl r S: �4,�.^'^.Y cY'{:4 �rtiwi. �.d.J ' rte - ✓• � 4t• �.'' +, r i' c.1 ; r r • "� ` Vi `%�, • •�s r: .7 d�Xf : :'Ae vii s. `;� 1, ?. �','�r,"�' PJr ��: iR .:� a;t y ��.,� , �i . r �.i f �1 F:�En iZty� t �,:}.c,.3t �i � � c� - t'�� !S• t e r ., ,.� . ' �`{,."!< �. !fin : *' r +f � �y _ 7 #� - •� 2' .' `� } � s r rl t4 9 r +• 7 r ? i ., r ..;. t !s � y � ! s t. t i 1 .•:J < � t, , t rt r x � S 13 Vj ? � �r , +� t t T t i 4 .� � i i ' :'� > <�` I1 � ill � r'J �� 1}`S �.f »4� ;� r r•L t y 4 I - 1 1 11 11 �� �• �NC.F ��� R Aru logy Pn� FC"t - I .- �� .sir' •- Will m rn oil IS CAMDEN AV E. N. OEM foul INA °°�wwrilN�" Oil 1 '�) TATI F C) WNER) \1 1 TRANSPORON l0 1� OF ' DEPARTMENT MINNESO �_ P1 t- \ 1 RICHARD W OE 66TH A}J BE TUMINOU� h Y (OWNER) I• • �I ! C1p �•1fA M �! M.N.• 1 •II ' ' < � a UTILITY EASEMENT _.�) \o•utf. —•� ••i•c•Q R,,NArE / , `' \� c•< u ''i o' SET BPCK LINE o U 1 ` 1 10 '' i .i �- 11 �\ , \ r ( 1 ' WARD S. j ( - �/ I �Ct'��--— ,,�•J\ (` 5 s'0- -- - - , Q t 1 EE WNER. 35 4 T 10 ' - 5) Z z 1 0:;� N D 0— ) r �, % 1 1 \ z0� It 0 '���;• ..E� =1Tyv(SE MFiNT •4830E rV130.4 =_ --N B4 ZONED R 5) 1 r ' o END G �� •�• al Z Om L � • \ i I SE�T9ACK� LI�N 0� ----------- MENT �•. P.__7�� °_ � 7 48 30 W _124 I `[ 4' IRWT_KET (OWNER) L�MER (OW /ER) E I J Tickler Date MEMO: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER To Council Members Date 5 -19 -86 • From Sy Knapp Attached are copies of pp. 8, 17, 18, and 19 of the revised agreement which MNDOT submitted on Friday (5- 16 -86). The revised agreement incorporates the 3 requested changes which I noted in my 5-15-86-memo. cb Attachments AVOID VERBAL MESSAGES } 63405 It is hereby understood and agreed that any and all liquidated damages assessed the state's contractor in connection with the work performed under said state contract shall result in a credit shared by the State and the City in the same proportion as their respective total cost share of construction contract work is to the total contract cost without any deduction for liquidated damages. Immediately following the State's bid opening procedures the City will be notified of the "Total Cost" of the Items shown on SCHEDULE "I ", Sheet No. 5. Upon receipt of written notification, the City has ten calendar days to accept or reject the "Total Cost" as shown on the transmitted SCHEDULE "I ". If written notice has not been received from the Director of Public Works for the City, within the • prescribed ten calendar days, this shall constitute acceptance by the City and the State shall proceed in the same manner as if having received the City's written acceptance of said "Total Cost ". CITY COST PARTICIPATION CONSTRUCTION Except for the construction of traffic control signal systems to be performed within the corporate city limits under Traffic Control Signal Agreement No. 63390, all of the following construction to be performed along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 252 from Engineer Station N.B. 453 +34.35 (Trunk Highway No. 94) to the north corporate -8- a 63405 facilities and watermain facilities constructed within the corporate city limits under said state project and that neither party to this agreement shall drain any additional drainage into said storm sewer facilities that is not included in the drainage for which said storm sewer facilities were designed without first obtaining permission to do so from the other party. It is hereby understood and agreed that, upon the satisfactory completion of State Project No. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110) construction, the City shall thereafter provide for the proper maintenance, without cost or expense to the State, of the entire portions of the frontage road at 65th Avenue North, 66th Avenue North, 67th Avenue North, 69th Avenue North, 70th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North • and all of the facilities a part thereof constructed within the corporate city limits under said state project. Said maintenance shall be understood to include, but not be limited to, snow and debris removal, resurfacing and /or seal coating and any other maintenance activities necessary to perpetuate said roadway portions in a safe and usable condition. It is hereby understood and agreed that, upon the satisfactory completion of State Project No. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110) construction, the City shall thereafter provide for the proper maintenance, without cost or expense to the State, of all of the concrete walk (except that concrete walk adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 252 which -17- AV 63405 leads directly to the proposed bus stops) and concrete driveway pavement used as concrete walk constructed within the corporate city limits under said state project. Said maintenance shall be understood to include, .but not be limited to, snow and debris removal and any other maintenance activities necessary to perpetuate said concrete walk and concrete driveway pavement in a safe and usable condition. Section. E. Future Turnback of Present T.H. 252 (West River Road) It is the understanding of the parties that the State, in a future, program, will design and reconstruct for turnback to the City • present Trunk Highway No. 252 (West River Road) from approximately 67th Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North (the northerly city limits of the City). By separate cooperative construction agreement encumbering the necessary monies the State will have the following responsibilities: 1. Develop roadway construction plans for turnback of West River Road to the City. 2. Pay for curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway. -18- 63405 i 3. Pay for overlaying the center 24 feet of the roadway. 4. Pay for storm sewer catch basins and leads on the west side of the roadway. Y 5. Pay for a berm for sidewalk construction on the east side of the roadway. In that same cooperative agreement the City will have the following responsibilities: 1. Accept West River Road into its city street system. 2. Pay for any costs of widening the road beyond the center 24 feet. 3. Pay for storm sewer catch basins and leads on the east side of the roadway. Section F. Claims It is hereby understood and agreed that any and all employees of the State and all other persons employed by the State in the performance of the construction and /or construction engineering work or services required or provided for under this agreement shall not be considered employees of the City and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the worker's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any S -19- I� 13 CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :B YROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTE R EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: May 15, 1986 RE: Negotiations with MNDOT Regarding T.H. 252 On March 14, 1983 the City Council adopted a resolution approving the preliminary layout plan for the improvement of T.H. 252 from I694 to the North Corporate Limits. Concurrently, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 83 -53 (copy attached) in which the City requested MNDOT to incorporate certain design features into the construction plans. Copies of both resolutions were submitted to MNDOT, and City staff has been in frequent contact with MNDOT for the purpose of discussing the items noted in Resolution No. 83 -53, as well as other items of concern to the City. Within the past week MNDOT has submitted final construction plans and copies of two proposed "Cooperative Agreements" to our office with their request that these be submitted to the City Council for approval prior to their June 6, 1986 bid opening date. Accordingly, we have reviewed the plans and specifications and the two proposed agreements, and hereby submit the following comments: Re: Resolution No. 83 -53 (copy attached on green paper) Regarding the items noted in Resolution 83 -53, MNDOT has substantially incorporated items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 11 into their construction plans. Regarding the other features requested in that resolution, MNDOT's position can be summarized as follows: Re: Item 5 (Design of Storm Drainage System to lower ground water table in the area) MNDOT's opinion is that it is impractical to substantially lower the ground water table in the neighborhood. City staff basically concedes this point, but the proposed agreement allows the City to extend the storm drainage system so as to drain the East side of West River Road. This will provide a positive drainage system (to replace the existing ditches), thereby reducing the amount of water which seeps into the ground in this area and affording some relief to groundwater problems immediately adjacent to West River Road. ��7lie .Sosxetlsuc� �a�te (� ,• May 15, 1986 Page 2 Re: Item 10 This item does not apply, because the ponds used by MNDOT within Brooklyn Center are entirely within their right of way limits. Re: Item 12 (landscaping) MNDOT has agreed to save and relocate as many existing trees from within the construction limits as possible. However, no funds are available to provide new plantings. Re: Acquisition of City Owned Property You will recall that MNDOT is acquiring a portion of the property which the City recently acquired as tax forfeited property. (This property lies North of 70th Avenue North.) Because of the multiple claims of interest in this property (including the former owner and Hennepin County), we have agreed to "let the courts decide" what the value of that property is, and how that value is to be apportioned to the various claimants. The City Attorney's office is representing the City's interest in these proceedings. Re: Agreement No. 63390 (copy attached) This proposed agreement covers the installation of traffic signals on the project, and the allocation of costs for these signals. In my opinion, the terms of this agreement represent MNDOT's adopted policies with the most favorable interpretation possible to the City of Brooklyn Center. Of the City's estimated total cost of $17,997.53, $11,097.00 can be charged to our "Regular Municipal State Aid Street Fund" and the $6,900.53 balance can be charged to our "Local M.S.A. Fund Balance ". Re: Agreement No. 63405 (copy attached) This proposed agreement covers all other areas of the project in which there is direct City cost participation and /or other forms of City involvement. Following are my comments regarding the terms of this proposed agreement: (1) the "WHEREAS clauses" are fairly standard, with one exception - i.e. on pages 3 and 4 is an explanation that, because the available amount of "Federal Aid Substitution Funds" (which MNDOT had planned to use for this project) are inadequate to cover the project costs, MNDOT has decided to use State Funds. Under normal circumstances, this would dramatically increase the City's share of certain costs. However, because of prior negotiations, MNDOT is agreeing to limit the City's costs to the same level as they would be if MNDOT were still using Interstate funding. (See detailed explanation later in this memo.) May 15, 1986 Page 3 (2) Article I (pages 4 to 6) These are standard clauses. (3) Article II (pages 6 to 12) The general terms included in this article represent current MNDOT policies. The following comments are submitted regarding the specific cost - sharing terms: Re: "100 PERCENT CITY COSTS" (pages 8 and 9) This work includes the following items: - installation of a 54 inch diameter pipe under T.H. 252 to allow future installation of a water main under T.H. 252 (requested by the City) - removal and replacement of a very bad section of storm sewer on 69th Avenue North, Westerly of the T.H. 252 right of way (requested by the City) - disconnection or abandonment of numerous sanitary and water service connections and mains which will no longer be needed after T.H. 252 is constructed. Requated Change No. 1 Regarding aU wotck included in this categatcy, I have neque�sted MNDOT to redra6t the ptopozed agreement giving the City the )right to reject bads fm this wank in the event the bid submitted by the .haw biddeA iz unbalanced with rep pect to th,,s Wank. Re: 15 PERCENT CITY COSTS (page 9) This work includes installation of drainage structures and concrete curb and utte the service road connections in g r on the "outside" o f the vicinity of 66th Avenue. Under MNDOT policy this would be a 100% local cost if treated as a State- funded project. However, the negotiated agreement limits this to 15% (a $10,625 difference). Re: 6 PERCENT CITY COSTS (pages 9 to 11) These costs represent the costs for improvements to 66th Avenue North between Camden Avenue and Willow Lane, to 70th Avenue North between Camden Avenue and new T.H. 252, and to 73rd Avenue North between Camden Avenue and West River Road. Under MNDOT policy these costs would be apportioned 60% State /40% City if treated as a State - funded project. However, the negotiated agreement limits the City cost to 6% (i.e. 40% of 15% since Federal Interstate funds would have paid 85 %....a $107,356 difference). May 15, 1986 Page 4 Re: PRORATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS (pages 11 and 12) This represents an established MNDOT policy. The $262,000 total for the prorated items represents approximately 2.5% of the total project cost ($10.3 million estimated). The City's portion of the cost is estimated at $1,597.48. Again, the City's costs would be about $2,000 higher if treated as a State - funded project. Re: CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING COSTS (page 12) As noted in the first "WHEREAS" on page 3 of the agreement, the Metro Council has adopted a policy that Federal funds cannot be used to pay for Construction Engineering Costs. Accordingly, the combination of MNDOT policies and this Metro Council policy provides that the City must pay 8% of Construction Engineering charges, whether the project is Federally funded or State funded. Total engineering charges to the City are estimated at $14,462.69. COST SUMMARY (not included in agreement) Following is a summary of the City's costs which would be incurred directly under this project: 100% Costs Items $40,384.00 15% Cost Items 1,875.07 6% Cost Items 18,945.26 Prorated Items 1,597.48 Engineering Charges 14,462.69 $77,264.50 All of these costs can be charged to three City funds, i.e.: - our "Regular M.S.A. fund" - our "Local M.S.A. fund ", and - our Public Utility fund. A separate resolution establishing this as a local project, and allocating these funds is submitted for Council consideration. Unencumbered fund balances in each of these funds are more than adequate to cover these costs. (4) Article III PAYMENT BY CITY (pages 12 to 14) Established MNDOT policy requires cities to pay their share of costs "up front ". This proposed agreement reflects that policy. While I believe it would be impossible to get MNDOT to agree to change that policy for this agreement, I do wish to note that the City Engineer's Association has an active committee which is attempting to get MNDOT to make several major policy changes ... including this one. May 15, 1116 Page 5 (5) Article IV GENERAL PROVISIONS (pages 15 to 17) Sections A and B of this article are standard provisions. Section C Utility Permits (page 16) is also a standard provision which reflects State Law (i.e. Chapter 500 of Laws 1959). While on the surface this provision appears simply to require that the City follow red tape procedures to apply for a permit to install utilities which MNDOT will in -fact construct, the effect of this provisions is to have the City acknowledge the requirements which exists within the law; i.e. the form of permit prescribed states in part: %N(10) If at any time the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Transporta- tion, shall deem it necessary to make any improve- ments or changes on all or any part of the right of way of the trunk highway which affect a utility located on trunk highway right of way, then and ! in such event, the owner of the utility shall within 15 days after written notice from the Com- missioner of Transportation or his authorized agent, proceed to alter, change, vacate or remove said utility from the trunk highway right of way so as to conform to said trunk highway changes and as directed by the Commissioner of Transporta- tion. Such work shall be done without any cost whatsoever to the State of Minnesota except as otherwise provided by law or agreement and shall be completed within the date specified in said written notice, which date shall be reasonable under the circumstances. The Utility shall assume all liability and save the State of Minnesota harmless from any and all claims of damage of any nature whatsoever occasioned by reason of not having removed said utility within the time speci- fied in said notice. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section, the State may reimburse a muni- cipality for the cost of the first relocation of a municipally owned utility located within the limits of a municipal street at the time that the street was taken over by the State as a trunk highway, when such relocation is required by construction or reconstruction of the trunk highway. // As noted, this is a standard (and apparently absolute) MNDOT requirement, in accordance with directives from the Attorney General's office. Section D Maintenance (pages 16 and 17) defines the City's responsibility for maintenance following completion of the T.H. 252 construction project. May 15, 1986 Page 6 Requeated Change No. 2 RegatLding this Section, I have requested MNDOT to make the 6ottowing rev,i�sions : (a) delete reference to the Beacon Bowl Entrance, since this wiU be a private &z veway; (b) detete te�etc.ence to West R.iveA Road, since this is coveAed in much greateA deta.ct in Section E; and (c) revise the second paragraph on Page 17 to remove any City respowsibit ty bar maintenance o� zidewaiks within the T.N. 252 ttight o6 way which are adjacent to and patcaUe2 with T.H. 252 (i.e. the sidewatks which Lead to the b" stops. Section E Future Turnback of Present T.H. 252 (West River Road) (pages 18 and 19) In 1983, when the City Council approved the preliminary layout plan for T.H. 252, we believed that West River Road would be turned back to the City after completion of T.H. 252, and that this roadway would then become eligible for designation on our Municipal State Aid Street system and for reconstruction to State Aid standards using "Municipal Turnback Funds ". In mid -1985 we were advised that the State Aid Division would not approve designation of West River Road as an M.S.A. street, thereby making it ineligible for the use of Municipal Turnback funds. An appeal from the City Manager to the Commissioner of Transportation regarding this ruling was denied. Accordingly, we have since adopted a fall -back position; i.e. to get MNDOT to improve West River Road to acceptable standards prior to turnback. The proposed agreement represents what I believe to be the best achievable agreement; i.e. following completion of the T.H. 252 project, MNDOT will develop plans for and proceed with reconstruction of West River Road under a separate contract. MNDOT agrees to pay for the costs of installing concrete curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway, for overlaying the center 24 feet of the roadway (i.e. the present width), for installing a storm drainage system to the West side of the roadway, and for construction of a berm to facilitate sidewalk construction on the East side of the roadway. The City will be required to pay for any roadway widening costs, for extension of catch basins and leads to the East side of the roadway, and for placement of the sidewalk (if one is desired in conjunction with the roadway project). May 15, 1986 Page 7 -Requested Change No. 3 I have requested MNDOT to detete Item 5 on Page 18 and Item 4 on Page 19 to ctauc y that the City wiU not be requ,uced to pay jor any poAtion o6 the ztw m seweA system - except the exte"ion o� the catch bazinz and Zeadz bum the Wat zide o4 the roadway to the East side. Sections F. G and H (pages 19 to 21) are all standard clauses. Summary and Recommendation It is my opinion that the plans and specifications as presented comply with the City's requests. Accordingly, I recommend they be approved. It is my opinion that Agreement No. 63390 represents a proper allocation of costs for installation of the three traffic signal systems. I recommend that this agreement be approved as submitted. It is my opinion that Agreement No. 63405, if amended in accordance with the changes I have requested, provides the lowest costs to the City which it is possible to negotiate under current MNDOT policies, both in relation to the T.H. 252 project, and in relation to the future MNDOT turnback project for West River Road. Accordingly, I recommend approval of that agreement if the requested changes are made. (Note: MNDOT will deliver the revised agreements before the May 19th Council meeting.) All City costs can be charged to our Regular M.S.A. Fund, our Local M.S.A. Fund, and our Public Utility Fund. Two resolutions are provided for the purpose of establishing these local projects. These resolutions detail the allocation of costs between these three funds. A final resolution is also submitted for consideration by the City Council. This resolution would establish parking prohibition on 66th Avenue, on 70th Avenue and on 73rd Avenue from Camden Avenue to new T.H. 252. Adoption of this resolution is required to assure eligibility for the use of Regular M.S.A. funds to cover the local share of the cost of those improvements. I recommend adoption of this resolution, since the prohibition of parking is required to assure safe and proper operation of these street segments. Respectfully submitted, Sy napp Director of Public Works SK : j 111 a ' / Member Celia Scott introduced the following. resolution and + moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 83 -53 �- RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO INCORPORATE CERTAIN DESIGN FEATURES INTO THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF T.H. 252 FROM THE JU14CTION OF T.H. 694 TO THE NORTH CORPORATE LIMITS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center has this date adopted a resolution approving the preliminary layout plan for the improvement of T.H. 252 from the junction of T.H. 694 to the North Corporate Limits; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to assure that detailed construction plans to be developed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for this project will contain certain - design features to assure (1) the proper and safe operation of that facility, (2) its integration with existing and future transportation systems in that Northeast Neighborhood, and (3) its compatibility with the neighborhood environment: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY-THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City of Brooklyn Center hereby requests the Minnesota Department of Transportation to incorporate the following design features into the construction plans for said improvement: 1. traffic control signal systems shall be installed at the intersections of 66th Avenue North, 70th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North. 2. provisions for pedestrian crossings, including sidewalks and pedestrian crossing provisions within the traffic control signal systems, shall be incorporated at the following locations: Intersecting Street Pedestrian Crossing Provisions For 66th Avenue North All sides of intersection 70th Avenue North North and West side of intersection 73rd Avenue North All sides of intersection 3. provisions shall be made to assure installation of bus stops and waiting shelters for use by the Metropolitan Transit Commission and its patrons. 4. provisions shall be made to assure installation of adequate bus stops for use by school buses and their patrons. 5. provisions shall be made for construction of a pedestrian trail or sidewalk along West River Road from 66th Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North. The City requests the 1innesota Department of Transportation to construct such sidewalk at the Minnesota Department of Transportation's expense. J 6. consideration shall be given to purchasing adequate right -of -way along 66th Avenue North, Westerly of new T.H. 252, to allow future upgrading of that roadway to accomodate increasing traffic volumes on 66th Avenue :forth. r r - RESOLUTION NO. 83 -53 7. the design of the 70th Avenue North connection shall be coordinated with the City's plans for development of a "Parkway" along the 69th - 70th Avenue corridor. 8. the detailed design of the 73rd Avenue_ North intersection shall be coordinated with the City Engineer to assure proper functioning of this intersection. 9. because property owners in this area continue to experience problems resulting from a high water table in the area, consideration should be given to incorporating design features with the storm drainage system which will lower that high water table. 10. if detailed plans for storm drainage of new T.H. 252 require the development of storm water holding ponds which are not within the right -of -way limits indicated on the preliminary plan layout, the Minnesota Department of Transportation is hereby requested to submit those plans to the City Council for separate consideration. 11. where a choice is possible between the use of earthen mounds vs. .the use of walls for noise control, the City prefers the use of earthen mounds. 12. adequate landscaping provisions shall be incorporated to assure aesthetic compatibility of the roadway with the area's environment. March 14, 1983 D tfe May ATTEST-: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, Gene Lhotka, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. l MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT INTERSECTION CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. 63390 BETWEEN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK TO Remove certain existing Traffic Control Devices on Trunk Highway No. 252: Permanent Traffic Control Signal at 66th Avenue North, Hazard Identification Beacon at'69th Avenue North, and Temporary Traffic Control Signal at 73rd Avenue North; Install and Remove Temporary Traffic Control Signals on Trunk Highway No. 252 at 66th Avenue North and at 70th Avenue North; Install new Interconnected Traffic Control Signals with Street Lights and Signing on Trunk Highway No. 252 at 66th Avenue North, 70th Avenue North, 73rd Avenue North, Brookdale Drive (77th Avenue North), 81st Avenue North, County State Aid Highway No. 109 (85th Avenue North), and at County State Aid Highway No. 30 (93rd Avenue North) in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota. S.P. 2748 -35 Prepared by Traffic Engineering ESTIMATED AMOUNT RECEIVABLE AMOUNT ENCUMBERED City of Brooklyn Center $17,997.53 None Otherwise covered City of Brooklyn Park $25,243.26 i County of Hennepin $5,822.79 • THIS - AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State ", and the County of Hennepin, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and the City of Brooklyn Center, hereinafter referred to as "Brooklyn Center ", and the City of Brooklyn Park, hereinafter referred to as "Brooklyn Park ", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the State has determined that there is justification and it is in the public's best interest to remove the existing traffic control devices on Trunk Highway No. 252: permanent traffic control signal at 66th Avenue North, hazard ! identification beacon at 69th Avenue North, and temporary traffic control signal at 73rd Avenue North; install and remove temporary traffic control signals on Trunk Highway No. 252 at 66th Avenue North and at 70th Avenue North; install new interconnected traffic control signals with street lights and signing on Trunk Highway No. 252 at 66th Avenue North, 70th Avenue North, 73rd Avenue North, Brookdale Drive (77th Avenue North), 81st Avenue North, County State Aid Highway No. 109 (85th Avenue North), and at County State Aid Highway No. 30 (93rd Avenue North); and WHEREAS, the County, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park and the State will share in the cost, maintenance and operation of temporary traffic control signals and the new interconnected traffic 63390 -1- r control signals with street lights and signing as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The State shall prepare the necessary plan, specifications and proposal and shall perform the engineering and inspection required to complete the items of work hereinafter set forth. Such work as described immediately above shall constitute "Engineering and Inspection" and be so referred to hereinafter. 2. The contract cost of the work or, if the work is not contracted, the cost of all labor, materials, and equipment rental required to complete the work, except the cost of providing the r power supply to the service pole or pad, shall constitute the actual "Construction Cost" and shall be so referred to hereinafter. 3. The State with its own forces and equipment or by contract shall perform the traffic control signal work provided for under State Project No. 2748 -35 with the Construction Costs shared as follows: a. Trunk Highway No. 252 at 66th Avenue North. Remove the existing permanent traffic control signal. Estimated Construction Cost is $4,000.00. Brooklyn Center's share is 50 percent. State's share is 50 percent. • 63390 -2- Trunk Highway No. 252 at 69th Avenue North. Remove the existing hazard identification beacon. Estimated Construction Cost is $2,000.00. State's share is 100 percent. C. Trunk Highway No. 252 at 73rd Avenue North. Remove the existing temporary traffic control signal. Estimated Construction Cost is $3,000.00. State's share is 100 percent. d. Trunk Highway No. 252 at 66th Avenue North. System "H ". Install and remove temporary traffic control signals. Estimated Construction Cost is $43,000.00. State's share is 100 percent. e. Trunk Highway No. 252 at 70th Avenue North. System "J ". Install and remove a temporary traffic control signal. Estimated Construction Cost is $33,000.00. State's share is 100 percent. f. Trunk Highway No. 252 at 66th Avenue North. System "A ". Install a new traffic control signal with street lights. Estimated Construction Cost is $86,000.00 which includes Department furnished materials. Brooklyn 63390 -3- Center's share is 7.50 percent. State's share is 92.50 percent. g. Trunk Highway No. 252 at 70th Avenue North. System "B ". Install a new traffic control signal with street lights. Estimated Construction Cost is $71,000.00 which includes Department furnished materials. Brooklyn Center's share is 5.00 percent. State's share is 95.00 percent. h. Trunk Highway No. 252 at 73rd Avenue North. System "C ". Install a new traffic control . signal with'street lights. Estimated Construction Cost is $86,000.00 which includes Department furnished materials. Brooklyn Center's share is 3.75 percent. Brooklyn Park's share is 3.75 percent. State's share is 92.50 percent. i. Trunk Highway No. 25 at Brookdale Drive (77th Avenue North). System "D ". Install a new traffic control signal with street lights. Estimated Construction Cost is $86,000.00 which includes Department furnished materials. Brooklyn Park's share is 7.50 percent. State's share is 92.50 percent. 63390 -4- - j. Trunk Highway No. 252 at 81st Avenue North. System "E ". Install a new traffic control signal with street lights. Estimated Construction Cost is $86,000.00 which includes Department furnished materials. Brooklyn Park's share is 7.50 percent. State's share is 92.50 percent. k. Trunk Highway No. 252 at County State Aid Highway No. 109 (85th Avenue North). System "F ". Install a new traffic control signal with street lights. Estimated Construction Cost is $86,000.00 which includes Department furnished materials. Brooklyn Park's share is 3.75 percent. County's share is 3.75 percent. State's share is 92.50 percent. 1. Trunk Highway No. 252 at County State Aid Highway No. 30 (93rd Avenue North). System "G ". Install a new traffic control signal with street lights. Estimated Construction Cost is $86,000.00 which includes Department furnished materials. Brooklyn Park's share is 1.875 percent. County's share is 1.875 percent. State's share is 96.25 percent. 63390 -5- - m. Interconnection. Total estimated interconnect Construction Cost is $79,000.00 which includes Department furnished materials. Brooklyn Center's share is 2.22 percent. Brooklyn Park's share is 3.61 percent. County's share is 0.83 percent. State's share is 93.34 percent. 4. The State shall install or cause the installation of overhead signing and shall maintain said signing all at no cost to the County, Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. 5. Upon execution of this agreement and a request in writing by the State, the County, Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park shall each advance to the State an amount equal to their share of the cost. The cost shall be based on the actual bid price and the estimated cost for Department furnished materials plus 6 percent of such cost for the County's, Brooklyn Center's and Brooklyn Park's share of the cost of Engineering and Inspection. 6. Upon final payment to the Contractor and computation of the County's, Brooklyn Center's and Brooklyn Park's share for the work provided for herein, that amount of the funds advanced by the County, Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park in excess of their shares will be returned to them without interest and the County, Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park agree to pay to the State that amount of their share which is in excess of the amount of the funds advanced by them. 63390 -6- �L�C -� • 7. If it appears, at any time, that the cost to the County for the work provided for in Paragraph 3 will exceed the estimated amount of $5,822.79, the State will promptly notify the County Engineer in writing as to the amount and the reason for the increased cost. 8. Brooklyn Center shall provide an adequate electrical power supply to the service pads or poles, and upon completion of said temporary traffic control signals with street lights installations (Systems "H" and "J ") and upon completion of said new interconnected traffic control signals with street lights installations (Systems "An, "B" and "C "), shall provide necessary electrical power for their operation at the cost and expense of Brooklyn Center. 9. Upon completion of' the temporary traffic control signals with street lights installations (Systems "H" and "J "), it shall be the State's responsibility, at its cost and expense, to maintain the traffic control signal cabinets, including timing. It shall be the State's Contractor's responsibility, at his cost and expense, to perform all other temporary traffic control signal and street light maintenance. 10. Upon completion of the new interconnected traffic control signals with street lights installations (Systems "A ", "B" and "C "), it shall be Brooklyn Center's responsibility, at its cost 63390 -7- and expense, to: (1) maintain the luminaires; (2) relamp the traffic control signal and street lights; and (3) clean and paint the traffic control signal, cabinet and luminaire mast arm extensions. It shall be the State's responsibility, at its cost and expense, to perform all other traffic control signal and street light maintenance. 11. Brooklyn Park shall provide an adequate electrical power supply to the service pads or poles, and upon completion of said new interconnected traffic control signals with street lights installations (Systems "D ", "E ", "F" and "G "), shall provide necessary electrical power for their operation at the cost and • expense of Brooklyn Park. 12. Upon completion of the new interconnected traffic control signals with street " n n g reet li hts installations (Systems D E g ( , Y ► "F" and "G "), it shall be Brooklyn Park's responsibility, at its cost and expense, to: (1) maintain the luminaires; (2) relamp the traffic control signal and street lights; and (3) clean and paint the traffic control signal, cabinet and luminaire mast arm extensions. It shall be the State's responsibility, at its cost and P Y► expense, to perform all other traffic control signal and street light maintenance. 63390 -8- • 13. - Any and all persons engaged in the aforesaid work to be performed by the State shall not be considered employees of the County, Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park, and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act of this State on behalf of said employees while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any fifth party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work contemplated herein shall not be the obligation and responsibility of the County, Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. The State shall not be responsible under the Worker's Compensation Act for any employees of the County, Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn • Park. 14. In the event the State advertises for bids for all or a portion of the work in Paragraph 3 hereof, the State shall submit to the Hennepin County Engineer a certified copy of the low bid received and an abstract of all bids received by the State, together with the State's request for concurrence by the County in the award of a construction contract. Award of the contract shall not be made until the County Engineer advises the State in writing of its concurrence. 15. Final plans and specifications for construction of the traffic control signal work provided in Paragraph 3 hereof shall have County approval prior to award of construction contract by the 63390 -9- , State. Said County approval shall be evidenced by signature of the County Engineer in the designated space therefor on the original plan. 16. The construction work provided for herein shall be under the direction and supervision of the State. It is agreed, however, that the County shall have the right to periodically inspect the cost sharing construction work provided for in Paragraph 3 hereof. The State shall have the exclusive right to determine whether the work has been satisfactorily performed by the State's Contractor. 17. The State shall insert in any contract with the successful bidder a clause requiring the successful bidder to hold the County, Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park harmless and also clauses requiring the successful bidder to provide and maintain insurance, all as follows: a. The Contractor shall defend, indemnify and save harmless the County of Hennepin, the City of Brooklyn Center, and the City of Brooklyn Park, their officers, agents and employees from all suits, actions and claims of any character brought because of injuries or damages received or sustained by any person, persons, or property on account of the operations of the said 63390 -10- Contractor or any subcontractor or their agents or employees, or on account of or in consequence of any neglect in safeguarding the work; or through use of unacceptable materials in constructing the work; or because of any act or omission, neglect, or misconduct of said Contractor or any subcontractor or their agents or employees; or because of any claims arising or amounts recovered from infringements of patent, trademark, or copyright; or because of any g claims arising or amounts recovered under • the Worker's Compensation Act; or under any other law, ordinance, order or decree. b. The Contractor shall purchase and maintain such insurance for and in behalf of himself and the County P of Hennepin, as an additional assured, and with a cross liability endorsement protecting the County of Hennepin from claims or damages for personal injuries, including accidental death, as well as for claims for property damage which may arise out of or result from the Contractor's operations under the contract, whether such operations be by the 63390 -11- Contractor or by any subcontractor or by anyone directly employed by any of them, or by anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. Said insurance shall protect against claims as set forth below: 1. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability Insurance (A) Worker's Compensation insurance shall be as required by law and shall include an all states or universal endorsement. . (B) Employer's Liability insurance shall be written for not less than $100,000 each occurrence. 2. Comprehensive General and Automobile Liability Insurance (A) Minimum Limits: Bodily and'Personal Injury $1,000,000 per occurrence Property Damage $1,000,00.0 per occurrence 63390 -12- (B) The following coverages must be specifically insured and certified with no internal sublimits. Aggregate limits are acceptable for property damage due to the products hazard: (1) Independent Contractors Contingent Liability or Owners Protective Liability (2) Products Liability (3) Contractual Liability • (4) "X,C,U" Hazard Liability (5) Personal Injury Liability including claims related to employment (6) Broad Form Property Damage Liability, or deletion of the "Care, Custody, and Control" exclusion (7) Owned, Hired and Non -Owned Automobile Liability (8) Waiver of Defense of Municipal Liability immunity • 63390 -13- V` (9) Aircraft Liability (If Applicable) (10) Watercraft Liability (If Applicable) (C) The contractual liability is to be either on a blanket basis for all written or oral contracts, or specifically endorsed to acknowledge this contract. C. All certificates of insurance shall provide that the insurance company shall give the County thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation, non - renewal or any material changes in the policy. d. The above subparagraphs establish minimum insurance requirements, and it is the sole responsibility of the Contractor to purchase and maintain additional insurance that may be necessary in connection with this contract. e. The Contractor shall not commence work until the Contractor has filed an acceptable certificate of insurance with the County. All insurance policies shall be open to inspection by the 63390 -14- County, and copies of policies shall be submitted to the County upon written request. f. The County agrees to pay to the State the total amount of the liability insurance coverage premium costs, described herein, incurred by the State's Contractor for State Project No. 2748 -35 in procuring and maintaining for the duration of the Contractor's contractual obligation to said State project. At such time, be it one or more, as the said State's Contractor furnishes the State with a certified statement of the • insurance premium costs the Contractor has incurred on procuring the aforesaid insurance coverage, the State will invoice the County for the total amount of the insurance premium costs set forth in said certified statement from the Contractor, and the County shall, upon receipt of said invoice, promptly make payment thereof to the State. 18. Timing of the new traffic control signals provided for herein shall be determined by the State, through its Commissioner of Transportation, and no changes shall be made therein except with the approval of the State. 63390 -15- 19. - Upon execution by the County, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park and the State and completion of the construction work provided for herein, this agreement shall supersede and terminate Agreement No. 58978 dated April 13, 1978, and Agreement No. 60197M dated January 5, 1981, between Brooklyn Center and the State. 63390 -16- COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTEST: By Clerk of the County Board Chairman of its County Board Dated Dated RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By And Director, Department Associate County Administrator . of Transportation and County Engineer Dated Dated (County Seal) Upon proper execution, this APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: agreement will be legally valid and binding. By By Assistant County Attorney Assistant County Attorney Dated Dated 63390 -17- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney By Mayor (City Seal) By City Manager -Clerk CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney By Mayor (City Seal) By City Manager 63390 -18- STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By District Engineer Assistant Commissioner Operations Division Dated APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION: DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION By Special Assistant Attorney General State of Minnesota Dated 63390 -19- • RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Brooklyn Center enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: To remove certain existing traffic control devices on Trunk Highway No. 252: permanent traffic control signal at 66th Avenue North, hazard identification beacon at 69th Avenue North, and temporary traffic control signal at 73rd Avenue North; install and remove temporary traffic control signals on Trunk Highway No. 252 at 66th Avenue North and at 70th Avenue North; install new interconnected traffic control signals with street lights and signing on Trunk Highway No. 252 at 66th Avenue North, 70th Avenue North, 73rd Avenue North, Brookdale Drive (77th Avenue North), 81st Avenue North, County State Aid Highway No. 109 (85th Avenue North), and at County State Aid Highway No. 30 (93rd Avenue North) in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 63390, a copy of which was before the Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officers be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the-City all of the contractual obligations contained therein. CERTIFICATION State of Minnesota County of Hennepin City of Brooklyn Center I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the Council of the City of Brooklyn Center at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the day of , 1986, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. (Seal) City Manager -Clerk • RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Brooklyn Park enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: To remove certain existing traffic control devices on Trunk Highway No. 252: permanent traffic control signal at 66th Avenue North, hazard identification beacon at 69th Avenue North, and temporary traffic control signal at 73rd Avenue North; install and remove temporary traffic control signals on Trunk Highway No. 252 at 66th Avenue North and at 70th Avenue North; install new interconnected traffic control signals with street lights and signing on Trunk Highway No. 252 at 66th Avenue North, 70th Avenue North, 73rd Avenue North, Brookdale Drive (77th Avenue North), 81st Avenue North, County State Aid Highway No. 109 (85th Avenue North), and at County State Aid Highway No. 30 (93rd Avenue North) in accordance with the terms and • conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 63390, a copy of which was before the Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officers be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the''City all of the contractual obligations contained therein. CERTIFICATION State of Minnesota County of Hennepin City of Brooklyn Park I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of. a resolution presented to and adopted by the Council of the City of Brooklyn Park at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the day of , 1986, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. City Clerk (Seal) ti I DESIGN STATE OF MINNESOTA AGREEMENT NO. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT 63405 S.P. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110) State Funds Agreement between AMOUNT ENCUMBERED The State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, and (None) The City of Brooklyn Center Re: City Y cost roadw utilities and ESTIMATED AMOUNT storm sewer construction by the RECEIVABLE State along T.H. 252 from T.H. 94 to 73rd Ave. N. in Brooklyn Center $77,264.50 THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State" and the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, acting by and through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as the "City ". RECEIVED r OWN CENTER, MILAN. = w { 63405 • WITNESSETH: WHEREAS the State is about to award a contract for grading,drainage, aggregate base, bituminous surfacing, noise wall and traffic signal construction and other associated construction work to be performed upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 252 from Engineer Station N.A. 453 +34.35 (Trunk Highway No. 94 in the City) to Engineer Station N.B. 400 +25 (Trunk Highway No. 610 in the City of Brooklyn Park) in accordance with state plans, specifications and special provisions therefor designated as State Project No. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110) and State Aid Projects No. 27- 630 -02, No. 27- 709 -03, No. 109 - 111 -12, No. 109 - 118 -01 and No. 109- 125 -01; and WHEREAS said state contract includes extra construction to be performed along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 252 within the corporate city limits which is over and above the construction necessary to accommodate normal trunk highway traffic; and WHEREAS the City has expressed its willingness to participate in the costs of said extra construction as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS it was anticipated that the construction to be performed under said state contract would be eligible for Federal -aid Interstate Substitution funds participation therein at the rate of 85 percent and that the costs of the eligible city cost participation construction hereunder would be reduced by the amount -2- 63405 • of Federal -aid Interstate Substitution funds received by the State therefor; and WHEREAS the Metropolitan Council, by Federal determines how Federal -aid Interstate Substitution funds will be used on projects within their jurisdiction, and the Metropolitan Council had declared that the construction engineering on this contract would be ineligible for Federal -aid Interstate Substitution funds; and WHEREAS because right of way costs for this project substantially exceeded the initial predicted estimate, the Federal -aid Interstate Substitution funds made available for this project were not enough to cover the anticipated 85 percent Federal share of construction costs for this project; and WHEREAS the State, because insufficient Federal -aid Interstate Substitution funds were available, this project, changed the funding of this project Federal -aid Interstate Substitution funds to State funds; and \ WHEREAS so that the City's share of the costs of the construction to- be performed under this project would remain as though the project: was still Federally aided, the State will include in its cost share those construction cost which would have been reimbursed with i Federal -aid Interstate Substitution funding;�' and. the- City will,, include in its,cost share the costs of the construction. engineering -3- • R 63405 to be performed in connection with the city cost participation construction hereunder for which the City normally would have received Federal -aid if the Metropolitan Council had not declared all construction engineering costs on this contract to be ineligible for Federal -aid Interstate Substitution funds; and WHEREAS in connection with said state contract, the construction of traffic control signal systems to be performed under State Project No. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110) will be covered under Traffic Control Signal Agreement No. 63390 between the State, the City, the County of Hennepin and the City of Brooklyn Park; and WHEREAS in connection with said state contract, the construction of certain street approaches to Trunk Highway No. 252 to be performed under State Project No. 2748 -35 ('T.H. 252 =110) will be covered under Cooperative Construction Agreements No. 63406 and No. 63407 between the State and respectively the City of Brooklyn Park and the County of Hennepin_ IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:. ARTICLE I - CONSTRUCTION BY THE STATE The State shall, in connection with the award of the construction contract, administration of said contract and the performance of construction engineering for State Project No. 2748 -35 (T.H. -4- • C•� k 63405 • 252 =110) and State Aid Projects No. 27- 630 -02, No. 27- 709 -03, No. 109- 111 -12, No. 109 - 118 -01 and No. 109- 125 -01, do and perform the following. Section A. Contract Award Duly advertise for bids and award a contract to the lowest responsible bidder for the Trunk Highway No. 252 grading, drainage, aggregate base, bituminous surfacing, noise wall and traffic signal construction and other associated construction work in accordance with state plans, specifications and special provisions bearing the above state project number designations and which are on file in the office of the Commissioner of Transportation at St. Paul, Minnesota, and are made a part hereof by reference with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. i Section B. Direction and Supervision of C onstruction Direct and supervise all construction activities performed under said state projects, and perform all construction engineering and inspection functions necessary for the satisfactory completion of said state projects construction. Section C. Plan Changes, Extra Work, Etc. Make such changes in plans or in the character of the work for said state projects construction, including the city cost participation -5- • Y T 63405 construction hereunder, which are reasonably necessary to cause said state projects construction to be in all things performed and completed in a satisfactory manner, and to that end and as supplemental to any contract let for the construction of said state projects, to enter into any change orders or supplemental agreements with the state's contractor for the performance of any extra work or work occasioned by any necessary, advantageous or desirable changes in plans. However, the State's District Engineer at Golden Valley or his duly authorized representative will inform the City Clerk or other appropriate city official of any proposed change order or supplement to the construction contract which will affect the city cost participation hereunder. Section D. Satisfactory Completion of Contract Do and perform all other acts and functions necessary to cause said state contract to be completed in a satisfactory manner. ARTICLE II - BASIS OF PAYMENT BY THE CITY Section A. Construction Costs The City shall pay to the State, as the City's full share of the costs of the construction to be performed in accordance with Article I hereof, the costs of the construction described below under "CITY COST PARTICIPATION CONSTRUCTION" and of the costs of any contract change orders or supplemental agreements which may be necessary to -6- t 63405 • complete said city cost participation construction and the cost of any settlements of claims made with the state's contractor in connection with said city cost participation construction. Said payment by the City hereunder of the City's share of construction costs shall be based on the final quantities of city cost participation construction work items performed or the final payment quantity in the case of plan quantity items multiplied by the appropriate unit prices contained in the construction contract to be awarded by the State in accordance with Article I hereof and /or multiplied by the appropriate unit prices contained in any supplemental agreements to the state's contract which provide for city cost participation construction. . Attached hereto, made a part hereof by reference and marked SCHEDULE "I ", is a preliminary construction cost estimate form which lists all of the anticipated city cost participation construction and construction engineering items to be performed hereunder. Also attached hereto, made a part hereof by reference and marked EXHIBIT "A ", are two color coded sheets which show and /or describe all of the anticipated city cost participation storm sewer facilities construction to be performed hereunder. Also attached hereto, made a part hereof by reference and marked EXHIBIT "B ", are two color coded sheets which show and /or describe all of the city cost participation sanitary sewer facilities and watermain facilities construction to be performed hereunder at the request of the City. i -7- } i 63405 • It is hereby understood and agreed that any and all liquidated damages assessed the state's contractor in connection with the work performed under said state contract shall result in a credit shared by the State and the City in the same proportion as their respective total cost share of construction contract work is to the total contract cost without any deduction for liquidated damages. CITY COST PARTICIPATION CONSTRUCTION Except for the construction of traffic control signal systems to be performed within the corporate city limits under Traffic Control Signal Agreement No. 63390, all of the following construction to be performed along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 252 from Engineer • Station N.B. 453 +34.35 (Trunk Highway No. 94) to the north corporate city limit line at 73rd Avenue North (approximately Engineer Station N.B. 242 +80) within the corporate.-city limits under State Project No. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110). 100 PERCENT CITY COSTS 1. All of the storm sewer facilities construction as shown and /or described in "Yellow" color on the attached EXHIBIT "A" including all of the associated removal of sewer pipe and manholes and catch basins. -8- V `•C•� 63405 2. All of the sanitary sewer facilities and watermain facilities construction as shown and /or described in "Yellow" color on the attached EXHIBIT "B ". 15 PERCENT CITY COSTS 1. All of the storm sewer facilities construction as shown and /or described in "Orange" color on the attached EXHIBIT "A ". 2. All of the concrete curb and gutter and concrete driveway pavement construction to be performed along the west side of the frontage road at 65th Avenue North and along the north and east sides of West River Road. • 6 PERCENT CITY COSTS 1. All of the construction to be performed upon, along and adjacent to the 66th Avenue North, westerly approach to Trunk Highway No. 252 from Engineer Station 33 +46 (a point approximately 100 feet west of the Trunk Highway No. 252 -66th Avenue North intersection) to the end of construction (approximately Engineer Station 27 +20, also Camden Avenue North). 2. All of the construction to be performed upon, along and adjacent to the 66th Avenue North easterly approach to Trunk Highway No. 252 from Engineer Station 36 +10 (a point approximately 50 feet east of the Trunk Highway No. 252 -66th Avenue North intersection) to -9- �,c.� < 63405 the end of construction (approximately Engineer Station 39 +30, also Willow Lane) . 3. All of the construction to be performed upon, along and adjacent to the 70th Avenue North westerly approach to Trunk Highway No. 252 from Engineer Station 28 +50 (a point approximately 100 feet west of the Trunk Highway No. 252 -70th Avenue North intersection) to the end of construction (approximately Engineer Station 23 +80, also Camden Avenue North). 4. All of the construction to be performed upon, along and adjacent to that portion of the 73rd Avenue North westerly approach to Trunk Highway No. 252 which is within the corporate city limits . from Engineer Station E.B. 28 +00 point approximately 100 feet west of the Trunk Highway No. 252 -73rd Avenue North intersection) to the end of construction (approximately Engineer Station 20 +85 and approximately 200 feet west of Camden Avenue North). 5. All of the construction to be performed upon, along and adjacent to that portion of the 73rd Avenue North easterly approach to Trunk Highway No. 252 which is within.the corporate city limits from Engineer Station 30 +70 (a point approximately 100 feet east of the Trunk Highway No. 252 -73rd Avenue North intersection) to the end of construction (approximately Engineer Station 33 +00 and approximately 150 feet east of West River Road). -10- 63405 i NOTE: The construction to be performed within the above described portions of 66th Avenue North includes, but is not limited to, clearing, grubbing, miscellaneous removals, sawing bituminous pavement, excavation, grading, turf establishment and construction of bituminous surfacing, aggregate base, concrete walk, concrete curb and gutter, concrete median, concrete driveway pavement, storm sewer facilities, sanitary sewer facilities and watermain facilities. 6. All of the concrete walk construction including its aggregate base to be performed along the east side of the Trunk Highway No. 252 northbound roadway and along the west side of the Trunk Highway No. 252 southbound roadway at the Trunk Highway No. 252 intersections with 66th Avenue North, 70th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North. 7. All of the storm, sewer facilities construction as shown and /or described in "Green" color on the attached EXHIBIT "A" including all of the associated removal of sewer pipe and manholes and catch basins. Section B. Prorated Construction Costs In addition, said payment by the City shall also include the City's prorated shares of the contract costs of Items No. 2021.501 "Mobilization ", No. 2031.501 "Field Office ", No. 2031.503 "Field -11- V C •� 63405 . Laboratory ", No. 2051.501 "Maintenance and Restoration of Haul Roans" and No. 563.601 "Traffic Control" as set forth in said attached SCHEDULE "I ". The aforesaid items are not included in the above described city cost participation construction work items. Said additional payment represents the City's proportionate shares of the mobilization, field office, field laboratory, maintenance and restoration of haul roads and traffic control costs incurred in connection with the aforesaid city cost participation construction. Section C. Construction Engineering Costs Said payment by the City shall also include an 8 percent construction engineering charge for the city cost participation construction to be performed in accordance with Sections A. and 3. • above and shall be determined using the method and formula set forth in said attached SCHEDULE "I ". ARTICLE III - PAYMENT BY THE CITY Section A. Estimate and Advancement of the City's Cost Share It is estimated, for accounting purposes, that the City's share of the costs of the construction work to be performed by the State hereunder which includes the City's shares of the prorated items "Mobilization ", "Field Office ", "Field Laboratory ", "Maintenance and Restoration of Haul Roads" and "Traffic Control" plus the 8 percent construction engineering cost share is the sum of $77,264.50 as -12- 63405 • shown in the attached SCHEDULE "I ". The State shall, when a construction contract is awarded which includes the city cost participation construction work to be performed hereunder, prepare a revised SCHEDULE "I" based on the construction contract unit prices and submit a copy of said revised SCHEDULE "I" to the City. The City agrees to advance to the Commissioner of Transportation an amount equal to the City's total cost share as set forth in said revised SCHEDULE "I" be it more or less than said sum of $77,264.50 forthwith upon the execution of this agreement and upon receipt of a request from the State for such advancement of funds. Section B. Final Payment by the City It is contemplated that all of the construction work to be performed i under said state construction contract is to be done on a unit price basis. Upon the completion and acceptance of the work provided for in said contract let by the State and the preparation by the State of a final estimate computing and determining the amount due the contractor performing the work, the Commissioner of Transportation shall determine and compute the amount due the Trunk Highway Fund of the State of Minnesota from the City for said city cost participation construction work as set forth hereunder. After the Commissioner of Transportation determines the actual amount due from the City, he shall apply on the payment thereof as much as may be necessary of the aforesaid funds advanced by the City. If the -13- 63405 amount found due from the City shall be less than the amount of the funds advanced, then, and in that event, the balance of said advanced funds shall be returned to the City without interest. If the amount found due from the City shall exceed said amount of funds advanced, the City agrees to promptly pay to the State the difference between said amount found due and said amount of funds advanced. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 15.415, the State waives claim for any amounts less than $2.00 over the City payment funds earlier received by the State, and the City waives claim for the return of any amounts less than $2.00 of such funds advanced by the City. Section C. Acceptance of City's,Final Cost Share and of Completed Construction It is understood and agreed that the aforesaid computation and determination by the Commissioner of Transportation of the amount due from the City hereunder shall be final, binding and conclusive. It is further agreed that the acceptance by the State of the completed construction work provided for in said state plans designated as State Project No. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110) and State Aid Projects No. 27- 630 -02, No. 27- 709 -03, No. 109 - 111 -12, No. 109- 118 -01 and No. 109 - 125 -01 and performed under contract let by the State shall be final, binding and conclusive upon the City as to the satisfactory completion of said work. -14- t 63405 • ARTICLE IV - GENERAL PROVISIONS Section A. Plan Changes The City may request a change or changes in the plan by a duly adopted City Council resolution for State Project No. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110) and State Aid Projects No. 109- 111 -12, No. 109 - 118 -01 and No. 109 - 125 -01 construction to be performed hereunder in order to satisfactorily complete the aforesaid city cost participation construction, and if the State determines that said requested plan change or changes are necessary and /or desirable, the State will cause such change or changes in plan to be made and appropriately alter the affected construction. Section B. Replacement of Castings In connection with the adjustment and relocation of sanitary sewer and watermain facilities to be performed by the state's contractor under State Project No. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110), the City hereby agrees to furnish the state's contractor with new castings and /or parts therefor when replacements are required, without cost or expense to the State or the state's contractor, excepting replacements required of castings and /or' parts broken or damaged by the state's contractor. -15- 63405 • Section C. Utility Permits The City shall, within 30 days of the execution of this agreement, make application to the State's District Engineer at Golden Valley for a permit or permits granting the City permission to place or have placed and thereafter maintain all of the sanitary sewer and watermain facilities to be constructed upon and within the trunk highway right of way and within the corporate city limits under State Project No. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110) Application for such permit or permits shall be made on the State's "Application For Utility Permit on Trunk Highway Right of Way" (Form TP2525). Section D. Maintenance • It is hereby understood and agreed that, upon the satisfactory completion of State Project No. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110) construction, the City shall thereafter provide.•for the proper maintenance, without cost or expense to the State, of all of the city cost participation storm sewer facilities and all of the sanitary sewer facilities and watermain facilities constructed within the corporate city limits under said state project and that neither party to this agreement shall drain any additional drainage into said storm sewer facilities that is not included in the drainage for which said storm sewer facilities were designed without first obtaining permission to do so from the other party. • -16- 63405 • It is hereby understood and agreed that, upon the satisfactory completion of State Project No. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110) construction, the City shall thereafter provide for the proper maintenance, without cost or expense to the State, of the entire portions of the frontage road at 65th Avenue North, Beacon Bowl Entrance, 66th Avenue North, West River Road, 67th Avenue North, 69th Avenue North, 70th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North and all of the facilities a part thereof constructed within the corporate city limits under said state project. Said maintenance shall be understood to include, but not be limited to, snow and debris removal, resurfacing and /or seal coating and any other maintenance activities necessary to perpetuate said roadway portions in a safe and usable condition. It is hereby understood and agreed that, upon the satisfactory completion of State Project No. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110) construction, the City shall thereafter provide for the proper maintenance, without cost or expense to the State, of all of the concrete walk and concrete driveway pavement used as concrete walk constructed within the corporate city limits under said state project. Said maintenance shall be understood to include, but not be limited to, snow and debris removal and any other maintenance activities necessary to perpetuate said concrete walk and concrete driveway pavement in a safe and usable condition. • -17- 63405 • Section E. Future Turnback of Present T.H. 252 (West River Road) It is the understanding of the parties that the State, in a future program, will design and reconstruct for turnback to the City present Trunk Highway No. 252 (West River Road) from approximately 67th Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North (the northerly city limits of the City). By separate cooperative construction agreement encumbering the necessary monies the State will have the following responsibilities: 1. Develop roadway construction plans for turnback of West River Road to the City. 2. Pay for curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway. 3. Pay for overlaying the center 24 feet of the roadway. 4. Pay for storm sewer catch basins and leads on the west side of the roadway. 5. Pay for a share of the remaining storm sewer system based on State directives in force at the time of 'this agreement. 6. Pay for a berm for sidewalk construction on the east side of the roadway. -IB- C 63405 In that same cooperative agreement the City will have the following responsibilities: 1. Accept West River Road into its city street system. 2. Pay for any costs of widening the road beyond the center 24 feet. 3. Pay for storm sewer catch basins and leads on the east side of the roadway. 4. Pay for their share of the remaining storm sewer system based on State directives as outlined above. Section F. Claims It is hereby understood and agreed that any and all employees of the State and all other persons employed by the State in the performance of the construction and /or construction engineering work or services required or provided for under this agreement shall not be considered employees of the City and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said state employees while so engaged on any of the construction and /or construction engineering work or services to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or. responsibility of the City. • -19- 63405 It is hereby understood and agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other persons employed by the City in the performance of any of the maintenance work or services required or provided for under this agreement shall not be considered employees of the State and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said city employees while so engaged on any of the maintenance work or services to be rendered under this agreement by the City shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the State. The City at its own expense will defend, indemnify and save harmless the State and all of its agents,,officers and employees of and from any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of action of whatsoever nature or character arising out of or by reason of the City's negligent acts or omissions in connection with the maintenance work covered by this agreement including an action or claim which alleges negligence of the State, its agents, officers or employees. Section G. Nondiscrimination The provisions of Minnesota Statute 181.59 and of any applicable ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination shall be considered part of this agreement as if fully set forth herein. • -20- 63405 Section H. Agreement Approval Before this agreement shall become binding and effective, it shall be approved by resolution of the City Council of the City and shall also receive the approval of such state officers as the law may provide in addition to the Commissioner of Transportation or his duly authorized representative. • -21- t C -� 63405 E i IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this agreement by their duly authorized officers and caused their respective seals to be hereunto affixed. (City Seal) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By Mayor Date By City Clerk Date DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE OF MINNESOTA Recommended for approval: By Deputy Commissioner By �---- of Transportation Director ice of Design Services Date (Date of Agreement) By District Engineer Approved: By Department of Administration Assistant Division Director Technical Services Division By _ (Authorized Signature) Approved as to form and execution: Date By Special Assistant Attorney General -22- SCHEDULE "I" Agreement No. 63405 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE S.P. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110) State Funds City of Brooklyn Cent Date: April 30, 1986 Grading, Drainage, Agg Base, Bit Surfacing & Noise Wall construction perfo under State Contract No. w i t h located on T.H. 252 from T.H. 94 to T.H. 610 in Brooklyn Ce and Brooklyn Park Type and location of City cost participation construction covered under this agreement is described in Article II of the agreement, and the construction work items are listed on t he following sheets. SUMMARY: DIVISION OF COST PARTICIPATION STATE CITY S.P. 2748 -35 From Sheet No. 3 $296,809.00 $ 18,945.26 From Sheet No. 4 10,625.43 1,875.07 From Sheet No. 5 40,384.00 Subtotals $307,434.43 $61,204.33 Prorata Percentage (2o;10082%) 8,024.29 1,597.48 Subtotals $315,458.72 $62,801.81 Construction Engineering (From Sheet No. 7) 1 4,462.69 Total - State and City $315,458.72 $77,264.50 _1_ ', • 0 • (P) = Plan Quantity 63405 (1) = 94% State 6% City SPEC. QUANTITY ; , COST ITEM S.P. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110) UNIT ESTIMATE NO. WORK ITEM UNIT PRICE (1) (1) 2101.501 Clearing Acre 650.00 0.66 429.00 2101.502 Clearing Tree 50.00 16 800.00 2101.506 Grubbing Acre 700.00 0.66 462.00 2101.507 Grubbing Tree 50.00 16 800.00 2104.501 Remove Pipe Culverts Lin. Ft. 4.50 38 171.00 2104.501 Remove Water Main Lin. Ft. 8.00 538 4 2104.501 Remove Sewer Pipe (Storm) Lin. Ft. 7.00 449 3,143.00 2104.501 Remove Curb and Gutter Lin. Ft. 1.60 1,070 1,712.00 2104.503 Remove Concrete Sidewalk Sq. Ft. 0.80 5,750 4,600.00 2104.505 Remove Concrete Driveway Pavement Sq. Yd. 3.00 143 429.00 2104.505 Remove Bituminous Pavement Sq. Yd. 0.90 5,934 5,340.60 2104.505 Remove Bituminous Bypass Sq. Yd. 1.00 3,935 3,935.00 2104.509 Remove Manholes or Catch Basins Each 140.00 4 560.00 2104.513 Sawing Bituminous Pavement Lin. Ft. 1.25 636 795.00 2104.523 Salvage Castings Each 85.00 1 85.00 2104.523 Salvage Gate Valve Box Each 100.00 1 100.00 2105.501 Common Excavation (P) Cu. Yd. 1.50 7,258 10 887.00 2105.507 Subgrade Excavation P Cu. Yd. 1.75 4,327 7,572.25 2105.523 Common Borrow (LV) Cu. Yd. 2.80 2,749 7,697.20 2105.525 Topsoil Borrow (LV ) Cu. Yd. 6.00 1,239 7,434.00 2105.543 Stabilizing Aggregate Ton 4.50 1,495 6,727.50 2130.501 Water M. Gal. 9.00 5 45.00 2211.501 Aggregate Base CL 5 Ton 4.76 46 218.96 2331.504 Bit. Material for Mixture Ton 180.00 209 37,620.00 2331.510 Binder Course Mixture (MOD) Ton 8.50 1,010 8,585.00 2331.514 Base Course Mixture MOD Ton 8.50 3,345 28,432.50 2341.504 Bituminous Materials For Mixture Ton 205.00 31 6,355.00 2341.508 Wearing Course Mixture (MOD) Ton 26.00 505 13,130.00 2357.502 Bit. Material for Tack Coat Gallon 0.95 2,051 1,948.45 -2- 63405 (1) = 94% State 6% City SPEC. _ QUANTITY COST ITEM S.P. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110) UNIT ESTIMATE NO. WORK ITEM UNIT PRICE (1) (1) 2361 504 Asphalt Cement Ton 200.00 25 5,000.00 2361.508 Wearing Course Mixture (MOD) Ton 17.50 361 6,317.50 2503.511 12 RC Pipe Sewer CL V Lin. Ft. 23.00_ 696 16,008.00 2503 511 15 RC Pipe Sewer CL V Lin. Ft. 30.50 379 11,559.50 2506 507 Construct Catch Basins DES A or F Lin. Ft. 150.00 24.2 3,630.00 2506.507 Construct Catch Basins DES C or G Lin. Ft. 148.00 54.6 8,080.80 2506.516 Casting Assemblies Each 260.00 17 4,420.00 2506 522 Adjust Frame & Ring Castings Each 150.00 10 1,500.00 2521. 501 4 Concrete Walk Sq. Ft. 1.60 21, 35, 092.80 2521.501 6 Concrete Walk Sq. Ft. 1.90 110 209.00 2521 501 8 Concrete Walk _ Sq. Ft. 2.20 160 352.00 2531.501 Concrete C & G DES B424 Lin. Ft. 6.00 89 534.00 2531.501 Concrete C & G DES B618 Lin. Ft. 6.40 168 1,075.20 2531 501 Concrete C & G DES B624 Lin. Ft. 6.60 4,638 30,610.80 2531.503 Concrete Median Sq. Yd. 22.0 509 11,198.00 2531 507 6 Concrete Driveway Pavement Sq. Yd. 20.00 43 _ 860.00 2531 507 8 Concrete Driveway Pavement Sq. Yd. 25.00 139 3,475.00 2575 505 Sodding Sq. Yd. 1.1 7,512 8,263.20 0504 602 Relocate Hydrant Each 540.00 3 1,620.00 0504.602 Adjust Water Gate Valve Box Each 120.00 9 1,080.00 0504.602 Relocate 6" Water Gate Valve & Box Each 275.00 2 550.00 Total $315,754.26 (1) 94% STATE - $296,809.00 6% CITY - $18,945.26 -3- 63405 SPEC. QUANTITY COST ITEM S.P. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110) UNIT ESTIMATE NO. WORK ITEM UNIT PRICE (2) (2) 2503.511 12" RC Pipe Sewer CL V Lin. Ft. 23.00 30 690.00 2503.511 15" RC Pipe Sewer CL V Lin. Ft. 30.50 103 3,141.00 2506.507 Construct Catch Basins DES A or F Lin. Ft. 150.00 8.2 1 2506.507 Construct Catch Basins DES C or G Lin. Ft. 148.00 10.7 1 } 583.60 2506.516 Casting Assemblies Each 260.00 3 780.00 e'--- 2531.501 Concrete C & G DES B624 Lin, Ft. 6.60 769 5,075.40 Total $12 (2 ) 85% STATE - $10 15% CITY - $1,875.07 -4- i I i • i 63405 SPEC. QUANTITY COST ITEM S.P. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110) UNIT ESTIMATE NO. WORK ITEM UNIT PRICE (3) (3) 2104.501 Remove Sewer Pipe (Storm) Lin. Ft. 7.00 465 3,255.00 2104.509 Remove Manholes or Catch Basins Each 140.00 1 140.00 0104.606 Abandon Sanitary Sewer Lin. Ft. 1.00 841 x 841 .00 2503.511 21 RC Pipe Sewer CL IV Lin. Ft. 33.50 218 _ 7,303.00 2503.511 54 RC Pipe Sewer CL III Lin. Ft. 65.00 254 16,510.00 0503.606 Disconnect San. Sewer Connection Conn. 480.00 8 r 3,840.00 0504.606 Disconnect Water Service Conn. Conn. 400.00 17 6,800.00 2506.507 Construct Catch Basins DES A or F Lin. Ft. 150.00 11.3 1,695.00 Total $40,384.00 (3) 100% CITY - $40,384.00 -5- 63405 PRORATA ITEMS 2021.501 Mobilization Lump Sum $ 100,000.00 2031.501 Field Office, Type D Each $ 6,000.00 2031.503 Field Laboratory, Type D Each $ 6,000.00 2051.501 Maintenance and Restoration of Haul Roads Lump Sum $ 50,000.00 563.601 Traffic Control Lump Sum $ 100,000.00 TOTAL PRORATA ITEMS AMOUNT $ 262,000.00 Formula for det erminin g p rorata the of p rorata items is listed below and shall be applied as percentages es g shown on the front sheet of this form A = Total Contract Amount T = Total Prorata Items Amount P = Prorata Percentage T t (A - T) x 100 = P After the project has been awarded, unit bid prices will be used to compute a new prorata percentage. -6- 630 SUMMARY CITY CONSTRUCT ENGINEERING S.P. 2748 -35 T.N. 252 =110 A = Total Construction Costs From Sheet No. 3 B = Total Construction Costs From Sheet No. 4 C= Total Construct Costs From Sheet No. 4 E City Construction Engineering Costs P, = City Prorata Costs from Sheet No'. 1 A x40% + B + C + PI x 8% = E ($315,754.26 x 0.40) + $12,500.50 + $40,384.00 +_$1,597.481 x 8% _ $14,462.69 I I -7- i t 7 A I NORTH NORTH I 4 0 25 50 li� 0 'S 50 100 ;X, / v 411 w I SC �r SCALE IN FEET 141 � \ EST RIVER Rn w ALE IN FEET �� ?!-� 30 VIE 1 J. �'— ----- n n 34 L 40 37' � .: i f 11 _! n 35 i 66 -8 , -- 33 II �V 6226 190 _ 1 21 � 32 120 - 7L i 190 v 1 I J �63A t • al + 4 0 0 of ( V NORTH — — ; 0 0 25 50 100 .,� m SCALE IN FEET V ON 340' ® 0607 N z1 3 "s0. 190' Q 062% \ 65A r c�Q 4 \„ W.F 6'CD m ' 'O 63 65 220 66 a 150' @ 0.60% n N 53 \ % 370 0.507 ( m � � � / EA' %ff on BI 1 . ' 63C � I 67 City of Brooklyn Center i \ - 300' @ 0.53% r L � —L 22 Agreement No. 63405 r 630 j a S.P. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110) + 6 co 94% State-6% City Green M5 z — r 425' Cpl 0.50 % z1 DITCH %'L64 _ 85% State -15% City Orange _F e6450 � 1 y _ 100% City Yellow _ /1 i – — 1 ._ N (O v I 1 ai0 �Q + 884--- - m,vf sYVEE r f av- � • DRAINAGE STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTION r. 1 FURNISH AND INSTALL PIP SEWER STRUCT. COORDINATES i PAY UST RECON - 12 15" i9" 21" 2a" 27" CLASS ¢ REF BASELINE STATION OFFSET M.H. OF No, OR CESIGN PAY SCENT STRUCT u�i N R C'P I R C P I R C.P R C.P R.0 P R.C.P I NORTH SFT I ® x Y C.B. I r IL 1 cI ! PIPE IO LIN FT N FT LiN FT LIN FT!L;N FTILIN FT LIN FT LIN FT LIN FT 0 25 50 100 I I F. R. 30 +11.10 19.00 RT. 1884,523.39 1256,465.84 qp_ 143 W. 63A 13 +90.00 15.00 RT, 884,609.66 257,331.89 14» SCALE IN FEET I -- - 63A S, B. 217 +29,'x3 238.54 L(. 88 259.I6d C.B. A O R F 11.3 ' _ 218 I IV (� 145 I R I* 70� 27 +55,00 35.34 RT. 883,986,25 259.916 37 B. A OR F 5.8 _ tt5 :. - i i 146 75 - 70 27 +54,00 9.00 RT. 883,977,07 259,941.03 C.B. A oR F 6.1, fi-5 26 i ! `a u.�n i 76 70 27 +53,00 25.00 LT 883,965,38 259.4'73 132 ,C. B. C oR G 5.7' 8 -5 35'- a t » 70-1, 70 23 +88. y 55. - LT. 883,630. 2591850. .8. C oR G 3.91 -' B -5 42 # 161 260,000 4- E3 70 23 +80, 14. LT. 883,632. 259,8C8 M.H.1 I 1' A 161 '*"70_2 70 _2 +6 2, i17. RT. 883,943. 259,810. C B C u R G 4, -5 23 161 r L 7 y 6518 70 26 +87.76 127.06 RT, 883,965.60 259.8(.9.86 1 m I 6641 73 w. b. 22 +88.15 9.74 LT. 883,539.75 261,760.80 M.H. 1 '- A -7D 4 162 73 =1 73 E.B. 24 +70.00 15.00 RT. 883,721,93 26 1.723,08 R Cm G 5. _ 51 I 162 t 4 RTF1� 72 73 -2 73 E -5 .B. 25 +62.43 21.16 RT. 883,814.813 261,716_97 =C B. C OR G .4.2 _ 93 T 162 7 TN AVE�� 73 " 73 =3 73 E.B. 26 +Z5.00 25,00 RT. 883,877.39 261,713.39 ,8. C OR G 4.1 b -5 b3 162 _ ( 73 -4 73 ;..d. 24 +70.CO 15.00 LT. 883,721.65 261.774.40 C. B. OR F 7.0 1 8 -5 1 v I 1 let 73 -5 1 73 ,:.3. 25 +75.47 15.00 LI. 883,827.59 251,775.18 C, g, I A cR F S.d 8 -5 136 73 -0 73 I f V ( 162 > I ri. 12.80 RT. 883,876.24 261.147,58 C.B. C OR G 5.7 8 -5 56 v 1 162 26 +24.00 } ' _j a 6645 73 B.L. 32+02.21 11.91 LI. 884,454.37 261,768.70 M. H. 1 A - 7D X 102 Z I 73 - 7 73 B.L. 31 +79.33 27.00 LT. 884,43 1.45 261,77',.70. C.B. 154 - 4020 5.5 B - 5 15 i ( 162 Fes: 6519 i _ I I 73 -8 73 B.L. 31 +34,00 9.10 RT. 8 26 1.741,51 ,B. C UR G 5.4` -5 581 1 162 C.B. C UR G 4.1 I 6 -5 i 78 162 73 -9 4 R.R. 726 +77.60 19.00 LT. 884,386.21 26i,e63.57 E 73 -1 73 B.L. 31 +?3,84 45.21 LT. 884,375.89 261.795.68 C.B. C UR G 5.4 5 -5 1 58 1 V 162 E > �� I 73 -11 73 3.L. 0 30+70. 31.00 LT. 884,322.11 261,181.24 C.B. C OR G 5.5 5-5 56 i V 1 _ - i� E y - /' „� 6518 I I 73 -1 Oki 73 B.L. 32 +60.00 26.78 LT. 884,532.12 261,777.39 C.B. 1 C 5-5 o II ^ Ir It I __-108..: T3 E.B. 27 +97,00 30.13 RT. 884,049.41 261,709.97 C R G 5.6 -5 i 41 i V - 47 E4 �r 109 73 W.B. 27 +87.00 19.00 LT. 884,039.10 261,780.06 i 0 8-5 72 V 47 1 I 110 S.B. 244 +52.50 25.50 LT. 884,089.36 1261.915.46 C B I C OR GI 5.7 8 -5 144 ( V i47 � L 6130n 66 29 +22.29 24.73 LT. 883.94233 257,074.69 6=1`: 66 29 +90.00 25.00 LT. 884,008.39 257,100.66 3.0 .5 71 BROOKLYN PARK + = 66 29 +33.00 37.20 RT. 883.977.79 257,022.55 � 8 -5 63 3 66 30.00.00 41.67 RT. 884,037,81 257,C40.03 F 5 63 66 39 +73.50 131.55 RT. 885,(:06.60 j257.108.55 110 ; 332 66 39 +41.07 86.42 RT. 884,967.48 1257,148.01 56 V (K 116. V 6 ; 9+29.00 16.20 RT. 884,944 52 257,215.38 A. Z ti:= i6U n 66 39.37.26 44.39 LT. 884,943.12 257,276.59 -# V. % 160 W.R.R. 10 +32.00 15.00 RT. 884,867.29 257,261.49 I t 77-6 66 -8 W.R.R. 10+32.00 15.00 LT. 884.837.67 257,256.77 B C Us G ' 5.3 NORTH 77 -2 66 38 *Ip.CO 13.00 LT. 884.811.53 257,Z23.33 A F 6.5 " 42 0 50 t00 V 66 38+G9.00 21,00 RT, 884,826.75 257.191.33 F 5.8 3`"` I 1` I SCALE IN FEET V 73- 1 73 - \ 73 -7 1�- 2 4 109 i 4 73 - II 73 - ��c - - - >- - 73 -12 - -- - -- a _ 6645 25 � �177 - 177777 \ y .. 177717 , 7777 1TTTl/ �3� ' ,. 177777 :. ) 107 l N. r, 1 4 73 7r 9 V I 106 �I BROOKLYN CENTER w 104 i 3 I co r + 261.500 ✓ c E / o i • �' ^ ''` t ` ~� .y I Ci: ~— ^ =-' -•t "�. �� -", _ �� r NORTH 0 225 50 100 - - ! ST N a 66 4000" RECONSTRUCT SANITARY SEWER .'A I ~ j I MANHOLE° TO AN 80 OFFSE z 81 A8ANOON: PIPE. REMOVE CULVERTS~ K + 215 -- � - - - _ - ' - ..l _ _ -- 1 , - ' L •_•_ • N _ i t ENCASE WAT.ERMAIN ' -s_: I ` 1 �( 1 -' V �� r ! ° 220! 1 t 1 RELOCATE�tYDRANT & VALVE REMOVE STORM SEWER 7 TO 218 +50; 79'RT. CONSTRUCT MANHOLE �� f 11 AND STRUCTURE. OVER ! �' F-- - E XISLVA LVE 0 1 �� ^ t _ t 3 _ �I I_� TRUCTURE AND STORM SEWER r i b 9 �- ASANOON SANITARY SEWER' ! PLUG PIPE4 ' EMOVE SAWCUT . • I — ) � - -- -,- .PLUG - PIPE - - REMOVE CvLvERTS - iLVERTS \ i T _ i _ �. R EMOVAL MI A/W - - -- -- �DISCONNECT WATER SERVICE CONNECTION ✓ —'! K =_i ` , J 6 - - EXHIBIT` B City of Brook Center _ Y Y � Agreement No. 63405 S.P. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110) 100% City r _71 Yellow sff 0- 7' / o S c ,w SEE SHEET 77 FOR _ - i 70 TH AVE. N. ALIGNMENT - - 1 I O NORTH � '✓ 1 ` • ,.✓r y • �~ 00 LRIW a, 0 23 ; 100 , I � m 1 I ._ t t 1 _ j + + _ t —.-. >a - -a, ,. ,. SCALE. IN FEET _ _ 0 0 N N' > ` ±' I • t• II , [1� •� :-. L 17 V F ' REMOVAL LIMITS _ o0 _ 1 _ J a I C I;; 1 I _ i :. _ = •' � j ...,_ � }, '< .. .... g, 1 •"-` 1 _ �l -=- � h 225 y - 1 1 2 5. 0 1 t - � ` 1 i +. I n —. I '� LOWER FOR CLEARANCE AND ENCASE ABANDON SEWER SERVICE 225 1 1 1 --- ^' - J y + r r - •...�. '-` --�r t.: - .r I ._ , , _ j • J CONST. MH OVER EXIST VALYE .�0 7 _ N o REMOVE : -- -- --- ` ! "' i REMOVE I ( E J `p° - CULVERTS ff - — ABANDON SANITARY SEWER ``� Ij REMOVE, CULVERTS m REMOV I -" �_ _ CULVERT 00 �Q - -- t� � J I_oo 1 --- .. - - - - -- �`• W. RIVER R0. ABANDON SEWER SERVICE REM LIMITS NN a _ PLUG-PL1lG -PI PE STUB" y -- -.•rCi`_' --=m ' --------- - - - - -- _ —. edo _ - -- -- - - ^ _ - - - -- o — - - -- -:.: - - -- �-- •-•�., - _ - --- _� ="'gym a. -- - --'- - R/w _ DISCONNECT WATER- SERVICE . a ' ___ �� J' - _ ( 1 •� '� '` I I.`� ( = 'Sr :} i 1 . I I I I r? DISCONNECT WATER SERVICE CONNECTI041..,. v - – t — A. N R A 1 �� Q cr l� E4 T' eea.000 z NOt7TH ; -S = � *,\r 5 W TE ` L '1 J o I I I ' BE SEX N — 771 Q : �^ Q Q i t l 7 i:. r te ,; �--' ••- 1 �! " 100 '{ -• i = -� .,1,,!,1.; f�,p < 0 25 0 � tt (' ir: V • v 240 W J I NORTH Ei I i Z - � fEET S8 233+50.90 0 n 50 100 iN _I T SCALE �l . -♦ y - -^--" 1 - 4 i {( + �� i r - { 1 • Ji i I Li Wv 831.18 F 1 ; V VIC 7 : f © I 1 VII v {� J N 1 S 3L SCALE IN FEET S E W ER SER + I * < 7 - ) N00 �. ' CULVER 1 I q' ABAN00 WER ^ Rc NM 92 �'w,n " ABAµ00N- Y. VER[S J ABA EWE trJl 1 ! %� REMOVE 1 SAN• SE N tP za�CV EMOVE G 1 SAUS I , �� ; .t_ a I l'; I I �- 1 �d v - — -- _ — i.➢..^ R � ___._ 310' 0.50% m �� < - - = —o_ n L 6 . CO � 4...J - -- - -J - - -_ — —/ MH v — — - n I S vCR go _ �� ! 1 5 — F 7 ' -- - — -- - -- - -- MOV4 LIMITS - "`--L— 1 RCP N R I I FOR FUTURE CuLV a 234' CLASS `f wa5r R 1 - - -- -- \ E : --1 ER 34 -- - -- �__ L— . 1- • r I r-- ,REMO - --^ m 86 WATERMNN P FLOW Z i - --- R /vV _- -- - L j,' � ` ` _- . •. r r e " i � I ' I " '- - = --'- / � : 1 I A C , � I la r I m Pl PIPE ( I q , I,�� I t w i 7 884. FLOW = r 1 S B I =- .Z33 = :.r' 3-F AP? I I S . II .�, 5 < I CURB O N NORT V>✓N. ° - I :. ^� 11 I 1 1 9 EXtS S Lj RD A a 7 �pNN EGT IO 0 N 72a0 i ' '2`, F 51E O ✓ , ^�y. ER SER Er✓ VI 325 0 0 C C 1 I I _ I �_l. �_ 6 -S %^ OtSCONNEGI T l _ J 30 7 j 1 1 ! ^ L i r N8 233 +50 I CAR 4 ` 4 \T91 R7 INV. 840.80 `s Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OV APP R ING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 252 IN BROOKLYN CENTER, STATE PROJECT 2748 -35 (252 =110) WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation for the State of Minnesota has prepared plans, special provisions, and specifications for the improvement of Trunk Highway No. 110, renumbered as Trunk Highway No. 252, within the corporate limits of the City of Brooklyn Center, from T.H. 694 to North Corporate limits and seeks the approval thereof; and WHEREAS, any grading or filling required by this project is deemed to be consistent with the requirements of the Interim Development Regulations for the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area administered by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center that said plans and special provisions for the improvement of said Trunk Highway within said corporate limits of the City, be and hereby are approved including the elevations and grades as shown and consent is hereby given to any and all changes in grade occasioned by said construction. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City does hereby agree to require the parking of all vehicles, if such parking is permitted within the corporate limits of said City, on said Trunk Highway, to be parallel with the curb adjacent to the highway, and at least 20 feet from any crosswalks on all public streets intersecting said trunk highway. 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. p Y P P /3A Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING INTERSECTION CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. 63390 BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes to wit: To remove certain existing traffic control devices on Trunk Highway No. 252: permanent traffic control signal at 66th Avenue North, hazard identification beacon at 69th Avenue North, and temporary traffic control signal at 73rd Avenue North; install and remove temporary traffic control signals on Trunk Highway No. 252 at 66th Avenue North and at 70th Avenue North; install new interconnected traffic control signals with street lights and signing on Trunk Highway No. 252 at 66th Avenue North, 70th Avenue North, 73rd Avenue North, Brookdale Drive (77th Avenue North, 81st Avenue North, County State Aid Highway No. 109 (85th Avenue North), and at County State Aid Highway No. 30 (93rd Avenue North) in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 63390, a copy of which was before the Council. 2. The proper City officers be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City all of the contractual obligations contained therein. Date Ma�:or 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 APPROVING COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT NO. 63405 BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BE IT RESOLVED that the City f Brooklyn Center enter into Agree- ree- g y ment No. 63405 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to -wit: to provide for payment by the City to the State of the City's share of the costs of the construction to be performed along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 252 from Engineer Station N.B. 453 +34.35 (Trunk Highway 94) to the north corporate city limit line at 73rd Avenue North (approximately Engineer Station N.B. 242 +80) within the corporate city limits under State Project No. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City Officers are hereby authorized and directed to execute such agreement. 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. 1.3.E Member introduced the followin g resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT NO. 63405 BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes to wit: Contract for the grading, drainage, aggregate base, bituminous surfacing, noise wall and traffic signal construction and other construction work to be performed upon, along and adjacent to T.H. 252 from engineer station N.B.453 +34.35 (T.H. 94 in the City) to engineer station N.B.400 +25 (T.H. 610 in the City of Brooklyn Park) in accordance with State plans, specifications and special provisions therefor designated as State Project No. 2748 -35 (T.H. 252 =110) and State Aid Project No. 27- 630 -02, No. 27- 709 -03, No. 109- 111 -12, No. 109 - 118 -01 and No. 109 - 125 -01. 2. The proper City officers be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City all of the contractual obligations contained therein. 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 ESTABLISHING BROOKLYN CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -16 (INTERSECTION CONTROL SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT ON T.H. 252 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR WHEREAS, the City has determined that there is justification and it is in the public's best interest to install new interconnected traffic control signals with street lights and signing on T.H. 252 at 66th Avenue North, 70th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North within the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that a part of this cost shall be the responsibility of the City of Brooklyn Center: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposed project will be designated as Project No. 1986 -16. 2. The accounting for this project will be done in the State Aid Fund. 3. There appropriated the sum of $17,979.53 from the City's Municipal State Aid 2600 Fund Balance. 4. The signal at 66th Avenue North and T.H. 252 is designated as M.S.A.P. No. 109 - 111 -12. 5. The signal at 70th Avenue North and T.H. 252 is designated as M.S.A.P. No. 109 - 125 -01. 6. The signal at 73rd Avenue North and T.H. 252 is designated as M.S.A.P. No. 109 - 118 -01. 7. The appropriated sum will be financed by: MSA FUND (Fund Balance 2600) $17,979.53 8. The City expects to be reimbursed by Municipal State Aid to the extent of $11,097.00. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk RESOLUTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1,55 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING BROOKLYN CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -17 (ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ON T.H. 252) AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation proposes to improve T.H. 252 from I94 to 73rd Avenue North; and WHEREAS, that project will include work on 66th Avenue North, 70th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North as well as other improvements along the route of proposed T.H. 252; and WHEREAS, the City has requested the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation to include that work in the contract for the construction of T.H. 252: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposed project will be designated as Project No. 1986 -17. 2. The accounting for this project will be done in the State Aid Fund. 3. There appropriated the sum of $77,264.50 from the City's Municipal State Aid 2600 Fund Balance. 4. The work proposed at the intersection of 66th Avenue North and T.H. 252 is designated as M.S.A.P. No. 109 - 111 -12. 5. The work proposed at the intersection of 70th Avenue North and T.H. 252 is designated as M.S.A.P. No. 109 - 125 -01. 6. The work proposed at the intersection of 73rd Avenue North and T.H. 252 is designated as M.S.A.P. No. 109 - 118 -01. 7. The appropriated sum will be financed by: MSA FUND (Fund Balance 2600) $47,034.22 Public Utilities Fund 30,230.28 $77,264.50 8. The City expects to be reimbursed by Municipal State Aid to the extent of $15,157.89. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk RESOLUTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. I Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON 66TH AVENUE NORTH, ON 70TH AVENUE NORTH AND ON 73RD AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN T.H. 252 AND CAMDEN AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, plans have been prepared by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the reconstruction of 66th Avenue North between Camden Avenue North and Willow Lane utilizing Municipal State Aid funds (M.S.A.P. 109 - 111 -12), and for the reconstruction of 70th Avenue North between Camden Avenue North and T.H. 252 utilizing Municipal State Aid funds (M.S.A.P. 109 - 125 -01), and for the reconstruction of 73rd Avenue North from 200 feet West of Camden Avenue North to 100 feeT East of West River Road utilizing Municipal State funds (M.S.A.P. 109- 118-01); and WHEREAS, said plans specify reconstruction of said segments to widths that Municipal State Aid Rules require total prohibition of parking on each of said segments: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that, effective upon completion of each of these segments: 1. "No Parking Anytime" regulations are hereby approved and posted on both sides of 66th Avenue North between Camden Avenue North and Willow Lane. 2. "No Parking Anytime" regulations are hereby approved and shall be posted on both sides of 70th Avenue North between Camden Avenue North and T.H. 252. 3. "No Parking Anytime" regulations are hereby approved and shall be posted on both sides of 73rd Avenue North from 200 feet West of Camden Avenue North to 100 feet East of West River Road. 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. DEPARTMENT /36 Mir CITY OF OF BROOKLYN FINANCE ,CENTER MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter FROM: Director of Finance DATE: May 14, 1986 SUBJECT: INSURANCE REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A "TEMPORARY ON- SALE" LICENSE TO SELL BEER The City Council will soon be asked to approve the issuance of "Temporary On -Sale" licenses to various civic organizations to sell "non- intoxicating" liquor (beer) in City parks at softball tournaments. The Brooklyn Center Volunteer Fire Department, the Brooklyn Center American Legion, the Brooklyn Center Rotary Club, the Brooklyn Center Jaycees, and the Vietnam Veterans all plan to sell beer at various tournaments and will be applying for licenses. The current nation -wide liability insurance crisis will present problems for the Council in the issuance of these licenses. Chapter 11 of the City's ordinances establishes certain requirements for "proof of financial responsibility for liability imposed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 340.95, which shall be subject to the approval of the City Council" prior to the issuance of the license. The ordinance defines several ways that the applicant can show "proof of financial responsi- bility". The various ways are: a. A certificate that there is in effect an insurance policy or pool providing the following minimum coverages: 1. $50,000 because of bodily injury to any one occurrence, and, subject to the limit for one person, in the amount of $100,000 because of bodily injury to two or more persons in any one occurrence, and in the amount of $10,000 because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one occurrence. 2. $50,000 for loss of means of support of any one person in any one occurrence, and subject to the limit for one person. $100,000 for loss of means of support of two or more persons in any one occurrence; or „ '7/ce Memorandum Gerald G. Splinter May 14, 1986 Page Two b. A bond of a surety company with minimum coverages as provided in clause (2) or C. A certificate of the State Treasurer that the licensee has deposited with him $100,000 cash or securities which may legally be purchased by savings banks or for trust funds having a market value of $100,000. d. If a certificate of insurance is presented, then the licensee and the City shall be named as joint insureds on the liability insurance policy. However, the ordinances also provide an exception to the requirement of proof of financial responsibility for licensees whose on -sale non- intoxi- cating malt liquor sales are less than $10,000 per license year, unless such licensee holds an additional license not so excepted. The ordinance also states that " Temporary On- Sale" licenses shall be subject to any special terms and conditions as the City Council may prescribe. In past years, the Brooklyn Center Volunteer Fire Department has been the licensee for the sale of beer at the softball tournaments. Since the tournaments were held on City owned property, I always asked them to provide liquor liability coverage in the amount of $500,000. Since rates were reasonable at that time, it presented no serious problems. However, this year the insurance market has deteriorated to the point where, to my know- ledge, no agent in the State of Minnesota has been able to secure liquor liability insurance coverage from a commercial insurance carrier for special events. The State of Minnesota, because of the insurance crisis, will insure liquor liability for special events under certain conditions. At this writing, these conditions are: (1) They will write coverage only for $50,000/$100,000, unless the City ordinances require higher limits (2) They will issue the insurance only to the licensee and will not include additional insureds. The premiums for the state coverage are very high. They are as follows: Premium Per Minimum Coverage $100 of Sales Premium $50,000/$100,000 $ 4.00 $ 500.00 $100,000 $ 8.00 $1,000.00 $300,000 $12.00 $1,500.00 $500,000 $16.00 $2,000.00 Memorandum Gerald G. Splinter May 14, 1986 Page Three As you can see from these premiums, probably the only local softball tourna- ment that could earn enough from sales to pay the minimum premium for $500,000 of coverage would be the "Dudley Classic ". Prior to the issuance of a temporary on -sale license for the sale of non - intoxicating liquor (beer) on City owned property, I think that the City Council must decide on one of the four alternatives listed below for the acceptance of the licensee's proof of financial responsibility: (1) Continue to require proof of $500,000 liquor liability coverage, with the City named as an additional insured. (2) Require proof of $300,000 liquor liability coverage, with the City named as an additional insured. (3) Require $50,000/$100,000 minimum liquor liability coverage with the City named as additional insured. (4) Exempt the licensee from proof of financial responsibility if its sales are less than $10,000 per license year. (This would not include the American Legion, which holds an additional liquor license). Obviously, I would discourage the selection of Alternative No. 4 and recom- mend the selection of Alternative No. 1. The Council should be reminded that, if a claim is made against the City because of an unlawful sale of non - intoxicating liquor by any of the licensees, the City's current insurance coverage would not defend nor pay any claims arising from the incident. The City's only coverage would be as an additional insured on the licensee's insurance policy. In this memorandum, I have referred only to the sale of beer by civic organizations on City property because, most certainly, the City would be involved in any claim made for injury sustained on City property - regardless of who the licensee might be. I believe, however, that the City Council should also consider requiring proof of financial responsibility for any civic organization applying for a temporary on -sale liquor license, regardless of whether the event is held on City or private property. The City Attorney should probably be asked if the City incurs certain liability by the mere issuance of the license. I will be available at the Council meeting to answer any questions. gawlw- 64 Paul W. Holmlund i MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: May 15, 1986 SUBJECT: Liquor License for Green Mill Green Mill Restaurants, Inc. has proposed to form a new corpo- ration which will own 1000 of the stock of Green Mill Inns, Inc. The only member of the current corporation who will remain in the new corporation is Chris Bangs. We have there- fore required a new license for this establishment. Attached is a resume of the background investigation for this new corporation. We find nothing to preclude issuance of an On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License and a Sunday On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for this establishment. We are asking the license be issued conditionally until such time as the new corporation files certified copies of the sale with the Police Department. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT Case No. Outside Offense: Yes No - -__ Nature of Offense: Location of Offense: Date Reported: __ . 4.zlzak-- - -- ------------- Time: Date Committed: �` - Time: Total Value of Loss: Name of Complainant: �� i_ `��QQI�IYB €tom` eh ........ —L Address of Complainant: _$$ @�_ �hival� 'ity & State: 3. Phone: : Bus . Phone -� 4 __ -- ,-� sposition: Unfounded Clyd by Arrest _ ---- Exc Clyd Inactive _ - Other __X —_ Arrests: Adult Juvenile Both .... None Officer Assigned t Case: ��g�_- — Transferred to:���. Supr. App. - - -�L " - - - -- - - - -�_ Date and Time Report Made: _ 1__p _Ilia -- L�.LiL —I. L. — LLi��.L— .. .L - - -- ..... .i.i.��..�L. ► . La---- ----- L- ----------- --�.�.�L Investigator DIRKS did receive copies of an application for an On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License, the applicant being Green Mill Inn Incorporated, to operate a restaurant, that being the Green Mill Inn, located at 5540 Brooklyn Blvd., Brooklyn Center, Mn., both of which are recently acquired by U. S. Restaurants Incorporated, a Minnesota Corporation. They are requesting approval of 100% of the stock of Green Mill Inn Incorporated to U. S. Restaurants Incorporated. The president of the new corporation shall be Christopher C. BANGS, one of the principal share holders in the current Green Mill Inn Incorporated. The licensing name to remain Green Mill Inn Incorporated. Accompanying this application are the supporting forms on personal information of the office holders of U. S. Restaurants Incorporated, a wholly owned subsiduary of U. S. Communications Corporation, a "?.nnesota corporation. I refer the reader of this report to all Ltached applications and correspondence from U. S. Communications Incorporated and their representatives. Upon completion of this investigation, Investigator DIRKS is to respond to Chief LINDSAY in memorandum form, indicating the results of the background investigation. DIRKS SAS MEMORANDUM TO: Chief James Lindsay FROM: Investigator Robert Dirks DATE: May 12, 1986 SUBJECT: On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for the Green Mill Inns Incorporated to operate the Green Mill, Brooklyn Center, located at 5540 Brooklyn Blvd., Brooklyn Center, Mn., to be acquired by U. S. Restaurants Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of U. S. Communications Corporation, both Minnesota corporations, whose Officers are the following: Christopher C. Bangs, to be appointed as President; William A. Urseth, current President; Gaylord A. Hall, current Vice President. Present other Officers are: Kathleen R. Hall and Kathy L. Urseth. Attached please find completed application forms for On Sale or Club Intoxicating or Non - Intoxicating Liquor or Wine Licenses for the City of Brooklyn Center, Form No. 1, Form No. 2 - General Information, and Form No. 3 - Personal Information for Christopher R. Bangs, Gaylord Alden Hall, William Andrew Urseth, Kathleen Ann Hall and Kathy Lynn 7rseth, as well as a cover letter from U. S. Communications to Chief Lindsay with their intent, a letter from Green Mill Inns Incorporated to Chief Lindsay with their intent, a copy of the lease for the property at 5540 Brooklyn Blvd., Brooklyn Center, Mn., currently operating as the Green Mill Inn restaurant, a copy of the Articles of Incorporation for the Green Mill Inn Incorporated, a copy of the By- Laws for the Green Mill Inn Incorporated, a copy of the Articles of Incorporation for U. S. Restaurants Corporation, a copy of the Article of Incorporation of U. S. Communications Corporation and a source of funds statement from U. S. Restaurant Corporation. The following is a summary of the basic acquisition of Green Mill Inns ._corporated by U. S. Restaurants Incorporated. Investigator Dirks, after reviewing all the applications and having personal phone conversations with the legal representatives for U. S. Communications and U. S. Restaurants Incorporated, has learned by speaking with Pamela J. FARR, the following information. U. S. Restaurants Incorporated, which is a Minnesota Corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary of U. S. Communications Corporation, also a Minnesota Corporation. U. S. Restaurants Incorporated presently operates and owns Ping's Szechuan Bar and Grill, located at 1401 Nicollet Ave. So., Minneapolis, Mn. and is sole owner of LaTortue Incorporated which operates LaTortue Restaurant at 100 No. 6th St., Minneapolis, Mn. U. S. Restaurant currently is the wholly owned subsidiary of U. S. Communications Corporation, but upon closing of the Green Mill transactions, U. S. Restaurants will be owned 2/3 by U. S. Communications Corporation and 1/3 by Christopher C. Bangs, the principal shareholder currently of the Green Mill Inns Incorporated. U. S. Communications Corporation is committed to fund $60,000.00 cash SAS Memorandum by Investigator Dirks Case No. 86 -06119 Page 2 directly to U. S. Restaurant Corporation from retained earnings and under a Letter of Committment from U. S. Communications Corporation to be used to pay down payment to the existing shareholders of Green Mill Inns Incorporated for the purchase of the Green Mill Inn Corporation, as well as their restaurant located in the City of Brooklyn Center and also the St. Paul location in the City of St. Paul. As part of this transaction, U. S. Restaurants Incorporated through the committment of U. S. Communications Incorporated, will pay $60,000.00 li to the three stockholders in Green Mill Inns Incorported, that ig Christoper C. Bangs owning 613 shares, Marjorie L. Schmidt owning 573 shares and Larry Cardoni owning 324 shares, for a total of 1,510 shares or 100 %. Additionally there will be a Promissary Note whose terms have yet to be completed, in the amount of $155,000.00 to the above listed stockholders, making the Green Mill Inns Incorporated a wholly owned subsidiary of U. S. Restaurants Incorporated. Additionally, Christopher C. Bangs, presently one of the stockholders, will be purchasing back 1/3 of the U. S. Restaurants Incorporated at a cost of $1,000.00, leaving himself and U. S. Communications Corporation the sole owners. Christopher C. Bangs will also be taking the position as President of U. S. Restaurants Incorporated and will be responsible for the continued management of the Green Mill Inn located in the City of Brooklyn Center, which is his current responsibility in the old corporation, as well as additionally being responsible for the Pings Szechuan Bar and Grill in Minneapolis and LaTortue in Minneapolis, as well as overseeing any other restaurant concerns that the U. S. Restaurant Corporation are involved with. ".. this point it should be noted that Mr. Bangs has previously had a .:.kground investigation done on him at the time the Green Mill Inn incorporated opened in the City of Brooklyn Center in 1981. It should be noted that the U. S. Communications Corporation is wholly owned by William A. Urseth and Gaylord A. Hall and the additional officers are both the spouses of the above mentioned parties. It should be noted that Investigator Dirks in doing the backgrounds on the corporation did find that U. S. Communications Incorporated is engaged in the business of promotional marketing and advertising and that they are a multi- million dollar corporation with many assets. In checking with the Minneapolis Police Department, as well as the St. Paul Police Department, in regards to the licenses that U. S. Restaurants Incorporated now hold and that Green Mill Inns Incorporated now holds, that there have been now problems whatsoever with their license applications and /or their operations. In fact, they have received the highest of comments from the Minneapolis Police Department in regards to their operations. Investigator Dirks, in attempting to determine the financial situation SAS Memorandum by Investigator Dirks Case No. 86 -06119 Page 3 in regards to this acquisition by U. S. Restaurants Incorporated, did have contact as previously mentioned with the representative, Pamela J. " -..rr, of U. S. Communications Corporation and U. S. Restaurant 7ooration, at which time she did very swiftly respond to my request the financial arrangements by supplying me with a copy of the draft, for discussion only; agreement of purchase and sale of stock, draft for discussion only; the Promissary Note, draft for discussion only; the Pledge and Escrow Agreement, draft for discussion only; the employment agreement with Mr. Christopher C. Bangs; and draft for discussion only, ,Agreement of Purchase of the stock between U. S. Restaurants :Corporation and Christopher C. Bangs; and draft for discussion only, Stock Purchase Agreement. In reviewing these documents Investigator Dirks found it very easy to follow the previously described acquisition of Green Mill Inns Incorporated by U. S. Restaurants Incorporated, a corporation which previously been a wholly owned subsidiary of U. S. Communications Incorporated to presently turn into a joint ownership by U. S. Communications Incorporated and Christopher C. Bangs. Investigator Dirks next in completing this investigation, did do background checks, the first one being conducted on Mr. Christopher Carl Bangs, who lives at 4501 Aldrich Ave. So., Minneapolis, Mn. and wife Amy Lynn Smith Bangs. In running the criminal history checks, in Minnesota, NCIC and Hennepin County, Investigator Dirks did find both to have clear records and valid drivers licenses. Investigator Dirks next checked on Gaylor Alden Hall and Kathleen Ann Hall, running the same previously described checks and found them also to be clear of any criminal history and with valid drivers licenses. 7 Investigator Dirks next checked on William Andrew Urseth and Kathy Lynn Urseth and again found both to have clear records and with valid Minnesota drivers licenses. It should be noted that Mr. and Mrs. Hall and Mr. and Mrs. Urseth are long time residents of Minnesota. Mr. Hall and Mr. Urseth both growing up and attending school in South Minneapolis at Roosevelt Senior High School and later going on to Augsburg College. Investigator Dirks did also do residential checks of the neighborhoods that each of the parties resided in. First checking on Mr. Bangs who resided at 4501 Aldrich Ave. So. in Minneapolis, as indicated in his application. Having a very beautiful and well kept home in an older residential neighborhood. Investigator Dirks next checked on Mr. William Urseth and his wife Kathy, and found that they lived at 2028 Kenwood Parkway in Minneapolis, Mn., and finding their home to be a beautiful, rather large home in the well known Kenwood District in Minneapolis, approximately one block off of the Lake of the Isles. The SAS Memorandum by Investigator Dirks Case No. 86 -06119 Page 4 Urseth home was also very well maintained with an exquisitely groomed yard and shrubs. Investigator Dirks next checked on Mr. Gaylord Hall and his wife vathy's residence. First checking their last address in the City of _-ymouth at 2445 Garland Lane, since they had recently moved into a new home in the City of Medina at 415 Pheasant Ridge. In checking the home in Plymouth, Investigator Dirks found this home to be a very beautiful upper middle class home in a very nice residential area of "lymouth. not far from Parker's Take and that the house and it's appearance was very well maintained and that the parties purchasing it have only been in there for approximately two months. Tt can only be presumed that the maintenance was kept by the Halls. In checking on the address in Medina, Investigator Dirks found that they have built themselves a beautiful new home that basically has no neighbors as yet as it is on a new road that will terminate at a cul -de- sac, which is in an unpaved condition at this time and the development of the area is still underway. At this time there is no landscaping done around the residence, but it does appear that this will be in a very exclusive area in the City of Medina. Investigator Dirks next, in checking the backgrounds, did contact personal references, taking those for Mr. Chrisopher Bangs from the general application made for Green Mill Incorporated and obtaining personal references for Mr. Hall and Mr. Urseth by contacting Pamela Farr, the assigned representative for U. S. Restaurants Incorporation, ning three names from her, as well as obtaining two personal �rences during Investigator Dirk's own course of investigation on Mr. Hall and Mr. Urseth. Investigator Dirks first checked on Mr. Christopher Bangs by speaking with a James Heuer, home phone 377 -5622, work phone 333 -3160. Mr. Heuer is an attorney and was a roommate of Mr. Bangs when they were at college and attended Hamline University. They have known each other for approximately ten years after Mr. Bangs had moved from Chisholm, Mn. down to the St. Paul area to attend Hamline University and that he is also since their graduation from school, done legal work for him. In talking with Mr. Heuer, Investigator Dirks questioned him in regards to what type of person Mr. Bangs was and he advised me that he was a very honest and trustworthy individual and that he was very conscientious about taking care of bills, following through on things he says he will take care of and also having a great ability in being fair to employees and dealing well with people. Mr. Heuer advised Investigator Dirks that he felt that Mr. Bangs was an aggressive individual, but that the aggressiveness was in a way of wanting to achieve and do well without using other people to do so, through his own abilities. He felt that he was a man of great integrity and an extremely good business man. SAS s Memorandum by Investigator Dirks Case No. 86 -06119 Page 5 Mr. Heuer advised Investigator Dirks that he still socializes with Mr. Bangs and that Mr. Bangs has a very lovely wife and that both of them get along quite well and work well together. Mr. Heuer point out to Investigator Dirks that the reason for, or one of the reasons for the acquisition of Green Mill Inns by the U. S. Restaurant Corporation, under U. S. Communications Corporation, was to acquire Chris Bangs to gate the restaurant business for U. S. Communications Corporation. . Heuer point out that Bill Urseth and Gaylord Hall wanted Mr. Bangs for his expertise in the restaurant business and that to obtain him they went through the endeavor or acquiring the Green Mill Inns Incorporated to buy out the shareholder who were looking to get out, that being Mr. Cardoni and Christopher Bangs' mother, Marjorie Schmidt, and then allowing Mr. Bangs to buy back in so that he could be the President and head up this corporation. Mr. Heuer indicated that Mr. Bangs was of the finest quality and felt that he would be an asset to the community. Mr. Heuer indicated that if there had been problems with the Green Mill Inns, that we probably would have known about them by now since he had been operating them for a period of time, to which Investigator Dirks, in checking could find absolutely no problems with the operation since their license was originally granted in the 1981. Investigator Dirks next spoke with David Valentini, also an attorney, home phone 374 -1967, business phone 339 -6561. In talking with Mr. Valenti he indicates that he has known Chris for 31 years and that he �� - d Chris had grown up in Chisholm with both of them coming down and Ing to school at Hamline. Himself staying on and going to Law >hool. Mr. Valentini stated that he knows Chris to be a very successful business man, that he runs an excellent business of top shelf quality and that he himself, while working for the - inuor Commission as an attorney in the Attorney ^enerals ()ffice. had never heard of any problems with the type of operation that they operate. Mr- Valentini indicated that the Minnesota Corporate Report that the Green Mill Restaurants Incorporated a couple of years back had been listed as a five million dollar corportion which Chris Bangs was directly responsible for the success of, according to Mr. Valentini. Mr. Valentini states that Chris is of excellent moral and ethical background and that he felt that he would be of great attribute in operating a business in the City of Brooklyn Center ane the community. Mr. Valentini did point out that Chris is a family and is extremely hard working and has earned everything that he has achieved so far. Investigator Dirks also reveiwed the original liquor license investigation done b Detective tive Spehn back in 1981 and found that there were no problems with ith Mr. Bangs during that investigation and that it has been under his leadership that the corporation has operated todate and will continue to according to the information supplied in the SAS Memorandum by Investigator Dirks Case No. 86 -06119 Page 6 acquisition of Green Mill Restaurants Incorporated by U. S. Restaurants Incorporated. Investigator Dirks next spoke with parties who were to be familiar with Mr. Urseth and Mr. Hall. Investigator Dirks spoke with the same four individuals who know both parties and each responded as follows. Investigator Dirks spoke with Robert Christensen, an attorney, business Dhone 830 -1333, of Carlson, Greiner & Law. Mr. Christensen indicated Investigator Dirks that he had been a long time friend of both :nth and Hall as both had been High School buddies, as well as college buddies. All three had grown up in the South Minneapolis area and both Mr. Hall and Mr. Urseth have been lifelong Minnesota residents. Mr. Christensen stated that he has been friends with both, socializes with them today and he indicated that both are very involved in the Rotary and other community oriented organizations such as the YMCA. Mr. Christensen stated that both Mr. Hall and Mr. Urseth were charitable men and that he was extremely proud to know both and that they both are supposedly somewhat rags to riches stories and that they came from moderate income families and excelled to their current status by running first class operations, hard work and always doing everything in the highest of quality in regards to their standards of operating. Mr. Christensen stated both are very fair with their employees and that they are extremely diligent in picking out employees of the highest quality. Mr. Christensen stated that both are very consious of the neighborhood and the community and should the City have ly kind of a problem with any given establishment, no matter where ere operating and be brought to their attention, that they would work very swiftly to correct any situation that would arise. In talking with Mr. Christensen he could not indicate any reason whatsoever that he felt them having ownership of a liquor establishment in our community would cause us any problems, as they are presently operating restaurants in several communities in which Investigator Dirks in checking, found them to be extremely well run operations with zero.. complaints. Investigator Dirks next spoke with a Tom Berkowitz, home phone 835- 1063, business phone 349 -2727. Mr. Berkowitz is a financial advisor in an investment company. In talking with Mr. Berkowitz, he again is a school buddy and has known both Mr. Urseth and Mr. Hall from college days, as well as high school days, where he met them in his senior year playing football for Henry High School against Roosevelt High School. Mr. Berkowitz states that has dealt with them on a professional basis as he has made investments for them and that he has found them to be an extremely professional pair of men who run first class operations. He indicated that they are great gentlemen who are community oriented and charitable men, indicating that he knows Mr. Urseth to, in fact, take SAS Memorandum by Investigator Dirks Case No. 86 -06119 Page 7 in kids into his home and he has no children of his own, as foster parents at times. Mr. Berkowitz indicated that they are of the highest integrity and honor and that they have strong need to do things right and are very 'onest and fair. Mr. Berkowitz felt that they would be a definite yet to our community. Mr. Berkowitz did indicate that he felt that Y were probably worth somewhere in the area of seven million dollars .on the conservative side and that each were insured without problem at _three and a half million dollars in life insurance, which he indicates is a very good sign of their financial integrity. Investigator Dirks next spoke with Robert Peterson, home phone 722 - 7969, business phone 934 -3200. Mr. Peterson has known both men since they were approximately three years old and indicated that they grew up in the same South Minneapolis neigborhood as he had raised his children. It should be noted that Mr. Robert Peterson is a sixty four year old man who owns Roberts Litho Printing in the City of Minneapolis and who has done printing work for U. S. Communications Incorporated. Mr. Peterson stated that he has watched these boys as they have grown up and watched as they participated in football for Roosevelt High School and later on in college, where Mr. Hall went on to even play some professional hockey, as he was a well known hockey star at the high school level at the time he was competing. Mr. Peterson indicated that both of these gentlemen are always willing to help and gave an example recently where his daughter -in -law, who.had ;recently gone through a divorce from his son, needed a residence and =fishing to move close to the South Minneapolis area, and near himself -ad his wife who are the grandparents- did rent to her a residence that Mr. Urseth owned in South Minneapolis at below what the market was, knowing her financial restraints, even though he could have rented the residence for much more than he was receiving. Mr. Peterson indicated that both Mr. Hall and Mr. Urseth are good christian men and very family oriented and show this in the way they operate their businesses - Mr...Deterson did point out that "r Urseth is also very fond of the outdoors and does contribute greatly to many of the wildlife concerns including Ducks Unlimited etc. Investigator Dirks also had opportunity to speak briefly with one Al Berriman, a Minneapolis Police Officer, who does know both Mr. Hall and Mr. Urseth from college. Mr. Berriman did indicate to Investigator Dirks that his knowledge of both men is that they are excellent business men and that both are very straightforward, honest individuals and are extremely hard workers. Form everything that he has learned of them from his colleg days, that they are achievers and do so by running class operations. Mr. Berriman did indicate that he felt that there would be absolutely no reason why these individuals SAS a Memorandum by Investigator Dirks Case No. 86 -06119 Page 8 should not be able to acquire a liquor license in the City of Brooklyn Center and felt that they would be extremely cooperative in the operation of the Green Mill Inn Incorporated should any situation arise in which the City would need to request their assistance in correcting a problem. Lastly. " nvestigator Dirks spoke with 'eonard Nelson, another long time friend of Urseth and Hall, who indicated to Dirks that he had known them also since high school and had gone to college with them. His observations of both these gentlement also were that they were class men who operated their businesses with the greatest of integrity and -e very successful in how they conducted their businesses. Mr. .son did indicate that he felt both to be very charitable individuals and pointed out one particular situation where a gift of a puppy had been made to him personally and that upon an unfortunate accident this animal had been killed and that Mr. Urseth in a gesture of kindness towards Mr. Nelson's children, since they animal had been killed, did give a second puppy to them after the accident occurred. Investigator Dirks finds in doing the personal backgrounds, in talking with references on these individuals, that he can find nothing in their character to indicate that they would not operate a business in the City of Brooklyn Center except in the highest of professional standards. Investigator Dirks, as previously stated, did have opportunity to speak with the jurisdictions in which they currently operate liquor establishments, including Minneapolis, St. Paul and Scott County, and found that the operations are of the highest quality and that there are no negative marks in regards to the operations of these restaurants. Investigator Dirks has been advised that at the time of the closing of this arrangement, full financial disclosures and copies of the reports •Ul be available to the Police Department as requested by Chief ndsay, and presently supplied are the rough drafts of those acquisitions. Investigator Dirks, after reviewing all of the financial arrangements, can find nothing to indicate that there is any money coming from any other unknown source than those disclosed in these documents. Investigator Dirks does believe that the reason Mr. Bangs is able to purchase 1/3 of U. S. Restaurants Incorporated at $1,000.00, which appears to be a relatively small investment for what he is to receive, feels that this is being done because of the desire of Mr. Urseth and Mr. Hall to acquire him as the President and head of the operations of their restaurants operating under U. S. Communciations Incorporated and U. S. Restaurants Incorporated. Investigator Dirks feels there is nothing in the investigation completed to indicate that the license should not be granted to Green Mill Inns Incorporated, to be acquired by U. S. Restaurants Incoporated, and that the purchase of the stock as indicated, should be permitted by the City of Brooklyn Center. SAS Licenses to be approved by the City Council on May 19, 1986 r AMUSEMENT DEVICE OPERATOR Snyder Brothers Brookdale Center ief of Police AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR . Carousel International Corporation P.O. Box 307 ief of Police FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Donut Delight 6838 Humboldt Ave. N. Tombstone Pizza Corp. 6870 Shingle Creek Pkwy. - `"T 1���/►/L, Sanitarian ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE B. C. American Legion Post 630 8333 Idaho Ave. N. Cub Scout Pack #632 1701 Woodbine Lane X� Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Able Mechanical Services 6717 83rd Place North Alair Heating & Air Cond. 9000 Annapolis Lane Atkins Mechanical, Inc. 6550 West River Road Care Air Cond. & Heating, Inc. 1211 Old Highway 8 Horwitz Mechanical, Inc. 5000 North Cty. Road 18 Modern Heating & Air Cond., Inc. 2318 First Street NE Noel's Heating & Air Cond., Inc. 6900 75th Ave. N. Northeast Sheet Metal, Inc. 4347 Central Avenue NE Owens Service Corporation 930 East 80th Street Pierce Refrigeration 1920 2nd Avenue South Sheridan Sheet Metal Co. 4108 Quebec Ave. N. Fred Vogt & Co. 3260 Gorham Avenue L Build' g Official MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP LICENSE North Star Dodge Center, Inc. 6800 Brooklyn Blvd. City Clerk RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Silverhawk Corp. NV 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #228 Patrick R. Shannon 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #334 Thunderhawk Corp. NV 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #238 Richard J. Lindquist 3715 69th Ave. N. Renewal: Brookdale Towers Program Brookdale Towers Brutger Companies, Inc. Brookwood Estates Brutger Companies, Inc. Brookwood Manor Earle Brown Farm Apts. Earle Brown Farm Apts. Patrick J. Gaughan Victoria Townhouses Thomas W. Leverenz 5600 Aldrich Ave. N. Dale & Rose Ketelboeter 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #338 JRJ Properties 6825, 27 Noble Ave. N. Richard E. Moehrle 5817 Shores Drive Gregg G. Link 5106 Winchester Lane 1 Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Ready, Jr. 1019 73rd Avenue North 1L_ Director of Planning and Inspection SIGN HANGERS LICENSE Attracta Signs, Inc. 6417 Penn Avenue South Build g Official GENERAL APPROVAL Q D. K. eeks, City Clerk CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PARKS AND RECREATION 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Telephone 561 -5448 \11001{LYM CfMTf11 f1111M1 11M0 11f CI1f 111IOM MEMO TO Gerald Splinter, City Manager FROM Arnie Mavis, Director of Recreation DATE May 19, 1986 SUBJECT: Council Authorization For Grant Application This is to request council authorization to submit a grant application to the Metro Council, Regional Arts Council. The proposed grant is for $1,987.00 and would be used to supplement the 1987 Entertainment In The Park program. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MAY 5, 1986 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum 5. 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 Council member 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 - April 21, 1986 - Regular Session *7. Mayoral Appointments: a. Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission - Reappointment of Fran Gunberg to a term expiring December 31, 1987 - Appointment of John Casey to a term expiring December 31, 1986 *8. Performance Bond Reduction: a. Brooklyn Center Service, 6849 Brooklyn Boulevard - Reduction from $20,000 to $2,000 9. Resolutions: *a. Amending Resolution No. 85 -114 Establishing a Municipal Golf Course Enterprise Fund and Authorizing an Interfund Loan *b. Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the Domestic Assault Intervention Project *c. Approving Amendments to the Mortgage Origination and Sale Agreement for Mortgages Originated in Columbia Heights, Relating to the 1982 Single Mortgage Revenue Bond Program Undertaken Jointly by the City of Brooklyn Center, the City of Columbia Heights, the City of Moorhead, and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Robbinsdale, Minnesota CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- May 5, 1986 d. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract for Installation of Water Utility Control System Improvement Project No. 1985 -19 (Contract 1986 -D) *e. Approving Payment to STS Consultants Ltd. for Subsurface Exploration for France Avenue North Area -This resolution authorizes payment for soil borings and analysis which were completed in January, 1985, relating to the proposed France Avenue improvement project. *f. Receiving Engineer's Report, Establishing Seal Coating Improvement Project No. 1986 -12, Approving Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1986 -J) *g. Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1985 -A (Ramada Lift Station Improvement Project No. 1984 -05) *h. Approving Agreement with Westwood Planning and Engineering Company to Provide Construction Management Services Relating to-Brooklyn Farm Area Storm Drainage Improvement Project No. 1986 -08 -It is proposed to use the same firm which developed construction plans and specifications for this project, to now provide administration, inspection and surveying as needed during construction of the project. i. Authorizing Purchase of Outside Signs for the Boulevard and the Northbrook Liquor Stores 10. Discussion Item: (7:30 p.m.) a. T.H. 252 -A representative from MN /DOT will be present to update the City Council regarding current status of plans and the schedule for the T.H. 252 construction project. 11. Public Hearing: (8:00 p.m.) a. Hearing on Proposed Assessment for Nuisance and Hazard Abatement at 5800 Drew Avenue North 1. Resolution Certifying the Cost of Hazard Abatement to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls 12. Ordinance: a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Parking Requirements for Retail Buildings -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on April 24, 1986 and is offered this evening for a first reading. This item requires a 4/5 vote by the City Council. *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 REGULAR SESSION APRIL 21, 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 7:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, HRA Coordinator Brad Hoffman, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Administrative Aid Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Reverend Zeimes of Brooklyn United Methodist Church. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the Open Forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Hawes requested that items 13h and 17 be removed from the Consent Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 24 1986 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to amend the previously adopted minutes of the March 24, 1986 City Council meeting to reflect the correction. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 7 1986 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the minutes of the April 7, 1986 City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. FINAL PLAT - LOMBARD REGISTERED LAND SURVEY There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the final plat for the Lombard Registered Land Survey. The motion passed unanimously. PERFORMANCE BOND RELEASE - 4408 69TH AVENUE NORTH 4 -21 -86 _1_ r There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the performance bond release for the group home at 4408 69th Avenue North. The motion passed unanimously. PROCLAMATION Councilmember Scott introduced the following proclamation and moved its adoption: DECLARING APRIL 20 -27, 1986 AS VOLUNTEER WEEK The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. RENEWAL OF LICENSE TO UTILIZE EXPLOSIVES FOR HOWE INC. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the license to utilize explosives for Howe, Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit is issued to Howe, Inc., 4821 Xerxes Avenue North, Brooklyn Center and is nontransferable. 2. Howe, Inc. shall continue to use a two component compound, kinestik, or a similar two component compound. 3. Howe, Inc. shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local legislation governing the transportation, storage, handling and detonation of explosives. 4. Howe, Inc. shall notify the Chief of Police in advance of all blasting operations. 5. City employees shall have the right to inspect upon reasonable notice given to Howe, Inc. 6. Authorization to discharge explosives in the City of Brooklyn Center granted under this permit shall expire April 21, 1987. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 86 -59 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FOR BROOKLYN FARM AREA STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -08 (CONTRACT 1986 -I) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -60 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 4 -21 -86 -2- RESOLUTION APPROVING ACQUISITION OF RYAN LAKE TERRACE OUTLOTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -61 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -62 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF JEAN E. CHAMPLIN The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -63 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH FUNK ANIMAL HOSPITAL FOR CARE OF IMPOUNDED ANIMALS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. PRESENTATION OF AWARD TO CITY COUNCIL FROM MINNESOTA WATER SKI ASSOCIATION Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Hank Longo, representing the Minnesota Water Ski Association. Mr. Longo expressed his organization's appreciation to the City Council for allowing the Minnesota Water Ski Association to ski on upper Twin Lake. APPOINTMENTS TO NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUPS The City Manager stated that the Planning Commission has compiled a list of people to be approved for the Neighborhood Advisory Groups. He noted that City staff would like the Neighborhood Advisory Groups to become more active in the future. Councilmember Theis asked if each person on this list had been contacted regarding the Neighborhood Advisory Groups. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that each Planning Commission member was asked to check a neighborhood group. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the list of members for the Neighborhood Advisory Groups. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) 4 -21 -86 _3_ The City Manager presented a Resolution Requesting the Metropolitan Transit Commission to Re- establish Bus Service Along Newton Avenue. Councilmember Theis asked if all the people listed on the petition were Brooklyn Center residents. The Director of Public Works stated he believed all the signatures were by Brooklyn Center residents. Councilmember Theis then asked if there was a similar group in Brooklyn Park. The Director of Public Works responded affirmatively. The Director of Public Works reviewed the reasons cited by the City of Brooklyn Park for requesting the discontinuance of bus service along Newton Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -64 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION TO RE- ESTABLISH BUS SERVICE ALONG NEWTON AVENUE NORTH The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Pertaining to Supplemental Agreement No. 1 for Improvement Project No. 1985 -27 (Contract 1986 -G). The Director of Public Works stated that this supplemental agreement is necessary to include the modification of the traffic signal system of the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and County Road 10. He noted that this traffic signal modification had not been included in the original construction contract. Councilmember Lhotka asked if there would be any more additions to the construction contract. The Director of Public Works stated he did not foresee any more additions to this construction contract. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -65 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 1 FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -27 (CONTRACT 1986 -G) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 7:28 p.m. and reconvened at 7:47 p.m. ORDINANCES The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Adopting a New Official Zoning Map. He explained that this item modifies the flood plain boundaries in the vicinity of the Centerbrook Golf Course. He added that this item was first read on March 24, 1986, published in the City's official newspaper on April 3, 1986, and is offered this evening for a second reading. He stated that this item requires a 4/5 vote by the City Council. 4 -21 -86 -4- Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Adopting a New Official Zoning Map, 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 Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Adopting a New Official Zoning Map. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 86 -05 Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES ADOPTING A NEW OFFICIAL ZONING MAP The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager pager presented an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 0 f the City g P y Ordinances Regarding Family Da Care in the g g R1 R2 and R3 Zoning Y Y Districts. He stated this ordinance was first read on March 24, 1986, published in the City's official newspaper on April 3, 1986, and is recommended this evening for a second reading. He noted that this item requires a 4/5 vote by the City Council. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Family Day Care in the Rl, R2, and R3 Zoning Districts, 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 Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Family Day Care in the Rl, R2, and R3 Zoning Districts. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 86 -06 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING FAMILY DAY CARE IN THE Rl, R2 AND R3 ZONING DISTRICTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed. Councilmember Hawes voted against the motion. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO 86015 SUBMITTED BY VIKING GYM REQUESTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO EXPAND THE GYMNASIUM USE AT 6502 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY IN THE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND FREEWAY BOULEVARD 4 -21 -86 -5- The City Manager noted this item was, recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its April 10, 1986 meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection referred the Mayor and City Council to pages four and five of the April 10, 1986 Planning Commission minutes and the attached informational sheet with those minutes regarding this application. He proceeded to review the application and noted that the main concern of the Planning Commission had been adequate parking. He added that after review of the application it was found that there would be adequate parking available for the expansion of the gym and the balance of the building. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 86015 subject to two conditions which he reviewed for Councilmembers. After reviewing the conditions the Director of Planning & Inspection stated that a public hearing is scheduled, notices have been sent, and a representative of the applicant is present at this evening's meeting. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 86015 submitted by Viking Gym requesting special use permit approval to expand the gymnasium use at 6502 Shingle Creek Parkway in the industrial building at the northeast corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and 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 Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 86015 submitted by Viking Gym. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve Planning Commission Application No. 86015 submitted by Viking Gym requesting special use permit approval to expand the gymnasium use at 6502 Shingle Creek Parkway in the industrial building at the northeast corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard, subject to the following conditions: 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. The expanded gymnasium use is subject to the conditions on the original special use permit granted under Application No. 82034. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 86016 SUBMITTED BY COLOR CONVERTING INDUSTRIES REQUESTING A DETERMINATION THAT THE STORAGE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF INK AND INK COMPONENTS IS SIMILAR IN NATURE TO OTHER PERMITTED USES IN THE I -1 ZONING DISTRICT The City Manager stated that the applicant wishes to locate in the industrial building at 6660 Shingle Creek Parkway. He noted this item was discussed at the April 10, 1986 Planning Commission meeting at which time the Planning Commission recommended that Color Converting Industries be considered similar in nature to the wholesale trade of chemicals permitted in the I -1 zoning district. The 4 -21 -86 -6- Director of Planning and Inspection referred the Council to pages one through four of the April 10, 1986 Planning Commission minutes and the attached informational sheet on Application No. 86016 attached with those minutes. Mayor Nyquist left the table at 7:55 p.m. The Director of Planning & Inspection proceeded to review the application and the ordinance pointing out other permitted uses in the I -1 zoning district. Mayor Nyquist returned to the table at 7:57 p.m. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the main concern for the Planning Commission was the flammability and toxicity of the chemicals to be stored in the building. He stated that the Fire Department has requested and received more information on the chemicals. He noted that these products are highly flammable but not explosive. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that there is no public hearing scheduled for this evening but there are representatives present to answer the Council's questions. Councilmember Hawes asked how the chemicals would be contained on the site in case of a fire. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that there could be a requirement for diking of some type. He added that it would be difficult to assure that every drop of the chemicals would be contained on the site in case of a fire. He also stated that various modifications should be made to the sprinkler system. Councilmember Scott asked if all the concerns stated by the Fire Department are going to be met without conditions being placed on approval. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that all code requirements would be met but that not all the other concerns would be or could be addressed at this time. He added that this is a permitted use and conditions are usually only placed on special use permits. Councilmember Lhotka stated he was concerned with the hesitancy that the Planning Commission displayed in approving this application. He asked if the manufacturing plant in Des Moines had been contacted. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that both the Fire Marshal and the Planning & Zoning office in Des Moines had been contacted. Councilmember Lhotka asked if these offices mentioned any problems they have experienced with the manufacturing plant. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that City staff had received a fairly good report from the offices of the Fire Marshal and Planning & Zoning in Des Moines. Mayor Nyquist recognized Greg Peterson, a representative of Color Converting Industries, who stated that he would urge the City or Councilmembers to contact OSHA for an unbiased point of view. Councilmember Hawes asked Mr. Peterson if the welding business located next door to his proposed location bothered him. Mr. Peterson stated that the welding business does not worry him because they currently do welding in the Des Moines plant. Mr. Peterson noted that Color Converting Industries must meet some very stringent requirements by their insurance company, and added that a gas station is a much more hazardous operation since the general public handles the hazardous materials. He explained that the basic manufacturing activities take place in Des Moines, and that mostly finished products which could be mixed would be stored and 4 -21 -86 _7_ distributed from the Brooklyn Center location. He stated that there would be little, if any, wastes from the Brooklyn Center operation. Councilmember Hawes asked Mr. Peterson if he had agreed to a foam sprinkler system. Mr. Peterson stated that they had not agreed to a foam sprinkler system but had agreed to any modifications required by code. Councilmember Lhotka asked the Director of Planning & Inspection to elaborate on the requirements for the sprinkler system. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that a fire sprinkler plan must be submitted and that it must meet NFPA standards. He noted that water, foam, and mist would all be appropriate methods for distinguishing fires of this type. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to make a determination that the use proposed by Color Converting Industries at 6660 Shingle Creek Parkway would be similar in nature to the wholesale trade of chemicals as listed in Section 35 -330, subsection lb2, but not similar to the manufacturing activities contained in Section 35 -330, subsection la7. The motion passed unanimously. SLIDE PRESENTATION The Director of Finance showed the slide presentation which was prepared for the All - America Cities contest. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Establishing Project, Ordering Improvement, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Earle Brown Farm Tax Increment District Phase I Streetscape Improvement Project No. 1986 -09, Contract 1986 -H. The Director of Public Works stated that this was the first phase of the streetscape project and would affect the property immediately adjacent to the Target and Ryan projects. He noted that the estimated cost for this project was $53,000 and that this project would be funded from the Tax Increment Financing District. Councilmember Scott asked if there would be wiring installed so that the entrances would not have to be torn up in the future. The Director of Public Works stated that the wiring itself would not be installed but there would be conduit placed under the driveways so that the wiring could be put in at a later date. Councilmember Lhotka asked if the concrete bases for the lighting standards would be installed now. The Director of Public Works stated that the concrete bases would not be installed at this time but the area that these bases occupy is quite small and construction would not disrupt the business. The Director of Public Works noted that these nodes would all be placed on easements. Councilmember Hawes asked if the streetscape project included only tax increment financing property. The Director of Public Works stated that was correct and the property on the west side of Shingle Creek Parkway would not be included. He noted that he is currently working with the HRA Coordinator to include the west side of Shingle Creek Parkway in the Tax Increment Financing District for the streetscaping project. RESOLUTION NO 86 -66 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT, ORDERING IMPROVEMENT, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR EARLE BROWN FARM TAX 4 -21 -86 _8_ INCREMENT DISTRICT PHASE I STREETSCAPE,IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -09, CONTRACT 1986 -H The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Establishing Retirement Health Insurance Program. Councilmember Lhotka asked what the cost per employee would be for health insurance coverage. The City Manager stated that currently the rates range from $68 per month to $99 per month. He noted that the cost of this proposed program would be one -half the cost of the previous program. Councilmember Lhotka asked what the program would cost annually. The Director of Finance stated that if three people were to retire in a given year the cost to the City would be up to $3,600. Councilmember Theis asked what percentage of employees have ten years or more service in for the City. The Director of Finance stated he would guess approximately half of the City employees have been employed for ten years or more. Councilmember Lhotka asked how this program would be funded. The Director of Finance stated that this program would be funded from the Employees Retirement Fund. He added that there is approximately $60,000 in this fund. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -67 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RETIREMENT HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Acknowledging Receipt of Request to Approve Modification to Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan and Scheduling a Public Hearing on Same. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -68 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF REQUEST TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN AND SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING ON SAME The motion for the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION The City Manager asked if the Council had any suggestions for recognizing the many volunteers throughout the City of Brooklyn Center. Mayor Nyquist stated that he felt it was difficult to have a recognition program because there is always the chance that someone would be left out. Councilmember Scott suggested placing a personal thank you in the paper to all volunteers in the City. The 4 -21 -86 -9- City Manager stated that he would work with Post Publishing to put some type of thank you note together. There was a general consensus among Councilmembers that City staff should work with Post Publishing to place a personal thank you in the paper to all volunteers in the City. REGULATION OF THE STORAGE OF VEHICLES BOATS RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ETC. The City Manager briefly reviewed the memorandum prepared by the Director of Planning & Inspection and noted some of the unclear areas in the ordinances. Councilmember Scott stated she felt it would be best if staff did a study on how other communities handle their ordinances and these type of problems and then learn from their mistakes. Councilmember Lhotka asked how strictly these ordinances were enforced. The City Manager stated that in the spring of each year the code enforcement officers look for violations while they are on their rounds. At other times of the year they take complaints and follow up on these complaints. The City Manager stated he would check with the Police Chief to get information on the number of tags which are issued each year. Mayor Nyquist noted that changing our ordinances we may create more problems than we solve. Councilmember Hawes asked about the storage of boats. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that there are no regulations regarding the storage of the boats. The City Manager stated that staff would research this item more carefully and come back to the Council at a later date with some suggestions. SPECIAL MEETING - MAY 6 The City Manager stated that an informal meeting has been scheduled for May 6, 1986 to review the results of the study completed by Quality Decisions, Inc. He noted that the Earle Brown Farm Committee would be in attendance and that the 0 Council is invited. He stated that it was not necessary to formally call a City Council meeting because there would be no decisions to be made that evening. He added that no time has been set yet but that the Council will be notified of the time and place. LICENSES Councilmember Hawes stated there were two licenses that he would like to discuss before approving the license sheet. He asked if staff has had any problems with Bennie Rozman, owner of Brookdale Ten Apartments. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that there have been no problems with regard to building inspections. The City Manager stated that he has been notified that there have been less police calls there recently. Councilmember Hawes stated that he had some reservations about the building at 3614 50th Avenue North being a legal four -plex. He stated he would like to have the license for 3614 50th Avenue North taken off of the list of licenses so that he can review the matter further with the Director of Planning & Inspection. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the following list of licenses with the exception of the license for 3614 50th Avenue North: CIGARETTE LICENSE Twin City Vending Co. 1065 E. Highway 36 4 -21 -86 -10- Builders Square 3600 63rd Ave. N. FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Brookdale Covenant Church 5139 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Super America 6545 W. River Rd. Super America 1901 57th Ave. N. T. Wrights 5800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. GARBAGE AND REFUSE VEHICLE LICENSE Woodlake Sanitary Service 4000 Hamel Rd. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Brooklyn Center Fire Dept. 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Earle Brown PTA 5900 Humboldt Ave. N. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Air Corp. 2525 Nevada Ave. Allan Heating & Air Cond. 6020 Culligan Way Blaine Heating, Air Cond. & Elec. 13562 Central Ave. NE Frank's Heating & Air Cond. 3107 California St. NE Gas Supply, Inc. 2238 Edgewood Ave. S. Kraemer Heating 7441 Dallas Court Maple Grove Heating & Air Cond. 240 Central Ave. Metropolitan Mechanical 7340 Washington Ave. S. Pump & Meter Service, Inc. 1800 2nd St. S. Ray Welter Heating & Co. 4637 Chicago Ave. MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP LICENSE Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth 6121 Brooklyn Blvd. Brookdale Ford 2500 County Rd. 10 Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd. Bob Ryan Oldsmobile 6700 Brooklyn Blvd. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Twin City Vending Co. 1065 E. Highway 36 Builders Square 3600 63rd Ave. N. PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Interstate United Corp. 1091 Pierce Butler Rte. Ault, Inc. 1600 Freeway Blvd. Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N. Twin City Venidng Co. 1065 E. Highway 36 Builders Square 3600 63rd Ave. N. POOL TABLE LICENSE Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Dr. RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Sharon M. Fratzke 4201 Lakeside Ave. N. #208 4 -21 -86 -11- Renewal: Bennie Rozman Brookdale Ten Apts. Ewing Square Associates Ewing Square Townhouses James & Yvonne Lyons 5303 Emerson Ave. Arvey & Penny Rice 7208 Fremont Ave. N. Hallard N. Corey 4201 Lakeside Ave. #118 Jerry Truman 5519, 23 Lyndale Ave. Joan Kanz 3112 O'Henry Rd. Robert W. Johnson 6801 Scott Ave. N. Gary & Carol Meinke 3601 47th Ave. N. SIGN HANGERS LICENSE Universal Sign Co. 1033 Thomas Ave. SWIMMING POOL LICENSE Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Fun Services 3701 57th Ave. N. Riverwood Townhouse Assoc. 6611 Camden Dr. Twin Lake N. Apts. 4536 58th Ave. N. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving Agreement No. 63430 with Minnesota Department of Transportation. He stated that late Friday afternoon this agreement had come in from MN /DOT regarding the construction of the golf course. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -69 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT NO. 63430 WITH MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 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 Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9:50 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 4 -21 -86 -12- i 7 APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO NORTHWEST H NNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION Name �l o r-a N 'J Sc= V Age 6 Address �c'�`ttLSO� � E{ o���� - 33 - 3(� 1 Telephone Occupation br/N c. �z Years lived in Brooklyn Center .2 I understand the rtance of regular lar Commi egu ssion meeting ttendance d g an participation, and feel I have the time available to be an active participant. Yes 1/ No Comnents Additional { cwments on my interest, experience, background, ideas, etc. U nl 1 ,L /Jc�u� L4\/ L�)C)rLIC L /i to t- - ?6 i 1 c , P-4 � Lr ! J VU► -U,% j c -z- 2 �cT'j v, , v� _ - _ Tr fLI.U6 ! "JiS l -f l o �c (�JUo`t/c %� i tfc= - }�v� i� ,J S ✓ �r1� 1 sScd,J (3 Cdr= 1�ca►2T, c `— Signature bath Submit to: Mayor Dean Nyquist City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shignle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 MEMORANDUM TO: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection FROM: Gary Shallcross, Planner DATE: April 30, 1986 SUBJECT: Performance Guarantee The following performance guarantee is recommended for reduction: 1. Brooklyn Center Service 6849 Brooklyn Boulevard Planning Commission Application No. 84020 Amount of Guarantee - $20,000 Bond Obligor Petroleum Maintenance Company Most all improvements are in. Paving, curb and gutter, sodding, irrigation and all but one tree have been installed. Lights have been relocated to private property. The shade trees that have been planted appear marginal at this time. Recommend reduction from $20,000 to $2,000 until viability of plantings can be determined. Approved ' Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85 -114 ESTABLISHING A MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE ENTERPRISE FUND AND AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 85 -114 on June 24, 1985 which established a Municipal Golf Course Enterprise Fund and authorized an interfund loan from the Capital Projects Fund to the Municipal Golf Course Fund; and WHEREAS, since that adoption, a revised golf course plan has been approved by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Resolution No. 85 -114 be replaced in its entirety by the following: WHEREAS, pursuant to a public hearing held on June 24, 1985, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center has determined that it is in the best interests of the City to provide for the construction and the operation of a municipal golf course; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has presented a revised financial plan for the construction and the operation of a municipal golf course dated April 21, 1986. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that in accordance with that plan: 1. The Director of Finance is directed to establish a Municipal Golf Course Enterprise Fund. 2. An amount of $600,000 is hereby appropriated to the Municipal Golf Course Improvement Project No. 1985 -23, Division 48, of the Capital Projects Fund from the Capital Projects Fund fund balance. 3. An additional amount of $1,100,000 is hereby appropriated to the Municipal Golf Course Improvement Project No. 1985 -23, Division 48, of the Capital Projects Fund. The additional amount is to be financed from the Municipal Golf Course Enterprise Fund. 4. A loan in the amount of $1,$00,000 at an annual interest rate Of 5% is hereby approved from the Capital Projects Fund to the Municipal Golf Course Enterprise Fund. The loan shall be dated at that time when the golf course construction is completed and the Municipal Golf Course Enterprise Fund reimburses the Capital Projects Fund for those construction costs which exceed $600,000. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. qb Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DOMESTIC ASSAULT INTERVENTION PROJECT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with the Domestic Assault Intervention Project for the general purpose of intervening in domestic assault cases by providing information and advocacy for victims of domestic assault and by advocating appropriate responses to assailants within the criminal justice and mental health systems. Date Mayor ATTEST: 0 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 an p d adopted. MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Barbara Pietrzak, Administrative Aid DATE: April 21, 1986 SUBJECT: Domestic Abuse Intervention Contract for 1986 We recently were given the proposed contracts for 1986 for the Domestic Assault Intervention Project in Brooklyn Center. There appear to be no changes over the 1985 contract. The total amount to be billed for 1986 is $18,578.00, which is within the amount budgeted for the program for 1986 ($18,600.00). After discussing the contract with Chief Lindsay, we recommend approval. of the contract. AGREEMENT This is an agreement effective January 1, 1986, between the city of Brooklyn Center, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter City) and the Minnesota Proqram Development, Inc., a duly organized non - profit corporation (hereinafter MPDI). WHEREAS, MPDI has organized a Domestic Assault Intervention Project within the city of Brooklyn Center for the general purpose of intervening in domestic assault cases by providing information and advocacy for victims of domestic assault and by advocating appropriate responses to assailants within the criminal justice and mental health systems; and WHEREAS, City, recognizing its commitment to the exploration and development of appropriate community actions in response to domestic violence, has pledged the sum of Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Eight and No /100 Dollars ($18,578) for 1986, to contract with MPDI for the services of MPDI in accordance with MPDI's Domestic Assault Intervention Project. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter contained, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. Term: MPDI shall render services to City in accordance with MPDI's Domestic Assault Intervention Project, for a period of one year, beginning January 1, 1986, and ending December 31, 1986. 2. Duties of MPDI: During the period specified in Section 1, MPDI shall provide City with the services of a trained and qualified Project Staff who will work a minimum of 20 hours per week. MPDI, in conjunction with Project Staff, shall provide the following services: a. Administer and supervise implementation of MPDI's Domestic Assault Intervention Project in the City of Brooklyn Center. b. Recruit, train and supervise volunteers in accordance with MPDI's Domestic Assault Intervention Project and maintain a 24 hour schedule of volunteers and /or Project Staff. c. Upon notification by City police department, trained volunteers and /or Project Staff will follow domestic assault arrests with immediate visits to the homes of victims (within one hour of arrest). d. At the time of the visit in the home and throughout the arrest and court process, trained volunteers and /or Project Staff will provide domestic assault victims with information concerning emergency shelter, protective orders, leqal services, and -2- support /educational groups available to domestic assault victims. e. Trained volunteers and /or Project Staff will follow domestic assault arrests with visits to assailants in the detention facility. Such visits will take place prior to the assailant's arraignment. City police department will allow trained volunteers and /or Project Staff into the detention facility visitors' area for this purpose. f. During the-visit in the detention facility, assailants will be provided with information on the Domestic Assault Intervention Project and information about domestic assault service agencies and counseling. g. In cases where arrests are not made, Project Staff will attempt to contact persons identified as victims with information as set forth in subparagraph (d) above. City police department will provide access to information for this purpose. h. Maintain a twenty four hour telephone service. MPDI, through its twenty four hour telephone service shall contact the aoprooriate Project personnel and volunteers as soon as domestic assaults and /or arrests are call ,ed in by the Brooklyn Center Police Department. i. Provide weekly support /educational groups for victims. j. Develop and provide a traininq program to the Brooklyn Center Police Department on the Domestic Assault Intervention Project. k. Generally act as a support for City domestic assault victims and their children. 1. Provide quarterly reports to City within 30 days after the end - of each quarter addressed as follows: City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430 Attention: Chief James Lindsay Said reports shall take the form of the Domestic Assault Intervention Project Quarterly Report, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. m. The Coordinator of the Project shall meet with City staff periodically as the demands of the Domestic Assault Intervention Project require. All of the above duties shall be performed by MPDI in consultation with City Police Chief or his delegate. 3. Consideration: The total obliqation of the City for all compensation and reimbursement to MPDI shall not exceed eighteen thousand five hundred seventy eight dollars ($18,578). -3- 4. Terms of Payment_ Consideration for all services performed by MPDI pursuant to this agreement shall be paid by the City as follows: a. Reimbusement shall be in three payments. b. Payments shall be made by the City promptly after MPDI's presentation of invoices- -for services performed. c. Invoices shall be submitted to the City by MPDI in the form of the Domestic Assault Intervention Project Invoice, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B . Invoices shall be due according to the following schedule: April 25, 1986 $9,290 July 1, 1986 $4,644 October 1, 1986 $4,644 Said invoices shall be mailed to: City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430 Attention: Chief James Lindsay 5. Cancellation: This agreement may be cancelled by the City or MPDI at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. In the event of such cancellation, MPDI shall be entitled to payment determined on a pro rata basis for work or services performed up to the date of cancellation. 6. Liability: MPDI is acting as an independent contractor.. Any Project staff provided hereinunder, or other agents, or employees of MPDI shall not be employees of City, and MPDI agrees to be responsible for any and all workers' compensation, employee benefits, withholding, F.I.C.A., and taxes applicable to such persons. Nothing contained in this agreement shall render either party an agent of the other for any purpose, or either party liable for any debts, liabilities, or obligations of the other, whether now existing or incurred in the performance of this agreement, and neither party shall have the authority by virtue of this agreement to represent or bind the other in any manner whatsoever. 7. Insurance: MPDI hereby further agrees to carry and keep in force all applicable insurance including but not limited to liability insurance and workers' compensation insurance. Said insurance policies shall be reliable insurance companies licensed to do business in Minnesota. -4- 8. Indemnification: MPDI agrees to indemnify and keep indemnified and defend, hold and save City harmless from and against any and all actions or cause of action, claims, demands, loss, damage or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, which City shall or may at any time sustain, precipitate, or incur by reason of the conduct of MPDI or employees, agents or servants of MPDI acting within the scope of and in connection with the Domestic Assault Intervention Project. 9. Non - Assignability This agreement is personal to the parties specified herein and may not be transferred or assigned by either party hereto. 10. Integration: This written agreement constitutes the entire understanding of and fully sets forth the rights and obligations of the parties hereto, and shall not be altered or modified except by an instrument in writing and signed by the Director of MPDI and City Manager. 11. Services to be rendered pursuant to this agreement shall be provided regardless of race, color, national origin, religion or sex. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the execution of this agreement on their behalf by their duly authorized representatives. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By Its Mayor By Its City Manager MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC. By: Its Director DOMESTIC ASSAULT INTERVENTION PROGRAM EXHIBIT A Quarterly Report (Cumulative) - / / 85 to / /85 I POLICE A. Mandatory Reports /Arrests # % B. Reasons for Non - Arrests Domestic Assault Calls Domestic Assault Reports Arrests Non- Arrests Com laints Filed By Po i ce By Victim II PROSECUTION A. Convictions G. Sentencing Guilty Plea at Arraignment Guilty Plea in Court B. Trial Guilty Not Guilty C. Charges Dropped D. Pending Court i E. Charles 1st Degree Assault 2nd Degree Assault 3rd Degree Assault 4th Degree Assault 5th Degree Assault Violation Protection Order Disturbing Peace H. Number assailants mandated to Disorderly Conduct violent behavior treatment Outstanding Warrant Other I. Assailant Compliance F. Charges Amended On Probation In Compliance Not In Compliance Revocation Initiated III VICTIMS /ASSAILANTS A. Victims (Arrests) C. Victims (Arrests and Non-Arrests Home Visits Legal Information Given Phone Contact Only No Contact Protection Order Filed ! Court Accompaniment B, Victims (Non- Arrests) D. Educational G roups_ Phone contact roups Available Mail Contact I.P. Women Attending No Contact Community Women Attending E. Assailants Jail Visits No .tail vici +e EXHIBIT B MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC. DOMESTIC ASSAULT INTERVENTION PROJECT INVOICE DATE Chief James Lindsay Brooklyn Center Police Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430 Total amount contracted by the City of Brooklyn Center for services provided by the MPDI Domestic Assault Intervention Project for 1986: Amount received to date: Amount now due as per 1986 contract: Pay to the order of: Minnesota Program Development, Inc. Mail to: Minnesota Program Development, Inc. 206 West 4th St — Duluth, Minnesota 55806 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE MORTGAGE ORIGINATION AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR MORTGAGES ORIGINATED IN COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, RELATING TO THE 1982 SINGLE MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND PROGRAM UNDERTAKEN JOINTLY BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, THE CITY OF MOORHEAD AND THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF ROBBINSDALE MINNESOTA WHEREAS, pursuant to its 1982 Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond Program (the "Program ") , the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City ") authorized the issuance of Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds, Series 1982, issued jointly with the City of Moorhead, Minnesota, the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota and The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Robbinsdale, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, there have been prepared certain amendments to the Mortgage Origination and Sale Agreements for mortgage loans originated in Columbia Heights, dated as December 29, 1982, in order to more accurately and efficiently carry out the intent of the Program; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Amendment to the Mortgage Origination and Sale Agreement for mortgage loans originated in Columbia Heights, which document is hereby approved in the form now on file with the City Manager, with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions, and insertions as are not materially inconsistent with such form, and as the Mayor, in his discretion, shall determine. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver on behalf of the City such additional certificates and documents as are deemed necessary by bond counsel to effectuate the agreements contained in the aforementioned Amendments. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: 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 TO: Gerald G. Splinter FROM: Brad Hoffman DATE: May 1, 1985 J SUBJECT: Mortgage Bond Program Amendment The resolution before the City Council authorizes the City of Columbia Heights to make certain amendments to their program relative to an agreement they have with a developer. Our approval is necessary because the mortgage bonds were issued jointly with Columbia Heights, Robbinsdale HRA and Moorhead. The bonds in question were issued in 1982 to finance the purchase of single family homes. The resolution does not affect Brooklyn Center's program. It has no financial or administrative impact upon the City. If we were to amend our program, assuming we still had monies available, we would have to have the other communities approve the amendment also. �G Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF WATER UTILITY CONTROL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -19 (CONTRACT 1986 -D) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1985 -19, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 10th day of April, 1986. Said bids were as follows: Alternate Alternate Bidder Supplier Base Bid No. 1 No. 2 Collins Electric Edison Controls $ 155,750 - $4,696 - $5,979 Dynamic Systems Dynamic Systems $ 158,600 - $2,055 - $4,490 Aquatrol Corp. Aquatrol Corp. $ 189,922 - $22,220 - $5,555 Kilmer Electric Aquatrol Corp. $ 202,379 - $24,000 - $5,500 AND WHEREAS, Orr - Schelen- Mayeron & Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers for this project, have advised the City that the bid submitted by Collins Electric does not comply to the technical requirements of the specifications for this project, and have further advised the City that the bid submitted by Dynamic Systems is the lowest responsible bid which complies to the specifications; and have further recommended acceptance of the bid submitted by Dynamic Systems based on Alternate No. l: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. the bid submitted by Collins Electric is hereby rejected on the basis of failure to comply to the technical requirements of the specifications. 2. The bid submitted by Dynamic Systems is hereby declared to be the lowest bid by a responsible contractor which complies with the technical requirements of the specifications. 3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $156,545.00 with Dynamic Systems of Minneapolis, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1985 -19 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 Dynamic Systems and Aquatrol Corporation shall be retained until a contract has been signed. RESOLUTION NO. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated cost of Improvement Project No. 1985 -19 is hereby amended according to the following schedule: As Approved As Bid Contract $ 260,000 $ 156,545 Engineering Consultant 26,800 26,800 $ 226,800 $ 183,345 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 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: May 1, 1986 RE: Consideration of Bids for Installation of Water Utility Control System Improvement Project No. 1985 -19, Contract 1986 -D On April 10, 1986 bids were received and opened for the second time for the installation of a Water Utility Control System (also referred to as a SCADA i.e. Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) system in accordance with plans and specifications as developed by Orr - Schelen - Mayeron & Associates, Inc. is (O.S.M.), our consulting engineers for this project. Attached hereto is O.S.M.'s letter of analysis and recommendation, wherein they advise that the low bid submitted by Collins Electric, using Edison Controls as their SCADA supplier does not comply with the specifications. O.S.M. recommends that the contract be awarded to Dynamic Systems, the second low bidder, whose bid does comply with the specifications. I hereby concur with O.S.M.'s recommendation. A resolution for consideration by the City Council is attached. Respectf lly subm' ted, Sy napp Director of Public Works cc: Jim Norton, O.S.M. Collins Electric Dynamic Systems Edison Controls Aquatrol Corporation Kilmer Electric Enclosures SK: jn I ORR •SCHELEN • MAYERON ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors May 1, 1986 Mr. Sy Knapp Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Review of Re -Bids for SCADA Project OSM Commission No. 3664 Dear Mr. Knapp: Bids for the subject project were opened April 10, 1986. The bids received were as follows. A copy of the actual bid tabulation is attached. SCADA Bidder Supplier Base Bid Alt. No. 1 Alt. No. 2 Collins Electric Edison Controls $155,750 - $4,696 - $5,979 Dynamic Systems Dynamic Systems $158,600 - $2,055 - $4,490 Aquatrol Corp. Aquatrol Corp. $189,922 - $22,220 - $5,555 Kilmer Electric Aquatrol Corp. $202,379 - $24,000 - $5,500 Note that Alternate No. 1 is a deduct alternate to use ACSB Radios in lieu of the 900 megahertz band radios in the base bid. Alternate No. 2 is a deduct alternate to delete the requirement to supply spare radios. Our review of these bids with the City staff has concluded that Alternate No. 1 should be accepted, and that Alternate No. 2 should not be accepted. The final net bid amounts are then as follows: SCADA Net Bid Bidder Supplier Base Bid Alt. No. 1 Amount Collins Electric Edison Controls $155,750 - $4,696 $151,054 Dynamic Systems Dynamic Systems $158,600 - $2,055 $156,545 Aquatrol Corp. Aquatrol Corp. $189,922 - $22,220 $167,702 Kilmer Electric Aquatrol Corp. $202,379 - $24,000 $178,379 2021 East Hennepin Avenue • Suite 238 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 • 6121331- 8660 Page Two Mr. Sy Knapp May 1, 1986 The bidding documents require a SCADA system using three major modules that can each stand alone. The first module, called the telemetry system is required to be a standardized, mature, microprocessor based system the function of which is to handle the transmission of data between the master station and each of the remotes. Although this system is microprocessor based, its control program is to be a pre - written, pre- existing debugged operational system that has been used previously. The specification requires that no specific software be written or installed for this system specifically for Brooklyn Center. The telemetry system is to function simply as a means of connecting switches, lights and indicators at the master with the pumps and status signals at each of the remote water towers and pumps. In short, it is simply a communication system. This communication system is specified and designed to allow manual control and status indication of the system. The second module specified is a computer required to interface with the telemetry system and is to provide the means for automatic and programmable control of the system. Specifications require that this be a standardized, 16 bit microprocessor based computer of qua -lity equal to an Intel 310 or an IBM PC AT. This computer is further required to run a standardized multi - tasking ope- rating system, and that the process control program be an established high -level process control language. These requirements were specified to minimize software program development time required by the vendor, and to ensure the most flexible and modifiable system for the City of Brooklyn Center. The intent is to facilitate the changing of the control program, if need be in the future, by non - programmers on the staff of the City of Brooklyn Center, after installation of the system. The third module required is an automatic telephone dialer alarm system to monitor the telemetry system and the computer and to transmit any failure in either system to supervisory personnel over phone lines. These system requirements stem from our experience with many SCADA systems installed around the country, specified by us, which have had varying degrees of end user satisfaction. Although the benefits of computerized systems are undeniable, we have seen systems installed that have taken 2, 3 and even 4 years to reach reliable, totally debugged system performance. This has been almost entirely a function of software. We believe that the requirements of the Brooklyn Center specification provide the benefits of computer control while minimizing the probability of slow system start -ups so common to computerized control systems. We have reviewed in detail the proposals of each of the three SCADA system suppliers that submitted bids through the four bidders. These proposals have been reviewed for compliance with the specifications, and have further sought diligently to assess the probability that the system will be brought up on -line within schedule. To that end, we have analyzed the soundness of the proposals and have talked with references from each of these SCADA system suppliers. Page Three Mr. Sy Knapp May 1, 1986 All three system suppliers are Twin City based companies. Of the three, Aqua- trol is by far the largest organization, has the largest facilities, the most staff, and does a higher volume of business than the other two. Both Edison and Dynamic are small companies, but both meet the requirement of having been in business for 10 years. We feel it is important to check the references of those municipalities to whom these companies have furnished systems. Our technical review of the proposals reveals the following. Edison Controls has traditionally used a microprocessor based product using a National Semi -Con- ductor IMP microprocessor. They have programmed this micro - processor for a variety of applications including telemetry and process control. They have little experience with the second module required by the specification, i.e., the use of a standard computer for process control. Their proposal for this project is that they will use program code they have previously used for the telemetry function programmed on the IMP micro- processor board, and interface that board to a Zenith Z -200 micro - computer. Our review indicates that Edison's proposal does not comply with the specifica- tions in two ways. First, they will have to install software specifically for Brooklyn Center to integrate their telemetry program modules on the IMP with the program module to interface with the Zenith micro- computer. We believe they will be able to successfully write such interface software for their traditional IMP micro - processor board, but the specification does require that "Proposals that require that software be written to accomplish these requirements will not be accepted." We have visited Edison's facility and have witnessed t e prototype system that ties the IMP micro - processor board to a Zenith computer. We believe Edison has the capability of finalizing this software design and making it work, but we are hesitant to recommend that Brooklyn Center risk the delays that could be associated with finalizing and debugging the software. Secondly, Edison is proposing to write all of the software for process control on the Zenith computer in a general purpose programming language known as Pascal. It is possible to write a high level process control language in Pascal, and perhaps this is a good language for such an effort. However, the specifications require that all process controls "be programmed using an established high level process control programming language such as PL /M." The process control language that Edison is currently working on may someday become a language such as PL /M. However, this effort is only in its beginning process at this time. Our review of the Dynamic Systems proposal indicates that Dynamic Systems will not need to write any telemetry system software for this project. This was a specific requirement of the specifications. For the process control computer, Dynamic Systems has proposed using an IBM PC AT (which we consider equal to the Zenith Z -200 proposed by Edison Controls, and equal to the Intel 310 proposed by Aquatrol). In addition, the Dynamic Systems proposal is to include a process control software language called " Onspec" written by Heuristics, Inc. This high level process control language is a commercial product currently available that • supports color graphic displays, trend displays, historical analysis, a built -in real time spreadsheet and data exchange with other commercial software packages that can run concurrently on the same processor with Onspec. Using this process Page Four Mr. Sy Knapp May 1, 1986 control language, it will not be necessary for Dynamic Systems to write a process control language, but rather to apply Onspec to the specific require- ments of Brooklyn Center. We believe this would greatly facilitate future modifications by the City of Brooklyn Center staff. The Aquatrol proposal is 100% in compliance with the specifications. Aquatrol has furnished numerous systems configured exactly as the one specified for Brooklyn Center. Their proposal is to use their proprietary telemetry system which has been applied literally thousands of times, interfaced to an Intel 310 computer using Intel's process control language known as PL /M. Due to relative size of staff and track record in supplying systems of this size, Aquatrol would present the lowest risk to the City. However, Aquatrol's proposal is also the most expensive. Our investigation finds that Dynamic Systems proposal technically complies with the specifications. They have not furnished anywhere near as many systems of this type as has Aquatrol, but neither would this be their first such system. We find that the Edison Control system technically does not comply with specifications. We have checked references for all three vendors. Although the specifications require that final payment would not be made until the system is 100% opera- tional, we think it is important that the system be brought up to 100% operation on schedule. Delays in software debugging can use a considerable amount of city staff time, and from previous experience, we know that such debugging periods can be 2, 3 and even 4 years. References for all three vendors have indicated various degrees of problems with systems supplied; however, all references for Dynamic Systems have indicated a high degree of satisfaction with the promptness and responsiveness of Dynamic Systems service. This has not been true of all the references for Edison Controls. Some of the people contacted on Edison's reference list indicated a lack of responsiveness on Edison's part in correcting problems once their equipment was installed. (See attached list of references.) After thoroughly reviewing the bids, and talking to all the bidders and their references, we recommend the project be awarded to Dynamic Systems, Inc., 6819 Washington Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55435 in the amount of $156,545.00. Should you have any questions, we will be happy to discuss our recommendation with you at your convenience. Sincerely, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. n A Jaf " �P. Norton, P.E. Project Manager JPN:nlb Enclosures Collins/Edison Controls, Inc. I Reference List * 1. City of Vadnais Heights * 2. City of Apple Valley * 3. City of Red Wing * 4. City of Richfield * 5. City of South St. Paul 6. City of Wichita, Kansas 7. City of Ripon, WI *References contacted In addition, we also talked to the City of Columbia Heights where Edison Controls has been removed and replaced by Aquatrol Equipment. Dynamic Systems, Inc. Reference List 1. City of Lancaster, MN North Kittson Rural Water Association * *2. City of Moorhead, MN 3. City of Belcourt, ND * *4. City of Crookston, MN 5. City of Parker, SD * *References contacted In addition, we also talked to the City f P and the City of Chaska. Y Y Y I BID TABULATION FOR WATER UTILITY CONTROL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -19 FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER BIDS OPENED: BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON April 10, 1986, 11:00 a.m. - RE -BID - & ASSOCIATES, INC. BID CONTRACTOR SECURITY TOTAL BID Collins Electric ** 5% $155,750.00 Dynamic Systems 5% $158,600.00 Aquatrol Corporation 5% $189,922.00 Kilmer Electric 5% $202,379.00 ** SCADA Manufactuerers equipment proposed to be used ((Edison Controls) found not to be in technical compliance with the specifications. I I hereby certify that t is is a true an correct tabulation of the bids as received I on: April 10, 199886 By: / I mes P. Norton *Denotes Corrected Figure OSM COMM. NO. 3664 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PAYMENT TO STS CONSULTANTS LTD. FOR SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION FOR FRANCE AVENUE NORTH AREA BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. payment in the total amount of $2,033.50 to STS Consultants, Ltd. for subsurface exploration in the France Avenue North area is hereby approved. 2. The costs thereof shall be charged to the Municipal State Aid Unappropriated Fund Balance. Date _ Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: April 30, 1986 RE: Payment for Subsurface Exploration for France Avenue North Area In December, 1984 this office proposed the improvement of France Avenue North from the South Corporate Limits to 50th Avenue North. That proposal was reviewed with the City Council and received tentative approval. Subsequently we contracted with STS Consultants, Ltd. to conduct subsurface explorations (i.e. soil borings, soil analyses and design recommendations) as necessary to allow proper design of this improvement, at a cost of $2,033.50. Although work on this project has not progressed, the costs for the work completed by STS was charged to the Municipal State Aid Fund. After review of this matter, the City Auditor has advised that City Council action is required to allow these costs to be charged to that fund. Both he and Paul Holmlund agree that this is proper, so long as it is approved by the City Council. Accordingly, a resolution for that purpose is submitted for consideration by the City Council. It is noted that the information obtained is, of course, available and will be used when a decision is made to proceed with construction of the improvement. Respectfully submitted, Sy K`iapp Director of Public Works SK: jn „ 74 So.Ketlurg Ott arc C •, Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING SEAL COATING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -12, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1986 -J) WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council that it is necessary and in the best interests of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota to to seal coat various City streets; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared specifications for the proposed work; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has estimated the cost of said improvement to be $114,750. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The City Engineer's Report is hereby accepted. 2. The following project is hereby established: SEAL COATING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -12 3. The specifications for Contract 1986 -J for said improvement project prepared by the City Engineer are hereby approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date for receipt of bids, and specify the work to be done, state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. on May 19, 1986 at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers at City Hall by the City Clerk and City Engineer, will then be tabulated and will be considered thereafter by the City Council in the Council Chambers, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by_a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for 5 percent of the amount of.such bid. 5. The accounting for Project No. 1986 -12 will be done in the General Fund, Street Maintenance Division. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :R OOKLYN 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: May 1, 1986 RE: Street Seal Coating Program Improvement Project No. 1986 -12 Contract 1986 -J The annual operating budget for the Street Maintenance Division includes $114,875 for contract seal coating of approximately 14.0 miles of local streets within the City. I have attached a map illustrating the area we propose to seal coat. The 1986 program will include 1.8 miles of collector streets and 12.2 miles of local (residential) streets. This is the third year the seal coating program has been accomplished under contract. We are satisfied with the results of contract seal coating. Therefore, it is recommended that the contract seal coating program be continued and that the attached resolution receiving this report, establishing Seal Coating Improvement Project No. 1986 -12, approving specifications and ordering advertisement for bids be adopted. Res e f Yr' submitted, Approved for submittal, r X �± .R-5 'r ier Sy Kn p City Eng,i eer Director of Public Works HRS : j n ����e Mau i 6 �t w'w «Hwi{ � ' . � -� "I -.� I Y� 1 • .l - 7MM ED • N,M aNNiC _�� .1 • o. O m V f: a } O V W Y/M MlIEM it \ co Y/M Ntlll31 J J M tM wre>r ?991' El I F � 0IMN1eM1M1 ' ' • tit AIM "N.1 LJ t ! / �'� ' _ r W 7 , „M ,nZ4S �J. 1 .•° SL_ -- L_-1 1 ! 2 W EW 14 1 w ,�• V 1, � � � f @ �� .S 1 Q 1.\ .—M ,$� or D, .: - -- - .,w „M,N:� ;�.•• �0 1 ww lna 44S �rYU YA,YOw. • �.,�I'll. -. / u l ,II IN I�Iil� (� I I 1 i ...... .... it I] fill it 16 1����f1l1i `�ii1�i�IlE�lil� {YlElfi�N'' s�:�! qg Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1985 -A (RAMADA LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1984 -05) WHEREAS ed with the City of ursuant to written Contract 2985 -A signed i P g Y Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, 0 & P Contracting, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1984 -05 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 $ 75,135.41 $ 72,225.03 2. The value of work performed is less than the original contract amount by $2,910.38 due to a general over- estimation 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 $72,225.03. 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 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH WESTWOOD PLANNING AND ENGINEERING COMPANY TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES RELATING TO BROOKLYN FARM AREA STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -08 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into agreement with Westwood Planning and Engineering Company to provide Design Engineering Services and Construction Management Services as necessary for the development of Brooklyn Farm Drainage Improvement Project No. 1986 -08. The maximum fee for Design Engineering Services shall be $8,750, and the maximum fee for Construction Management Services shall be $11,700. 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 :BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: May 2, 1986 RE: Recommendation to Enter Into Agreement with Westwood Planning and Engineering to Provide Construction Management Services Relating to Brooklyn Farm Area Storm Drainage Improvement Project No. 1986 -08 In January, the City entered into agreement with R an Con Construction to s are s h Y y Y in the costs of surveying, platting and preliminary engineering relating to the Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment District. Included in that agreement was an item which provided that the Ryan Construction contract with Westwood Engineering for the design of the proposed storm water pond and outfall, with Ryan paying the total costs $2,944.00 for that service. Since that time the scope of this storm drainage project has changed frequently and dramatically, based on the requirements of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission, on Ryan's construction plans, and on the City's plans. In March a "Petition and Agreement Regarding Special Assessments" was executed between Ryan, the H.R.A. and the City. That agreement and a subsequent amendment were based on a detailed Engineering Report from Westwood Engineering Company. Within the agreement and its amendment the total project costs were apportioned on a different basis than the January agreement. (Note: The H.R.A.'s share of total costs under that agreement is approximately 14%.) Also, total engineering costs were estimated at $7,689 (5% for Engineering Design) plus an additional $7,689 (5% for Construction Inspection and Survey) for a total estimated fee of $15,378. To -date neither the City nor Ryan has entered into any written agreements with Westwood Engineering to cover the actual costs for design. Also, since the project has been placed under contract by the City, it is incumbent on us to provide construction management services to assure that the project is constructed according to plans and specifications. Because of the heavy work load on the City's Engineering staff resulting from other projects, and because the Westwood Planning and Engineering Company is in the best position to assure continuity of Engineering Services, I recommend that Westwood be retained for this purpose. I 7 _5� M au �� May 2, 1986 Page 2 Accordingly, I recommend that the City accept the attached proposal from Westwood; (1) to provide the Design Engineering at a fee not to exceed $8,750 and (2) to provide Construction Management at a fee not to exceed $11,700. The increased fees (as compared to Westwood's estimate of fees as contained in the Engineer's report) reflect the great amount of detail that this project represents, and the frequent changes initiated by Ryan. While I am certain the "design fee" charges will be equal to or nearly equal to the maximum provided by Westwood's proposal, I believe it will be possible to keep the "construction management fees" well below the maximum - unless Ryan continue to initiate changes (either in his role as developer or in his role as the City's contractor for this project). In any event, the costs for Engineering Services under this proposal from Westwood will be apportioned in accordance with the March /April Agreement and its Amendment i.e. approximately 86% to Ryan, and approximately 14% to the H.R.A. As a part of this agreement, Westwood would also delete its billing to Ryan for the $2,944 contained within their January agreement. Accordingly, I recommend approved of the agreement with Westwood. A resolution for this purpose is provided for consideration by the City Council. RespeFtfu�ly submitted, Sy Knapp Director of Public Works SK: jn L OOD PLANNING & ENGINEERING COMPANY May 1, 1986 Mr. Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment Project Dear Mr. Knapp: Westwood Planning & Engineering Company is pleased to submit this proposal to the City of Brooklyn Center for Engineering services on the Earle Brown Farm redevelopment project. If acceptable, Westwood will invoice the City directly for the work items shown below. The Request for Proposal dated December 31, 1985 prepared by the City is the working document that is used herein for the general scope of services. More specifically, item 2E by this proposal is understood to include all elements of the Earle Brown Farm redevelopment project relating directly to the storm water pond on lots 1, 2 and 3 of the Earle Brown Farm plat. The proposed design engineering fee and construction management fee-are as follows: Design Engineering Fee Westwood proposes to prepare construction plans and specifications for the storm water pond, the outfall to Summit Drive and miscellaneous appurtenances for a fee "not to exceed" $8,750 (6% of the con- struction bid of the second low bid). The design engineering phase will include the bid advertisement and tabulation stage. Billings will be based on hours expended on the project formulated from the rate schedule attached to the December 18, 1985 Westwood Proposal to James Zahn - copy to Sy Knapp. Construction Management Fee Westwood proposes to manage the construction of the pond project including the inspection duties, project engineering, shop drawings, pay requests, surveys, and change orders. The Construction Management phase will begin with the pre construction conference and continue through project completion. The proposed "not to exceed" fee is $11,700 (8% of the construction bid of the second low bidding contractor). Billings will be based on actual hours expended on the project and formulated from the May 1, 1986 rate schedule which is attached to this document. Mr. Knapp, thank you for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, WESTWOOD PLANNING & ENGINEERING COMPANY Richard L. Koppy, P.E. Vice President RLK: j s cc: Jim Zahn, Ryan Construction Co. 7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55426 (612) 546.0155 WE T S WOOD PLANNING & ENGINEERING COMPANY FEE SCHEDULE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MAY 1, 1986 In general, where it is possible to determine in advance the Scope of a Project and the time and effort the Project will require, the fee basis for Engineering Services will be a percentage if consLiuction cost or lump sum. Where this is impossible... because of the complex nature of work tasks that are variable in nature and where the time required is controlled by the Client, citizen involvement, environmental problems and, in general, where the time requirement is beyond the control of the Consultant... the following fee schedule will apply. Classification Hourl Rate Principal Engineer ...... ............................... $ 60.00 Principal Planner /Landscape Architect .................. 60.00 Project Engineer.** ..... 0 48.00 Project Landscape Architect .........................r.. 48.00 Engineer ..................... .......................... 44.00 Landscape Architect / Planner ............................ 44.00 Senior Engineering Technician .......................... 36.00 Engineering) Planning SeCaYlLiClfiil....... -..... r. r. a .. r s s s 30.00 Associate Landscape Architect /Planner .................. 34.00 Draftsman........ .... o .......... 24.50 Typist .................. ............0.................. 21.00 Senior Construction Coordinator ......................0. 40.00 Construction Observer., ..... 36.00 Two —Man Survey Crew..... .... 66.00 Three —Man Survey Crew ... ............................... 77.00 7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55426 (612) 546 -0155 �f Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF OUTSIDE SIGNS FOR THE BOULEVARD AND THE NORTHBROOK LIQUOR STORES WHEREAS, the lease extension agreement for the Northbrook Liquor Store requires the City of Brooklyn Center to install an outdoor lighted sign on the building; and WHEREAS, the signing at the Boulevard Liquor Store can be improved upon to provide greater attraction to the store; and follows: WHEREAS, quotations received for this project are as Sign Service, Inc. $4,040.00 Leroy Signs, Inc. 4,145.00 Kaufman Outdoor Advertising Co 4,700.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the City of Brooklyn Center is authorized to purchase outside signs for the Boulevard and Northbrook Liquor Stores from Sign Service, Inc. for $4,040, with monies to be expended from the Liquor Stores Fund. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. DEPARTMENT M 1 CITY OF OF �OOKLY FINANCE 7- CEI®TTER � MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Director of Finance DATE: April 29, 1986 SUBJECT: OUTSIDE SIGNS FOR BOULEVARD AND NORTHBROOK LIQUOR STORES The lease extension agreement which we recently entered into for the Northbrook Liquor Store has a provision in which we agreed to install an outdoor lighted sign on the building. Jerry Olson, Liquor Stores' Manager, and I have discussed various types of signs that could be attached to the building. Jerry proposed an idea that I think is a good one and which I am recommending. Jerry's proposal is to replace the freestanding exterior sign at the Boulevard Store with a new sign which would be identical to the one that we installed at the new Humboldt Store. We think that is a very attractive, tasteful, and effective sign. At the same time, the two -sided sign at the Boulevard Store, which simply says "LIQUOR" on each side, would be dismantled. The two "LIQUOR" signs would then be installed in lighted boxes and attached to the east and south sides of the Northbrook Store. We think that these would be attractive signs and would draw attention to the store from both 57th and Logan. We have requested proposals for the total project for both stores from three sign companies. The proposals were: Sign Service, Inc. $4,040.00 Leroy Signs, Inc. 4,145.00 Kaufman Outdoor Advertising Co. 4,700.00 Sign Service, Inc. is the low bidder and is also the company from which we purchased our Humboldt Store sign. It is my recommendation that the City Council authorize the installation of the liquor store signs as described in this memorandum and accept the pro- posal, in the amount of $4,040.00, from Sign Service, Inc. for the signs. Paul W. Holmlund cc: Gerald Olson, Liquor Stores' Manager r • auu ).l �- -._f i,9 a f N .."°. V.. \fir Via.- _.. T"s�. _.....- b � � T +a� - Csx ♦ �d L.� � i �,ti.F � Glaa - -_� �.��' 1 �A ��P. . _ �w'ef- l l°'.e t 'awd 1 � a� " �w�.__:__�.L.1....���.. �..as -. _.. — T , za�'•.xc V s,.. - f = ' - St t" IT _. >aG. �.-i -. _._ -.. 1..1.s' /'l �r - sica 'ac. E VAC 1016 N. FIFTH STREET - MPLS., MINN. 55411 , (612) 340 -9380 April 25, 1986 We propose to furnish and /or install materials as stated below: Project: Boulevard Liquor 1.ut 6250 Brooklyn Boulevard - Brooklyn Center, Minnesota :,hi•Lch No; 85 -S -56 (Boulevard) Prepared By : John Reiter Fui 'Phu Sum of: FOUR THOUSAND FORTY DOLLARS + PERMITS 4,040.00 + Permits State Sales Tax (X) Included Not Included Permits ( ) Included (X) Not Included Remove existing pylon, recabinet faces into (2) illuminated cabinets and install at 57th & Morgan store. larnish and install (1) internally illuminated 4' X 8' double face sign cabinet and sign pole support. Lumiflex faces and aluminum extruded cabinet high out -put fluorescent lamping. Artwork per approved standard logo #85 -S -56. All parts and workmanship warrantied for a period of one year from date of installation, excluding labor. Permits and final electrical hook -up are not included in this proposal. i Thi;; Proposal is subject to the terms and conditions shown revursu side hereof. Upun acceptance of this proposal we shall consider this a contract 1_ bu(Jin work. Accepted Sincerely, B y : -- SIGN SERVICE INC. y -� COMPANY ACC ANC 6325 "Welcome" Ave. North LE ROY SIGNS INC. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429 Quality has no `substitute. Y 612-535-0080 J i LL. EJ March 27, 1986 Li t :n Brooklyn Center Liquor Li 1500 69th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Attn: Mr. Jerry Olson i Dear Mr. Olson: v� Thank you for the opportunity to bid on your current signage project at the Boulevard Liquor Store, 63rd & Brooklyn Blvd., Brooklyn Center. L Our proposal is as follows: °o Labor and material to furnish one 4' x 8' internally illuminated 2 double face sign. Copy to read "Logo" "Boulevard Liquor" as on sign at 69th & Humboldt. Copy to be in white on a maroon background. L Faces to be flexible face material surface sprayed. Sign cabinet -0 to be angle frame construction with one face hinged for service. ' Cabinet to be primed and enameled to match color. Illumination to 3 ' be provided by high output, fluorescent lamps with cold start bal- lasts. Installation to be on single pole direct burial in place of a v E e xisting sign. z U COST LESS PERMITS: $3,250.00 If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. CU Sincerely, o g as t LER SIGNS INC. I 0 "-' Lee Krallman �n W �n 0 CU J , L 6325 "Welcome" Ave. North w LEROY SIGNS INC. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429 f J Quality has no substitute. 6 535- -0080 April 22, 1986 f� 0 U_ Brooklyn Center Liquor 1500 69th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Attn: Mr. Jerry Olson Dear Mr. Olson: Our Proposal for your latest signage requirements is as follows: Labor and material to provide 2 wall cabinets for the existing a o faces in the pylon sign at 6300 Brooklyn Blvd. Cabinets to be of paint grip steel, primed and enameled to color of your choice. Il- lumination to be provided by high output, fluorescent lamps with cold start ballasts. Signs to be installed flat wall on building at 5711 Morgan Avenue North. Electrical to be stubbed out for connection to service by others. (D o E COST (PER 2 LESS PERMITS): $895.00 z U If you have any questions, please call me. (D 0 Sincerely, LEPA SIGNS, INC. CU o � v Z 1 Lee Kra loran r n 1� c G� 0 O tll v Page No. of Pages KAUFMAN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY 315 Washington. Avenue North MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 (612) 332 -8941 PROPOSAL SUBMITTED 70 PHONE DATE Jerry Olson 561 -2420 4 -9 -86 STREET 1500 69th Ave. N. JOB NAME Boulevard Liqour CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE JOB LOCATION 6250 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, Mn. Y , ARCHITECT T6A OF PLANS JOB PHONE 561 -4030 We hereby submit specifications and estimates for: Furnish and install one (1) double faced 4' x 8' sign cabinet with single .. pole support...All._al.uminum frame with lexan....or_ flexible face- construction Internal illumination will be high output flourescent lighting. Artwork per approved sketch.__ Remove exsisting pylon, re- cabinet faces and install at Store #3. 5711 Morgan Ave. N. Brklyn Ctr ............ :..................... .561 -2350 Permits not included in this quote. _.._. Final electrical connection to fuse panel _n.o.t.... included_in..thi.s...quot.e.... Please allow four to six weeks for delivery. .................... ............................... ......... ......... .............. ........ _ THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE YOU. Bit FraptifiP hereby to furnish material and labor — complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: FOHRTY SEVEN HUNDRED AND N01100s .............................. 4,700.00 Payment to be made as follows: dollars ($ ). 50% Down, balance upon completion. All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifica- Authorized tions involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an Signature extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance. e: This proposal m e Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance. withdrawn by us if not accepted wi i days. rU;1tanr1$ Of r11;1O9MI —The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized Signature to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Date of Acceptance: Signature FORM 118 -3 COPYRIGHT 1960 - Available from ses Inc.. Groton. Mass. 01450 10A CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :B FROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: April 30, 1986 RE: T.H. 252 Construction MNDOT's current schedule for T.H. 252 calls for bids to be opened on June 6, 1986. Prior to bid opening, the City Council will be asked to approve final construction plans and specifications, to approve those cooperative agreements which relate to City participation, and to adopt several "routine" resolutions relating to parking restrictions, etc. Because non of those documents have been submitted to the City to -date, and because only two City Council meetings will be held prior to the date of the bid opening, I have contacted Glen Ellis, Acting Assistant District Engineer, to suggest that he attend the May 5th Council meeting to update the Council regarding the current status of plans and specifications and their schedule for construction, and to respond to questions. As noted, none of the official documents have been submitted to -date. I have asked Glen to get these submitted to me as soon as possible so that staff will be able to review them and submit our recommendations to the City Council at the May 19th meeting. Respe tfully submitted, Sy Knapp Director of Public Works SK: jn "74 S"� Mau �„ Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE COST OF HAZARD ABATEMENT TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council caused the abatement of hazardous condition located at 5800 Drew Avenue North (Property Identification Number 03- 118- 21 -13- 0019); and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 463.21 and 463.22 and City Ordinances, Section 12 -1206 authorize certification of such hazard abatement to the County tax rolls for collection; and WHEREAS, the cost of all required work performed by the City has been tabulated by the Director of Public Works in the total amount of $136.94; and WHEREAS, an assessment roll, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference, has been prepared by the City Clerk tabulating the property where the cost of hazard abatement is to be assessed with the cost to be assessed, to wit: $136.94; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to such proposed assessments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Said hazard abatement assessment roll of delinquent public utility accounts is hereby adopted and certified as Levy No. 10129. 2. The assessment as adopted and confirmed shall be placed upon the 1986 payable 1987 tax rolls by the Director of Finance of Hennepin County to paid in one annual installment with interest thereon at 12 percent per annum, for a period of nineteen months from May 1, 1986 through December 31, 1987. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15, or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. RESOLUTION NO. 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. 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. /W4 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of of 1986 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6 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. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make 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 -704. MINIMUM PARKING SPACES REQUIRED 2. Commerce (Retail and Service /Office) c. Other retail stores or centers and financial institutions: [Eleven] Ten spaces for the first 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or fraction thereof; [eight spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in excess of 1,000 square feet, but not exceeding 15,000 square feet; six spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in 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 30,000 square feet.] Five (5) spaces for each additional 1,000 square feet of gross floor area up to 500,000 square feet; 5.5 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area over 500,000 square feet. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) t MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager ,. 1 FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspectifn /1•(�/ ' DATE: May 1, 1986 SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending the Retail Parking Formula On the City Council agenda for May 5, 1986 is an ordinance amendment which would change the parking formula for retail establishments in Brooklyn Center. The Planning Commission, on April 24, 1986, after much review and discussion of our retail parking formula, recommended adopting a new formula contained in the ordinance amendment. The ordinance change would require for retail stores or centers and financial institutions parking at 10 spaces for the first 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area; 5 spaces for each additional 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area up to 500,000 sq. ft.; and 5.5 spaces for each 1,000 sq. ft. over 500,000 sq. ft. The Planning Commission's review process began in August, 1985 as a discussion item when a copy of an Urban Land Institute (ULI) report on parking at retail centers was reviewed (copy attached). We have often heard the argument from developers that our retail parking formula was excessive and should be studied for possible modifications. Observation of relatively large, unused parking lots at a number of retail and neighborhood shopping centers also spurred us to discuss the subject with the Planning Commission to see if there was need for further review of this parking formula. Our existing parking formula has a higher rate of parking for smaller retail areas and decreases in the rate of parking as the size of buildings increase. The ULI nationwide study concluded that the parking demand increase as the size of a retail building or shopping center increased. This was in direct conflict with our current ordinance and a more careful look at our retail parking formula seemed in order. The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the retail parking formula at its August 29, 1985 meeting and on February 13, March 13, April 10, and April 24, 1986 (copy of the Planning Commission minutes summarizing those discussions is attached). Also, Gary Shallcross prepared and presented a detailed memorandum outlining the problem; reviewing our parking formula and other parking formulas; listed the implications of a possible change; as well as arguments both for and against a possible change (also attached). The proposed ordinance amendment is in line with the ULI study in that the proposed parking formula would provide an increased rate of parking based on the size of retail establishment, however, it would be more conservative in terms of actual parking required than the ULI study. The biggest impact, in terms of percent of change, would be on smaller retail buildings (20,000 sq. ft. or less). It is believed that the ordinance amendment is appropriate and will not have an adverse effect on development and /or redevelopment in Brooklyn Center and, in fact, may have a positive impact and should be given strong consideration by the City Council. t, i Memo Page 2 May 1, 1986 The City a to consider the aspects of the they need more m Council may feel that e p Y Y Y n proposed change, or may want further review and analys is o the p art of the staff and /or Planning Commission. We will be prepared to respond to questions or provide further information as the Council sees fit. mlg I Contents Recommended Study Analysis Prer�r Summary Parking Indices 14 Ind ependent u �riahl s Y Unrelated or Discrete Recommendations Uses Given Special Rel ated orcontinuo e /a iabkis Consideration 16 Factors Not Included in flack! Foreword 1 Offices 16 Linear Versus Curvilinear Key Recommendations 2 Cinemas 17 Regression Functions Overall Parking Indices 2 Food Services 17 Case stu ie a Individual Tenant Areas of Special Colony Shopping Center Requirements 2 Evaluation Wilde Lake Village Crr-cn 19 Method of Travel 4 Flaintree Shopping Centre Employee Parkin Method of Travel to Center 19 Shopping 9 Rrcalrvale Shs� Are Center Requirements 4 Adjustments for Employee University Plaza Automobile Size 4 Impl i P ar ki ng of the 19 Shopping Center Impact of Standards 4 ompact Car 20 Amherst Centre Midlothian Mall Objectives of the Study 5 Glossary 23 Cromv� ell Square Study Methodology 6 Santa rViaria To ° Cen Ch Tov ree Squnse User Characteristics 6 f� 4 Center Characteristics 6 cq� `# University Tt;%vne Centre Variables Related to Long Ridge Mall Parking Demand 7 Stkldy theGalleria Variables Unrelated to Sacto�� o f St Fairview Mall s �s Parking Demand 9 SW , c �� �a� q �u >f hoc�ola�?y Yorkdale Sho p;n . Existing Parking Supply 9 P�� ua Ceii ction and Design Hour Determination 10 l .° '° *stir a� Process A. t're +, °pfi�r tsaw�c.c Highway Design 10 for 6 . Sure c�y rvrrzts Annual Parking Demand 12 Implications of Selected l'aI "'q A u!nk'lation Design Hour 12 9 "`y S t Id t 7 'ucs I",vnr�aire ('enters Fi l l <, vii 9�`, ip s���� ,�'��•,.'�`,;, S i � , d'pN U'�1 � '�"��+s. A:y � "'.r . C' �.r �', � `.w" :.a O n».e,W cci �'1 :f(;s„�. ° A� : f:. `l a •rr�.,2 � a �r'��„' n, h ?"�c- "A'J¢�p a . ; u..� � G .} �"b :� w � w' '. r '"� -�` ��ix*• � x <? - @,``� � bY r ..t � �'�" T4 "�4 � . r k `' `� W � A �• T �r Pr y . � a 1 � 1 ����; }. 3b a < �A .(�j" P {: �..t '^f - .9y 4 ��.�'v.N •1" f 4 A�U3'�!�'�i �ai�^ II:lt Yt��.t �§. ���F 7W. k` - . �� � 3+ db - . .° {� - . L k""��aµ ?;Gw fi� < r �"�� � a� ny- i ° „� �,N.* > i y �' .; � "'r�t. y?� .c%� r �*^J^r6`��'+•� '� "S`-44 >*r{� 'S i 41 p r ` nra`'r 4 } t F. �. p i ➢r e; vti a '"9i%}Ch ., 2?"r • h J y f i X x ,. .. ' lR , xv}„ mi �y W, i �� F>s`' i ,� 4s� � "` rA ati a'*"�• �'':x.'�� �" Rr: #�'a � z >" �s"a :. I ', � ■ .rT ,r", •yw`y. ■ ■ ■ '' Se.'+ r '��'^�ro' ��- a. " xau� � s * a.• a ^d,��i r2'''' rt E �, e e� �. z � "`:�����ia � � ■ w'�4�'''xt�.'� � � 9 Oki{ � , �kd'+� "��ry` 3�'c"x"�^M`�''a�.ib� g1 4ria, y t e�+w r �a8 f� ...r r�.�- I �F> p, ' ■ ■ ■ Sa* � � u�`� >y �" `� F �.0 Y¢Yx'�4.., K +, _ {��s' "+l 3 � es„ ��w+ mar. .�n�c d� w w ■ ■ ■ �, �s ��'� 'x'r �,r �' `' �'� i .�.� i � "'4� � '�i^Fi, `�`r ' - 'f. °��.,Y'eS ' '!'c.' ' ��nq 'A.i+�k '» g .. +ate r „�y,,. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■'f�r�� w ar x tt +z y alit #�a a ��f g & h r G G'E �y �i � �,.� A x Y': x � ,.y.$` Wk? _ ( �`� a �,j � �*� 'e '!..,�1 �'l 'yyyprrrr �� $ ° �i� T4 $� 5 �. ° A:� .k � AY � ��`�"T• .�� � X �1x u ■ ■ ■ ■ 4- e i r a '¢ °' •S g� ?: ' rd" d X' 4 .. L t� n r � 'TW+%rf4 rk „�•. . 3, v" 'NF' d n " 3 's. a �' x '� '°�'� ..a` ■[� b�.� a ^�;; " w■■■ 4w. arm fs� . w°'"�.c'�`i ��F, ��� �,��'�'� ; �; F � ��� i kef �•wx ,srsY.r a •v -, i. ■ ■' rkKr srs w.ti 5y t� K X ' ■ ■ ` x""i+. E � ec p 'sd ,,,�.. *" .�y�' � *�,�r k a+�`� � f T .� y , �, 4$ �. �d -- 1� ° '■ ■ �" '�" b 5R'{y ��., d1 �'" w � r'i .�� vaY� �., � r f']�' �Ad!'� ".. ��� �' a ,,,. gip � � �r�x_ �r A $ s-� q s�` k a� '•Y ■ ■ ■ ��iv 1 1 r c��$ ` �.•°" "{' n�'t °�� ��� s°� �!�.+.b� o.F� v'�'Cf�� -�S x�. � }.r ♦' ' � - w mkl" L fi � � >� ai � s '�,.�.`�' • F es : 1s � { Y+Ni7 ��� 4d5 �y,.N't�.7r`t al '�_: .i'Y� tRt .•r �� ■ ■ w ■ ■ ■ ■ IL Foreword A basic component of a shopping center is available and adequate off - street parking to serve the patrons, visitors, and employees of the center. Recognizing the importance of this element has led the shopping center industry to seek out appropriate information on parking demand which could be used to establish industrywide standards for parking requirements. This study, undertaken in support of this goal, must be of sufficient depth and credibility so that all those involved— shopping center owners, developers, and tenants; financial institutions; traffic, parking, and planning professionals; and public officials —can accept the findings and recommendations without qualification. The recommended standards must be rationally conceived, easily understood, and capable of simple application to all types of shopping centers. To this end, the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) funded in 1980 a major new study, Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers, under the auspices of ULI –the Urban Land Institute. The research for this study was conducted by Wilbur Smith and Associates, Inc., under the guidance of an advisory committee composed of experts from the shopping center industry, drawn from the memberships of ICSC and ULL The study drew on questionnaire responses from 506 shopping centers; detailed parking accumulation counts from 135 centers; annual daily counts from 22 centers; and 15 in -depth case studies of typical centers. As such, it is the most comprehensive study ever conducted on shopping center parking and provides Jhe reliability and depth of data collection and analyses upon which to base recommended standards. This study could not have been accomplished without the full cooperation of the shopping center industry. By providing valuable standards which will assure an adequate supply of parking at centers, Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers will have as its ultimate beneficiary the general public, which patronizes shopping centers. It is hoped that communities will adopt these standards to the benefit of their citizenry, thus furthering the principal objective of ULI —to foster better land use and development practices. Roy P. Drachman Chairman Advisory Committee 1 Summary Individual Tenant Requirements Within the full range of tenants found in shopping centers, of- Recommendations cinemas, and food services require additional considera- Offices. Office space amounting up to 10 percent of the total Key Recommendations GLA can be accommodated without providing parking in addi- tion to that imposed by the application of the overall parking indices. Office space in excess of 10 percent of the center's Overall Parking Indices GLA requires additional parking, although less than a free - To provide adequate parking for a typical shopping center to- standing office because of the availability of parking for dual day, the number of spaces required is: purposes. Mixed -use developments where -the primary use in 0 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area building area is other than retail selling were not addressed in (GLA) for centers having a GLA of 25,000 to 400,000 this study and therefore the standards set forth here may not square feet; be applied. • from 4.0 to 5.0 spaces in a linear progression, with an av- Cinemas. At centers with 100,000 to 200,000 square feet of erage of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GLA, for cen- GLA having cinemas with up to 450 seats, and at centers with ters having from 400,000 to 600,000 square feet; and over 200,000 square feet of GLA having cinemas with up to • 5.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GLA for centers having 750 seats, patrons can be accommodated without the provi- a GLA of over 600,000 square feet. sion of parking spaces in addition to the overall recom- The provision of parking based on these standards, as shown mended standard. Cinemas having more than this number of in Figure 1, will serve patrons and employee needs at the 20th seats, or cinemas located at smaller centers, however, require busiest hour of the year, and allow a surplus during all but 19 a nominal three additional spaces per 100 seats, as described hours of the remainder of the more than 3,000 hours during in the body of this report. which a typical center is open annually. During 19 hours of Food Services. The amount of center GLA devoted to food each year, which are distributed over 10 peak shopping days, service tenants influences the number of required parking some patrons will not be able to find vacant spaces when they spaces. The number of spaces to be added (or subtracted) first enter the center. from the amount of parking otherwise required can be calcu- lated using procedures presented in this report for centers in which up to 5 percent of center GLA is devoted to food ser- vice. 2 Figure 1 s, Recommended Shopping Center Parking .Indices v. l t 1 r�l 9,000 8,000 :- , W L 7,000 *` Cr x d 6,000 CL _ 5,000 :x me n a P ooh M 4,000 o i. I i 3,000 Z 2,000 1,000 t 0 , 0 100 200 300. 400. 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 .1,400 1,500 Gross Leasable Area (1,000 square feet) 1. The amount of data above this point is limited, but suggests a decreasing index.' , r , 3 1 Method of Travel Centers with less than 75 percent of their customers arriving by private vehicles require proportionately less space. Employee Parking Requirements Centers in which all employees park off -site during peak days of the year require up to 15 percent less parking than would otherwise be needed. Automobile Size The advent of compact cars will give existing centers the op- portunity to use their parking areas more efficiently. New cen- ters should plan the design of their parking areas recognizing that by 1990 most automobiles in use nationwide will be com- pacts (60 to 95 percent). Impact of Standards Most centers designed with previously published standards have a surplus of parking during even the busiest hours of the year. Consequently, these centers can support additional retail or nonretail areas, or the areas devoted to parking can be re- duced, if the standards recommended in the present study are applied. 4 Objectives Of the The primary goal of this study was to As defined in this study, a shopping establish parking standards for shop- center is: S tudy ping centers in the United States and A group of architecturally unified commer- Canada, based upon observations of cial establishments built on a site which is In 1965, the Urban Land Institute pub- transportation activity at existing cen- planned, developed, owned, and managed lished Technical Bulletin 53, Parking ters. These recommended standards for as an operating unit related in its location, Requirements T echni for Shopping parking would then be applied to the size, and type of shops to the trade area pping Centers, that the unit serves. The unit provides site parking which became the recognized standard planning of new centers and expansion g of existing centers. To achieve this ob- P g in definite relationship to the for projecting parking space needs at types and total size of the stores.' shopping centers. In the nearly 20 years lective, the study collected and evalu- since data used to prepare the 1965 ated data on a wide range of factors The major use in a shopping center is study were collected and evaluated, influencing travel behavior and parking retail selling: typically, over 80 percent there have been many changes in shop- demand at centers. The findings were of a center's GLA is devoted to this use. ping center development patterns and prepared in a format usable for all At mixed -use developments which in- users' travel behavior affecting parking those interested in shopping center corporate several land uses in a single demands. Changes have occurred and Parking. project, retail areas may compose less are continuing to take place in such than half of the total project area. The areas as energy cost and availability, results of this study may not be applica- center tenant mix, degree of competi- ble to projects in which retailing is not tion, vehicle sizes, and availability of the major function, that is, centers in transit service. Consequently, the Inter- which less than 80 percent of the GLA national Council of Shopping Centers is devoted to retailing. asked the Urban Land Institute to initi- ate a new study to determine the stan- dards for parking requirements. Land !nstitute, 5 Study Methodology User Characteristics To document these demands and the underlying causal relationships generat- • Number of persons attracted to a ing the demands, surveys were con - Data describing travel behavior and center (person trip rate). ducted to collect data on parked parking demand at shopping centers • Method of travel (private vehicle, vehicle accumulations, vehicular and throughout the United States and Can public transit, walking, or others). pedestrian traffic entering and exiting ada were collected on Friday after • Persons per vehicle (vehicle occu- shopping centers, continuous counts of Thanksgiving (November 28, 1980) and pancy). daily vehicular traffic activity at centers the Saturdays before Christmas (De- • Travel time and frequency of trips. for 1 year, and frequency of trips, meth- cember 6, 13, and 20, 1980) — histori- • Length of stay at center (parking ods of travel, purpose of trips, parking cally, the time when peak parking durations). durations of shoppers and employees, demands at centers are generated. • Number of stores visited. and experiences of center management The study analyzed not only the abso- o Seasonal, daily, and hourly varia - with regard to the effective use of exist - lute numbers of peak period vehicles tions in demand (peaking patterns). ing parking space. parked, but also evaluated the sensitiv- To measure the influence of these vari- ity of parking demands to variations in Center Characteristics ables on shopping center parking de- both user and center characteristics. • Size (gross leasable area). mand, statistical analyses (including These included: • Tenant mix (type and amount of re- multiple regression tests) were con - tail and nonretail space). ducted. Study findings were tested for • Location (suburban or downtown, reasonableness and logic, ensuring that large city or small city, regional dif- the recommendations would be useful ferences, and so forth. to community planners, center tenants 0 Employment (number of employees and developers, and others interested by shift and day). in shopping center parking demands. • Availability of parking. 6 Variables Related to Participating centers are stratified square feet represent 10 percent of PParki Demand by center size. Using the conven- those participating and 15 percent arking tional sizes for neighborhood (up to of those conducting accumulation 100,000), community (100,000 to surveys. Centers with more than The study found the following varia- 300,000), and regional (300,000 and 600,000 square feet of GLA account bles to be the most significant with up), centers with less than 100,000 for 25 percent of the sample and 39 respect to parking demand: square feet represent 30 percent of percent of the accumulation sur- • Center Size. Gross leasable area those participating and 21 percent veys. Participating centers range in (GLA) is the major determinant of of those conducting accumulation size from 7,000 square feet to 2 mil - parking demand. Note that gross surveys. Centers with 100,000 to lion square feet (see Figure 2). leasable area is defined as the total 300,000 square feet represent an- other 32 percent of those participat- •Retail Uses. Key retail uses were floor area designed for tenant occu- analyzed for their significance to anc and exclusive use and in- ing and 23 percent of those p y conducting accumulation surveys. parking demand. Food service ten - cludes both owned and leased Those with over 300000 s ants (including restaurants, fast , square areas. GLA should not be confused food and specialty food stores, and with total building area, which is all feet, which include regional and food clusters) were found to influence the building area that is physically super regional centers, represent 38 demand. part of a shopping center and in- percent of the centers participating cludes common areas not designed and 56 percent of those conducting • Nonretail Uses. The presence of for rental to tenants. accumulation surveys. nonretail uses was also examined However, the division of the sample as a variable. Office space and cine- Analysis indicates that the rate of mas were found to have a measur- demand differs among center sizes, by size as it relates to the recom- able influence on demand. with major breaks, or demand rate mended indices shows that centers changes, occurring at r man 0 with less than 400,000 square feet • Method of Travel. The proportionate square feet and occurring 0 square feet represent 65 percent of those partici- number of patrons and employees s s pating and 46 percent of those con- arriving in private vehicles or by of GLA. rate The variation in parking de- ducting accumulation surveys. other means (often referred to as mand ra functions, tenant reflects the different mar- Centers having 400,000 to 600,000 mode choice) was examined. This variable was found to have signifi- characteristics, and mix of centers cance when less than 75 percent of within these size ranges. all persons arrived by private vehi- cle. . 7 • 5 r: ¢ si x t � a " y r P �a € d p x ¢a�{ .,yip r s b k . r �. 'RL � d j„f �. t rdv' '� e..+ 1J +.,ry ""N a -�V}�k ar • c ^ s 3 � e y1;;y y � v+,, ')� r+�'a•'-,J•mw hi` R x . �,[� 5 �� w x y-J �" ♦ � art, 3 ?J� � : r Y '�', � k •, � ^, t + � T $' � tr .�, ', 7, <:.� a P � u i w. a � cfi5 ' ' X i,y.J'�F'ro ",� .ro m �.�: s w � . ic L [� •,. �` ,,'`"`, u„��" .t ' I k '^ M« x+' y IS r.P` a � 9• ry Y o ' . � �'� �� � r R+r K , mt 'i+( y + � x..t • � &:v,'4 ,� d� FY r ° � � v � � cP 04) a Rys, y 4 j, �.,y N r �r � y Y r � s r /'rt•6r, � ?�� >, :d X '� �r� p i �; � Ra � � y " q �� ,# y �'; M �' J G 1 $' d •Y '` T4`} �'�, -�5 'i: 9 :i � t i��r�' d ° Ry v a � � F �. �; ,i . �,p�A �F..4 '� s�� 7'�'°� w . x 'b ++[p v �' �,'� ,w,�` *.�t�'*'� { �t,�j • p % � r; A* `. M h 6{ • `� µ + y- R y�yS« �,a��g �" � t c,w ��y, .xz u. �"Fk b 1y, il . 9t 9 "Ak t • ..�. ^.+: J +R :� yea +. -•t 3 "s 4 �`y hT h t 4 1 x°1 ➢ ,, M )) jT Cy x + s ,, }. t � y Y'�5.t S. a roT � •t "{e y �, i '4 $i+G"'�:+}F.fi"R r'� �: '�� Ai"o apt "�'wF'd Raw.'»°"�`i 1.'yp' �s'•J 3T�' �f r � • � ",�a$ uu�� 'W. N: � .y. +�"�,. - Variables Unrelated to • Large Cit versus Small Cit Loca- Existing Parking Supply Parki Parkin Demand tion. The population size of the ng community did not significantly in- To determine whether parking demand Many other factors pertaining to shop- fluence the peak period parking de- was at all constricted by the availability ping centers were evaluated but were mand of comparably sized centers. of parking at a shopping center, tests not found to contribute significantly to The variance found was less than 1 were conducted comparing centers vari ances in parking percent; therefore, demand at cen- providing different parking indices (ra- Among P 9 demand. Am 9 these variables were: ters can be projected in the same do of total parking spaces to GLA). manner regardless of city size or These tests indicated that peak period • United States versus Canada. Tests the size of the metropolitan area. parking demand is not related to the indicated parking demand during amount of available parking. When peak periods at comparably sized • Suburban versus Downtown Loca- other factors remained constant, no tion. Comparisons of center loca- -. centers located in each nation dif- discernible difference was *observed in fered less than 1 percent. Thus, s i ns did 'not indicate statistically the number of spaces used during peak centers in both nations can be significant differences in peak pe- periods by centers with varying parking treated the same with respect to riod demand between centers t indices, nor did centers with higher parking demand. suburban areas and those located than average indices attract more vehi- in the established retail areas of Iles. • Regional Location. No significant communities, generally referred to difference was found among peak as the central business districts, period parking demands at centers (CBDs). (Note: This comparison is of comparable size located in differ- not relevant to centers located in ent regions of the United States, the CBDs of major cities, which are such as the West or the Southeast. typically served by transit and at- Tests indicated parking demands tract a large volume of walk -in can be projected on the same basis trade.) in all regions. 9 D esign Hour developer /owner should provide a level given roadway. Studies, however, have of service of maximum benefit to both shown that as the volume of traffic on a D etermination patrons and the community, which is highway increases, the proportion of consistent with sound economics. In annual traffic volume decreases during other words, the appropriate design the design hour, especially if a facility Closely related to parking demand fore- hour should be selected with a proper is better used in off -peak periods. casts is the selection of the specific balance among several objectives re- hourly period which should be used for flecting community, consumer, and As the shopping center industry has design purposes. When hourly traffic business needs. matured, shoppers have become aware volumes for a full year are arranged in of peak shopping times, seek to avoid descending order of magnitude (Figure the busiest peak times, and distribute 3), it can be seen that 50 percent of the Highway Design their shopping trips over a greater num- hours serve less than half the demand ber of off -peak days and hours —all of which occurs during he peak hour. A Transportation planners have long rec- 9 P which suggests that the 10th highest shopping center parking facility de- ogcon o an appro- PP 9 P 9 Y nized that the selection f hour, which was previously used as the i prate design hour should be based on signed to serve the demand during an design hour, is no longer appropriate. average hour would be unacceptable a balance between service and cost. Indeed, design of shopping center ac- and less than adequate on many occa- The design of major highway facilities cess roads is now typically based upon sions when higher demand exists. Con- is most often based on the volume oc- average weekday and weekend traffic versely, a facility designed to serve the curring during the 30th highest hour of volumes, and therefore, a design hour busiest hour of the year would result in the year. The size of the facility is deter- for parking standards should be se- substantial excess capacity during all mined by the proportion of annual lected which is consistent with access but 1 hour of the ear, which would be traffic occurring during this 30th hour. Y The ratio between the 30th highest design standards. an unrealistic design standard for the g community, the consumer, and the hour and the average annual daily traffic volume was once thought to re- 2 Nl r ' Wahl ,, ri Uri , shopping center developer /owner. The g community, for example, should avoid main constant from year to year for a Hers r"1ev Y ��1,,��,,,, ►l.ii 17cr;k C., i i -t the environmental consequences from t n 3. lr r tEat of an unnecessarily large pavement area; the consumer should not be burdened by higher indirect costs from an exces- sive number of parking spaces; and the 10 ' 'Figure 3 Yearly Variation in Hourly Traffic Volume < �r 7 Descending Order of Magnitude) : (In Desc 9 . j 100 ea ' n 80 r, � E fi0 Y CL o 40 c ; a s 20 s I 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 Number of Hours with Hourly Volume Greater Than Volume Shown 11 t� Annual Parking Demand As more data measuring daily traffic I mplications of Selected volumes over the course of a year have Data providing daily counts for an en- become available, traffic planners have Design Hour tire year were obtained from over 22 been able to examine design hour rela- centers, covering a total of 32 years of tionships at shopping centers. The Thus, this study has selected the m th observations. When these data are ag- "knee -of- the - curve," generally regarded highest hour of the year as the demand gregated by center size and ranked as the appropriate design point, ap- hour upon which the design of shop- successively (Figure 4), the pattern of pears to have shifted. The 20th highest ping center parking facilities should be hourly demand is established for var- hour represents about 20 percent less de based. Use of this hour as the design ious center sizes. The distribution of mand than at the peak hour of the year period will result in adequate parking observed demands indicates the 20th for centers with a GLA larger than for all patrons and employees during the highest hour as the appropriate design 400,000 square feet, 11 percent less more than 3,000 hours per year a center hour, thus, the change from the 10th than the peak hour for centers with is open. In fact, based on this design highest hour which had been selected GLA between 60,000 and 400,000 period, it is estimated that during 40 as the basis for design in the 1965 ULI square feet, and 5 percent less for cen- percent of the hours of the year, over study. ters with less than 60,000 square feet of half the available spaces will be empty. GLA. As found by this study and others, However, during 19 hours each year, the Christmas season surge is more in- distributed over 10 days, some patrons tense �t regional centers. Although will be unable to find parking spaces im- smaller centers (under 60,000 square mediately upon entering a center. feet of GLA) experience peaks during Use of the 20th highest hour as the the pre- Christmas season, they are less shopping center design standard will pronounced. also result in a more balanced on -site and off -site transportation system since the design capacities of the access highway system and the center's park - ing lot will better correspond. 12 Figure 4 .Peak Hour Traffic Demands u at Shopping Centers . Legend Actual: Based upon centers fneasunng ®� dailyytraffic volumes continuously. Interpolation: Based upon monthly retail Pea Hour sales` data and eak eriod !traffic vol- k 100 p j e nte rs :. ® ` C ers w D { 90 _.,. .._. ® 0 t' C titers 0' 00 o with �► a re - 0,00 0 to ad feet LA . cn so Centers larger � feet ® �. a� n 400 Lq i 'OPO square feet 1111 * LA Y q ' a 7o 0 4) 60 a 0 c d i 50 d . 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Rank of Hours Number of Hours in Year Having Parking Space Demand Greater Than That Shown 13 R ecommended • Design hour parking demands at These values were developed through smaller centers with GLA between analysis of design hour parking de- Parking Indices 25,000 and 400,000 square feet, mands at over 135 centers, as shown in which exhibit less peaking during Figure 5, and are adequate to serve the the Thanksgiving and pre- Christmas needs of all patrons, visitors, and em- Shopping center parking demand is shopping seasons and where park- ployees during the 20th busiest hour of best described as a function of GLA. ing durations are shorter, require the year except where modifications are The parking index varies with center 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of required for offices, cinemas, and food size, over selected ranges (Figure 1) GLA. services which need special considera- and is summarized in the following re- tion. quirements. • At centers with 400,000 to 600,000 square feet of GLA, the parking de- mand index increases from 4.0 to 5.0 spaces in a linear progression as size increases, with an average index of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GLA. • Centers larger than 600,000 square feet require 5.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GLA. At centers hav- ing over 1.2 million square feet of GLA, the number of required spaces declines from 5.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GLA. The num- ber of centers with over 1.2 million square feet of GLA participating in the study was insufficient to quan- tify this reduction in demand; thus, it is suggested that the demand for these centers be addressed on a case by case basis. 14 l i � Figure 5 Observed Design Hour Parking Demand ■- Observed Center Parking Demand Note that larger squares depict multiple observations. 1: IThe amdunt of data above this p int.is linlited, bu uggesti a decreasing index, 9 , 8,000 Z 7,000- _... mom N d �. 6,000 -�^-- cV 5,000 _ ■ ■ ■ R I ■ c 4,000 ■ ■ A > ■ ■ r .�c 3,000 r ___� _ �� ■ . ■ ■ a ■i ■ 2,000 s ■ ■ ■ 1,000 _■ ■ ■ > a } k 0 RRR 111 E 0 100 200 300 = 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 ' 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 Total Occupied GLA (1,000 square feet) r 5 1 23 1 121 4, 1 5. 5 1 4f I 8 1 3 1 5 4 6 1 5.10 2 8 3 4 6 4 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 Number of Observations 15 1 Uses Given Special offices Office space exceeding 10 percent of the center GLA will require additional Consideration Analyses show office space comprising parking, but less than an isolated office up to 10 percent of the total GLA can development would require, due to the be accommodated without increasing availability of shared parking. Available Certain land uses at shopping pp g centers the parking supply required to serve the data do not permit a recommendation contribute to and affect design hour center. This percent of net rentable concerning the amount of required ad- parking demand. Through the use of area, including space either freestand- ditional parking where office use ex- regression analyses, these uses and ing or incorporated within the center ceeds 10 percent of center GLA. their impacts upon design hour de- and excluding retail store office space, mands were identified and quantified. was not found to increase parking de- - No uses typically found in shoppin 0� 9 mands during the busiest hours of the t 's tr 1 ; r centers, other than offices, cinemas, yea r..The suggested amount of office IT . 1 s and food services, were found to re- space is less than that described by quire parking �`''' `�� wire adjustments in arkin based on earlier studies because, based on the their presence in varying quantity. recommended indices, the available ?..?{' r r surplus parking during nonpeak peri- ods (for example, weekdays) will be less than previously available. 16 Cinemas • A center with less than 100,000 Food Services square feet of GLA requires a nomi- Peak parking demands at freestanding nal three additional parking spaces Food service tenants include both full or attached cinemas incorporated for every 100 cinema seats for cine- service and fast food restaurants with within shopping centers do not coin- mas occupying up to 10 percent of or without liquor service, as well as cide either seasonally, or by time of day the total center GLA. specialty stores such as doughnut with overall design hour shopping cen- shops or ice cream parlors. These ten - ter demands. Cinema atrons at shop- • Centers having 100,000 to 200,000 p p ants attract patrons whose parking de- ping centers can make dual use of square feet of GLA can accommo- mands coincide with peak center parking spaces provided primarily to date up to 450 cinema seats without parking demands. Shoppers whose serve retail patrons, but available dur- providing additional parking. For trips to the center include a stop at a ing nonpeak hour retail periods. In ad- every 100 seats above the initial 450 restaurant have been observed to have dition, one vehicle may serve 3.0 to 4.0 seats, a nominal 3.0 additional Y parking durations longer than shoppers cinema patrons, while, typically, the spaces per 100 seats are required. who do not visit food service tenants. same vehicle would only serve 1.5 to • A shopping center with over The contribution that this retail function 2.5 shoppers. Thus, the parking de- 200,000 square feet of GLA can ac- makes to parking demand was found to mand associated with movie trips is re- commodate up to 750 seats without vary with center size. At smaller centers duced proportionately: providing additional parking with a total GLA of 200,000 square feet spaces. For every 100 seats above or less, many of the peak period vehicle the initial 750 seats, a nominal three trips generated by restaurants and fast additional spaces are required. food outlets, for example, are in addi- These standards for additional spaces tion to and independent of the trips for cinemas are only applicable when applied in conjunction with the basic indices recommended by this study. 17 Ap generated by the retail areas. In con- • A center with more than 25,000 and To illustrate: 5,000 square feet of food trast, at larger centers, peak period less than 100,000 square feet of to- service tenant area located in a center food service patrons are at the centers tal GLA requires an additional 10 with 99,000 square feet of GLA would primarily to shop, and trips to the res- spaces per 1,000 square feet of require 50 additional parking spaces taurant are usually secondary; that is, food service tenant area. ( +10 spaces x 5,000/1,000 square these patrons would have visited and • A center having 100,000 but less feet). However, food service stores of parked at the center during the design than 200,000 square feet of total the same area in a 700,000- square -foot hour regardless of whether food ser- GLA requires an additional 6.0 center would allow the center to have vices were available. Consequently, spaces per 1,000 square feet of 20 fewer spaces than if the same area centers over 200,000 square feet re- food service tenant area. were occupied by other retail uses ( -4 quire less parking for food service cus- spaces x 5,000/1,000 square feet). tomers during the design hour than if • A center having 200,000 but less the same GLA were used for other retail than 600,000 square feet of total The data available in this study do not purposes. GLA requires no additional spaces permit a recommendation concerning for food services. the required adjustments to the parking For food services occupying t 10 • A center with 600,000 square feet or standard when the food service tenant percent of the total GLA at centers with more of GLA can reduce the re- area exceeds 10 percent of the GLA of 100,000 square feet or less, or up to ired parking y a center with 100,000 square feet or 5 percent of the total GLA of centers q u p 9 (as calculated b us- q ing the recommended index of 5.0 less and 5 percent of the GLA of a cen- larger than 100,000 square feet, the dif- spaces per 1,000 square feet of ter with more than 100,000 square feet. ferential parking demand is the follow- GLA) by 4.0 spaces per 1,000 Further, these adjustments are only ap- ing: square feet of GLA devoted to food plicable when used in conjunction with services. the basic indices recommended by this study. 18 Areas of Special size. The appropriate adjustment can Adjustments for be made by using the following equa- Evaluation tion derived from an analysis of study Employee Parking data. Characteristics of employee trips and Required Spaces = P x M + 15; parking demands were compared Other subject areas were also consid- p 9 pared with ered in this study, which are expected 90 overall center parking requirements. to influence the planning and design of where: Between 15 and 20 percent of all center centers and the efficient use of their P = number of spaces calculated fof• peak period parking is attributed to site areas. An overview of these sub- a typical center of comparable center employees. Analyses of center jects is presented below. size using the standards estab- employment data during the busiest lished by this study; and, shift, on a peak Saturday before Christ - Method of Travel to M = percent of peak period visitors mas, indicate that during -this - and employees arriving in pri- there are about 1.6 employees on -site Center vate vehicles. per 1,000 square feet of GLA. To illustrate: at a center where 60 per- The parking standards in this study cent of the peak period visitors and em- At centers where employee parking fa- were developed for centers in which ployees arrive in private vehicles, the cilities are provided at a separate off - approximately 85 to 95 percent of the required number of parking spaces site location, the total amount of park - shoppers, visitors, and employees arrive would be approximately 83 percent ing required at the center may be re- by private vehicle. The recommended ( + 15 ) of that normally expected. duced by as much as 15 percent if all indices and their modification apply 90 employees use the off -site parking area. to centers where such circumstances A reduction of this magnitude requires exist. However, when more than This is a derived formula which projects prohibiting all employees from using 25 percent of all persons arrive by a linear decline in the number of re- the remaining available on -site spaces modes other than private vehicles, the quired parking spaces as nonprivate ve- (reserved for patrons) and enforcing number of required parking spaces hicle travel to the center increases. this regulation during peak periods. Of should be less than the recommended course, if not all employees park off - standard for a center of comparable site, the allowable reduction in spaces required would be proportionately less based on the previous formula. 19 1 Figure 6 Size Distribution of Parked Cars =� „ at .Selected Shopping Centers f Percent of Percent of Center: . State /Province : ` ` Full -Size Compact Implications of the �. n w.: Cor act Car Cromwell Square Connecticut . `, p As the proportion of compact cars in Long Ridge Mall `` :New.York� use increases, the design of parking fa- cilities to accommodate these vehicles Wilde Lake Maryland at shopping centers through a more ef- Village Green ficient use of space becomes increas- ingly important. To gain further insight Midlothian Mall Virginia into this issue, the study classified vehi- cles parked at 15 centers on the peak Amherst Centre Ohio' days of the year according to their di- Raintree mensions, and the proportion of com - Ohio " act cars was determined. A com act Shopping Centre p p University Plaza car was defined to include any automo- Kentucky' ? bile or truck whose length is 16 feet or Shopping Center I less and width less than 6 feet. As Colony North Carolina Y shown in Figure 6, the proportion of Shopping Center compact cars ranged from 15 to 65 per - Charles South Carolina 1 cent. Although this is a small survey, it Towne Square ff, confirms patterns observed elsewhere in the nation, as well as trends in auto- theGalleria Texas r mobile sales. When compact cars be- come predominant, a parking lot can Shopping Center; California a Santa Maria California, - Town Center University Towne Centre California Yorkdale Ontario Shopping Centre Fairview Mall Ontariok s' 20 f be restriped to achieve a 15 to 30 per- • By providing separate parking bays • In existing centers, by generally re- cent increase in spaces for a given designed for small vehicles. Many ducing stall widths to 8.5 feet, rec- area. Thus, existing centers designed centers currently allocate 20 per- ognizing that with the growing with full -size spaces can increase the cent or fewer spaces for small vehi- proportion of small vehicles, it is in- number of vehicles accommodated in cles. This proportion is likely to creasingly less likely that two large the same physical area or, where ap- increase in the future. For compact vehicles will park adjacent to one propriate, can reduce the total area de- cars, parking bay widths of 54 feet another; thus, space for opening voted to parking. are suggested. These widths will ac- doors (which governs the required commodate compacts parked at 90 distance between adjacently parked Recent studies by the United States De- degrees on both sides of the aisles, vehicles) and stall width can be re- partment of Transportation indicate with stalls 15 to 17 feet in length duced. that, by 1990, depending on fuel avail- and 7.5 to.8 feet in width. This sys- ability and prices, the percent of all au- tem can always be used in new cen- Rearranging a surface parking area to tomobiles in the United States that are accommodate compact vehicles can ters, and, depending on conditions, compact could reach a high of 95 per- might also be adapted to existing dramatically improve capacity, resulting cent, with the most likely proportion centers. Using this bay width in the in additional spaces in the same area or being somewhere between 70 and 80 design of a center will allow the the same number of spaces in less area percents When more than one out of to serve the same demand. Surface present accommodation of full -size three vehicles parked at a center are cars angle parked and therefore a parking facilities, used by most shop - compacts, it is appropriate to consider ping centers, are easier to redesign in special accommodation of these vehi gradual transition to compact car - space over time without parking lot order to serve compact vehicles than cles. At present, the proportion of com- redesign. are parking structures in which physical pacts appears to vary from center to conditions such as columns and ramps center depending on regional location • By cross -aisle separation of full -size may restrain the conversion. and demographics. Over time, as the and compact cars to facilitate com - total percent of compact cars rises, it is pacts parked perpendicularly on - - — - obvious that these variances will de- one side and full -size vehicles cline. Centers can accommodate com- parked at an angle on the other pacts in several ways: side, using the Drachman System of parking or comparable methods. ' The 54 -foot bay width is also used in this system. (See Figure 7.) 21 s. Figure 7 - Drachman System of Parking Small and lar ec r ( Small as in one bay) 14 Compact 9 Standard Cars Cars 5 4'— _ fi 7 60' r ' x, 90,_, 10' 6„ map n , , x--15' A n� Basic Concept Comparison of Drachman System to Standard System The Drachman System uses 90- degree angle spaces for small Drachman System cars in the same bay in which 45- or 60- degree angle spaces are Standard Spaces provided for large cars. This self- enforcing plan uses standard Compact Spaces 4 space stalls 8.5 or 9.0 feet by 18 feet, while compact spaces are Total 14 7.5 feet wide by 15 feet long within a bay idth of 54 feet. y Standard System 23 Total Standard Spaces 18 22 Increase in Spaces Drachman over Standard 5 Percentage Increase o 28 /o Glossary Anchor tenant. The major retail tenant of a shopping center Parking indices. The number of spaces per 1,000 square feet (typically a department store of 100,000 square feet or more or of GLA. a supermarket at a smaller shopping center). These retail ten- ants are the .primary attractions at a center. Public transit. Transportation services available to all custom- ers (for example, buses, taxis, subways), as opposed to private Central business district (CBD). That portion of a municipality transportation (private automobiles). in which the dominant land use is intense business activity (primarily office and retail). Regression analysis. A statistical method showing the func- tional dependent relationship between one variable (i.e., park- Compact car. For purposes of this study, any vehicle with an ing demand) and one or more other variables (i.e., GLA size overall length of 16 feet or less and an overall width of less category, selected tenant mix, available public mass transit). than 6 feet. Shopping center. A group of architecturally unified commer- Design hour. The hour of a day or year, selected as being cial establishments built on a site which is planned, devel- among the most active periods in a shopping center, which oped, owned, and managed as an operating unit related in its forms a suitable basis for future design. location, size, and type of shops to the trade area that the unit Food service tenants. Includes both full service and fast food serves. The unit provides on -site parking in definite relation - restaurants with or without liquor service, as well as specialty ship to the types and total size of the stores. stores such as doughnut shops or ice cream parlors. Tenant mix. The composition of tenants occupying a center. Gross leasable area (GLA). The total floor area designed for The mix of land uses influences the center environment, eco- nomic viability, and patronage. both tenant occupancy and exclusive use. This includes both owned and leased areas. Travel behavior. The characteristics of travel resulting from Mode choice. The method of transportation selected by center the broad range of choices people make in moving from points of origin to points of destination, based on such con - patrons and employees. siderations as the availability of alternative means of transpor- tation, costs, purpose and frequency of trips, and time. 23 e ACTION RECM ENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL RECONSIDER C1 ZONING NAtion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Bernards to recommend to the City Council that it reconsider zoning the parcel of land at the southwest corner of I - and Brookyn Boulevard to C1 and allowing churches as a special use, but alternately that an R3 zoning of the property could be considered as well since both zoning designations are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Nalecki, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. b. Convenience Restaurants in Najor Shopping Centers The Secretary then briefly reviewed a draft ordinance to make convenience food restaurants a permitted use within shopping centers over 250,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. He noted the history of the special use permit approving Arby's in Brookdale. The Planner pointed out that the draft ordinance would not allow convenience food restaurants which are drive -ups or are located in the parking lot of a major shopping center to be considered a permitted use. He noted that only convenience food restaurants located within the principal structure would be permitted uses. ACTION RECD" ENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE ArENDNENT REGARDING CONVENIENCE FOOD RESTAURANTS IN MAJOR SHOPPING CENTERS Notion by Commissioner Nalecki seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow convenience food restaurants to be considered a permitted use when located within a shopping center with over 250,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners N�alecki, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEYZ i/ a. Retail Parking Formula The Planner then reviewed with the Planning Commission a report from the Urban Land Institute on parking at retail shopping centers. He noted that the report recommends that the number of parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leaseable area increase as a center gets larger, whereas the City's existing ordinance allows the parking requirement to decrease as the center gets larger. The Planner explained that gross leaseable area was less than gross floor area and that this meant that the difference between the City's ordinance formula and that recommended by the ULI report was even greater. The Planner noted that there is noticeable excess parking in virtually every retail center in the City other than Brookdale at Christmas time. He stated that, if the City were to amend its ordinance to be more in line with the ULI report, the smaller centers would have some excess parking, but that Brookdale would not. The Planner also noted that the report addressed credits toward office use of retail space, theater use and restaurant use. He pointed out that the City's existing ordinance does allow a credit for restaurant uses within retail centers. He stated that he would bring back more information on the existing conditions in the City with respect to parking at retail centers and encouraged the Commission in the coming months to observe the extent to which excess parking exists during the Christmas holiday shopping season. There followed a discussion regarding what a change in the formula would do to existing retail establishments and how they would affect redevelopment of property. 8 -29 -85 -3- The Planner acknowledged that owners of existing retail establishments would probably wonder why the change had not been made years before, but that at least the change would be a benefit to them. He also stated that the change would facilitate a more intense use of property when it is redeveloped which would make tax increment financing more feasible. The Secretary pointed out that ordinance formulas are only averages and that some establishments will exceed the requirements and others will have parking left over. He suggested that the Commission continue to consider the matter and that perhaps a formal ordinance amendment could be presented at some time in the future if the Commision were satisfied that the present ordinance was too � restrictive. b. Earle Brown Farm Developments The Secretary then referred the Planning Commission's attention to a draft planned unit development (P.U.D.) ordinance which had been prepared by the City Attorney's office and offered it for Planning Commission consideration. He explained that the City has not finally closed on the Farm property, but that that should take place very soon. The Secretary went onto say that he was not sure whether the staff would propose rezoning part of the land south of the Farm to R7 immediately. He stated that the City's bond consultants have advised that the City sell bonds before January 1, 1986 or the City may lose the tax exempt status for the tax increment bonds. The Secretary stated that it has been the desire of the staff to take an appropriate amount of time in planning a redevelopment of the Farm, but that the financing options are pushing the City to make certain commitments before the first of the year. He stated that an office development may be proposed by Ryan Construction Company in the near future for the parcel of land immediately east of Earle Brown Drive and west of the Farm complex. Meanwhile, he commented, the residential aspect of the development program is more tentative at this time. He stated that the planned unit development ordinance would not only be used to regulate development in the Farm area, but in other redevelopment areas as well. He added that the draft P.U.D. ordinance would be a matter of further staff and Commission review and discussion over the next few months. c. Year 2000 Committee Report The e S cretary finally referred the Commission to the Year 2000 Committee Report - distributed with the Planning Commission Agenda. He noted the basic portions of the report, especially a matrix on trends and issues facing the City in the coming years. He explained that the Year 2000 Committee had not been formed to solve problems, only to identify them and set a tentative agenda for addressing them. He noted that the report also discusses the role of the Advisory Commissions and of institutionalizing the long range planning perspective. Chairman Lucht stated that if the assessments made in the Year 2000 Report are correct, the Council and the various advisory commissions would see the document much more as time goes on since it will address problems that need to be addressed in the future. ADJOURNMT Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Nalecki to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:03 p.m. 8 -29 -85 -4- Chairman 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. R 2. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3• A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 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. New parking delineators shall be surrounded by B612 curb and gutter in accordance with City Ordinance. 7. Site landscaping, including the underground irrigation system, shall be restored to the original Arthur Treacher's site landscape plan prior to release of the performance guarantee or a new landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the completion date in the performance agreement. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:14 p.m. and resumed at 9 :39 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEM (Retail Parking Formula) The Planner then introduced a discussion of the City's retail parking formula and reviewed the existing formula and two alternate formulas which he had devised for discussion purposes. He also reviewed with the Commission a table of required parking spaces under the various formulas for various sizes of buildings. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the staff had considered the possbility of allowing smaller stalls for compact vehicles. The Planner answered that that had been looked at, but that it had been rejected because it was felt that it would not be adequately enforceable in most of the parking lots in the City, particularly retail establishments. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that such stalls are used quite frequently in parking ramps where there is a use by the general public. The Secretary pointed out that parking ramps provide concrete physical barriers which prevent larger cars from using such uch stalls. g He explained that it would be more difficult to restrict the use of such stalls in an_o en parking lot p p g o and cited an experiment by Brookdale to put in such stalls in their lot which had failed. The Planner went on to explain that the alternate formulas given to the Commission would mainly affect the parking requirement for smaller retail buildings. He stated that, as the building got larger, the difference between these alternate formulas and the existing formula would narrow to become insignificant. He 2 -13 -86 -7- explained that the existing formula requires more stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. for smaller buildings than for larger buildings. He added that a study by the Urban Land Institute showed just the opposite relationship between building size and parking demand. He also showed the Planning Commission some aerial photographs that had been taken over the Christmas shopping period of Brookdale and some of the surrounding retail establishments. The Secretary pointed out that a parking requirement may be more or less excessive depending on the particular tenant mix of a building. He stated that, as the mix changed, the parking demand might also change. He also explained that parking requirements serve as form of density control to limit the amount of building that can be put on a parcel of land. He also stated that many spaces go unused because they are not very accessible to the building. He noted that proof -of- parking has been allowed in peripheral areas of some major developments where it was felt that the stalls would not be used and the space would be more appropriately kept in green area. Chairman Lucht asked what uses would be affected by the alternate formulas. The Planner explained that it would affect retail developments only, not medical buildings, restaurants, service stations or other uses allowed in the C2 zoning district. The Planner went on to explain that, typically, stores with big ticket items, such as appliances, furniture, stereos, etc., draw less parking demand than stores which deal in smaller items. He stated that it would be unwise to try to tailor the parking ordinance to fit a particular mix of tenants since these tenant mixes change and buildings would actually have less flexibility to change occupancy than if there was a single formula that was adequate for all tenant uses. The Planner discussed more thoroughly the alternate formulas. He pointed out that the second alternate formula would be more in line with what was recommended by the Urban Land Institute study, but would have a very drastic effect in reducing the parking requirement for buildings under 30,000 sq. ft. in floor area. He noted the percentage change listed on the table. He noted that under the ULI study, office parking requirements should actually be greater than retail requirements, the opposite of the City's existing parking ordinance. He stated that other cities have parking requirements in the neighborhood of 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. He noted that the first alternate formula would basically be a requirement of 5.5 spaces per 1, 000 sq. ft. He explained that the need for 10 spaces for the first 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area was to deal with the small convenience store operations which have only 2,000 sq. ft. and yet draw very rapid turnover traffic. There was a brief discussion regarding the implications of a reduced parking requirement. The Planner acknowledged that a lower parking requirement would probablly lead to higher density of development, at least on smaller parcels. He stated, however, that higher developement potential probably meant higher profit potential and consequently the possiblity for higher quality. He suggested that perhaps as a tradeoff for reducing the parking requirement the City should enact more detailed landscaping requirements to ensure that some of that quality did actually come about in site designs. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of upcoming business items, there was a motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:32 p.m. 2 -13 -86 .Chairman DISCUSSION ITEMS CONTINUED (/ b. Retail Parking Formula The Planner then distributed to the Commission a survey of suburban municipalities with their parking requirements for retail shopping centers. There followed a lengthy discussion as to the rationale behind changing the parking formula. Commissioner Sandstrom made the point that Brooklyn Center should be competitive with other communities in trying to attract business development in the City. Commissioners Nelson and Wallerstedt wished to know what the impact of a formula change would be on existing developments in the City. They asked whether it would have a favorable influence on redevelopment possibilities and or whether it would spur smaller out buildings in retail parking lots. The Planner acknowledged both of these possibilities and added that it might also allow for somewhat more intense use of existing structures, for instance with some additional restaurant space. He also suggested that more area could be devoted to landscaping within parking lots and on retail sites generally. He discussed with the Commission with St. Paul Book and Stationery building which reserves space within the building for proof of parking. He stated that this was a ludicrous arrangement and that it should be changed. He also stated that his own experience as a resident of Brooklyn Center was that the shopping centers and retail establishments, other than Brookdale, were never full, even during the Christmas shopping season. The Secretary urged the Commission to keep gross floor area as the unit of measure in determining parking space requirements. He advised against using leaseable area since this can change with internal building modifications. Mr. Steve Mosborg of Lombard Properties added that, based on his own experience in Colorado and elsewhere and from his reading of the study of the Urban Land Institute, he did. feel that the Brooklyn Center ordinance was overly burdensome at the low end of the scale. c. Landscape Requirements The Planner then distributed to the Commission a draft of a landscape point system where various sites would be required to provide a minimum number of landscape points per acre based on so many points per planting type. The Planner explained that the point system offered was somewhat arbitrary at this time and had not been tested extensively against existing projects. He did point out that the two site plans approved by the Planning Commission that evening did meet the standards set up in this point system. He also pointed out that it was important for the relative point differential between planting types to mirror the relative price differential between planting types so that there would not be an economic incentive to fulfill landscape requirements with only one type of planting. Commissioner Ainas agreed that there should be landscape standards with minimum numbers of plantings required. He suggested that less weight be given for potted plants since these can be provided in great numbers and they are only out and flourishing at a limited time of the year. The Planner pointed out that landscape standards would give the City some systematic basis for accepting or rejecting a proposed landscape plan. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:46 p.m. airman 3 -13 -86 -7- I / PUBLIC HEARING (APPLICATION NO. 86015) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Noting that there was no one present to speak regarding the application, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86015 (Viking Gym) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 86015, subject to the following conditions: 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. The expanded gymnasium use is subject to the conditions on the original special use permit granted under Application No. 82034. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom,Ainas, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none.: The motion passed. ( DISCUSSION ITEMS _ V a. Retail Parking Formula The Planner then reviewed with the Planning Commission a memo regarding a revised retail parking formula as suggested in the draft ordinance amendment attached to the Planning Commission's agenda. He noted the background evidence supporting the understanding that there is an excess requirement, particularly for smaller retail buildings. He then reviewed alternate formulas, including a - formula suggested by the Urban Land Institute, parking formulas of other communities, and the draft formula contained in the ordinance amendment. The Planner went on to review some of the implications for existing development, new development and redevelopment as a result of the proposed formula change. Finally, he reviewed some of the major arguments in favor of and opposed to changing the ordinance formula for retail parking. He concluded by recommending that the formula be adopted. The Secretary and the Planner suggested that the Planning Commission review the memo in more detail and perhaps consider acting on the draft ordinance amendment at the next Planning Commission meeting or at some time in the future. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether this ordinance change would affect office buildings. The Planner responded in the negative. b. Landscape Standards The Planner then distributed to the Planning Commission a draft ordinance on landscape planting standards. He noted that this draft had been distributed to the Planning Commission at an earlier meeting. He also gave the Planning Commission a list of six sites that had recently been reviewed by the Planning Commission and calculated the number of landscape points that each site plan would be credited with under the proposed pointing system. He noted that two of the six would not meet the standard tentatively offered. 4 -10 -86 _5_ Throughout the discussion of landscape requirements, the Planning Commission considered the question of whether the point system should be put into the zoning ordinance or whether it should be adopted by a resolution and used as a policy. There was some question as to whether a policy, not in ordinance form, would have the necessary legal status to require developers to submit plans that met the point system. It was concluded after considerable discussion that the Planning Commission has adequate leverage in approving and disapproving landscape plans to bring about compliance with the point system and other landscape requirements and that a resolution would allow for experimentation. By consensus of those present, the staff was directed to prepare a resolution which would put into effect the point system for landscaping and other landscape requirements to be adopted as a Planning Commission policy for the review of landscape plans. b. Retail Parking Formula The Planner stated that he had nothing new to offer on the question of the retail parking formula, but that the matter had been held over for two weeks to give the City Manager and anyone else on the City staff or the Planning Commission time to raise any objections to the proposed change. The Secretary stated that he had held some discussions with the City and that Manager he time. g felt action could be taken at this ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ALTERING THE RETAIL PARKING FORMULA — — Motion by Commissioner Bernards secorZled by Commissioner Malecki to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment reducing the retail parking formula from the Present formula to approximately five spaces per 1, 000 sq. ft . of gross floor area up to 500,000 sq. ft. and 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. thereafter. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. c. Central Neighborhood Advisory Group Meeting The Secretary then advised the Planning Commission that a meeting of the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group would be held on May 1, 1986 at Brookdale Christian Center Assembly of God Church. The Secretary also discussed with the Commission the status of the Neighborhood Advisory Groups which have not been used heavily in the past. He stated that many people have either moved away or are no longer interested in serving and that the groups should be reconstituted over the coming year or so. He stated that the staff would develop.a form letter to send out to people in the Neighborhood Groups to keep track of who is still interested in serving. The Planner suggested the possibility of notifying members of Neighborhood Advisory Groups of special use permits and major development plans within their neighborhoods so that they are aware of planning applications that might affect their neighborhoods g . He clarifed that he was not suggesting that hat all of these matters be referred to Neighborhood Groups for review and comment. The Secretary and members of the Commission generally agreed with this idea so that members of these advisory groups Y g P would be aware of what is of neighborhoods. g ng on in their The Secretary also informed the Commission that the American Planning Association Minnesota Chapter would present the City with an award on Saturday for the Year 2000 Report. He stated that Councilman Gene Lhotka would represent the City. 4 -24 -86 -2- 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 Commission's April 10, 1986 agenda. 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 the 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- i 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 plan for this site. There is also the fact 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 s. 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 general level of parking demand is also much less than required by the City'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 wi 11 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- r -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 50.0,000 sq. ft. - 5.5 spaces /1,000 sq. ft. of G.F.A. over 500,000 sq. ft. 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 e ghborhood centers where the excess is most apparent. It would also, however, keep 10 stall requirement for the first P Q 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 development are that some additions to buildings would be feasible which g c are not under the existing M ace ores g P 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. he question Y q on of density Y is alw 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. 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 -3- M 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. - 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 such plans which will bring about more investment in the community. -4- t 1 -Areas in the City in need of redevelopment could benefit. The cost of removing obsolete and unsightly buildings invariably requires that the new development achieve a higher density than the old. Parking requirements are, of course, directly related to potential densities. A reduced parking requirement would 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% 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 c apical 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 V Retail parking Formulas Bldg. Size Required Parking i (Gross Floor Area) Existing Formula Alternate-Formula Diff. Change 1,000 sq. ft. 11 10 -1 9% 2,000 sq. ft. 19 15 -4 -21% 3,000 sq. ft. 27 20 -7 -26% 4,000 sq. ft. 35 25 -10 -29% 5,000 sq. ft. 43 30 -13 -30°% 8,000 sq. ft. 67 45 -22 -33% 10,000 sq. ft. 83 55 -28 -34% 12,000 sq. ft. 99 65 -34 -34% 15,000 sq. ft. 123 80 -43 -35% 20,000 sq. ft. 153 105 -48 -31% 25,000 sq. ft. 183 130 -53 -29% 30,000 sq. ft. 213 155 -58 -27% 40,000 s t . f 268 - - q 205 63 24% 50,000 sq. ft. 323 255 -68 -21% 60,000 sq. ft. 378 305 -73 -19% 70,000 sq. ft. 433 355 -78 -18% 85,000 sq. ft. 515.5 430 -85.5 -17% 100,000 sq. ft. 598 505 -93 -16% 250,000 sq. ft. 1423 1255 -168 -12% 500,000 sq. ft. 2798 2505 -293 -10% 1,000,000 sq. ft. 5548 5255 -293 -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 APRIL 24, 1986 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:40 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Lowell Ainas and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioners Sandstrom, Nelson and Wallerstedt were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 10, 1986 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the April 10, 1986 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Valecki, Ainas, and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Chairman Lucht dispensed with the explanation because there was no public business. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Landscape Requirements The Commission then took up the subject of a point system for evaluating landscape plans. They discussed a number of questions. One was the possibility of applying the point system to residential developments as well as commercial and industrial developments. The Planner noted that the present requirement of 6 " diameter trees based on the number of units tended to result in denser landscaping in denser zoning districts whereas the point system applying to the other zoning districts is based on land area, not building area or number of units. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the minimums proposed in the point system would be adequate. The Planner responded that the point system would basically codify the existing level of landscaping on fairly good sites in the community and would insure that sites would not fall below a decent standard. Commissioner Ainas stated that architects have told him that this kind of point system is good because it allows them to estimate their costs ahead of time. There followed a discussion of how to treat existing trees. It was acknowledged that existing trees, being much larger than new plantings, are worth more immediately. It was also pointed out, however, that an existing tree would always be a single tree and that the points might be better used in the long run by providing additional new trees. The Commission also discussed putting in a requirement for sod. The Planner also suggested that it be clearly stated that screening and buffer requirements are not obviated by simply meeting the point requirements, but that those screening w u t et a art f the g o would have o be m p from e po int requirements. 4 -24 -86 -1- Throughout the discussion of landscape requirements, the Planning Commission considered the question of whether the point system should be put into the zoning ordinance or whether it should be adopted by a resolution and used as a policy. There was some question as to whether a policy, not in ordinance form, would have the necessary legal status to require developers to submit plans that met the point system. It was concluded after considerable discussion that the Planning Commission has adequate leverage in approving and disapproving landscape plans to bring about compliance with the point system and other landscape requirements and that a resolution would allow for experimentation. By consensus of those present, the staff was directed to prepare a resolution which would put into effect the point system for landscaping and other landscape requirements to be adopted as a Planning Commission policy for the review of landscape plans. b. Retail Parking Formula The Planner stated that he had nothing new to offer on the question of the retail parking formula, but that the matter had been held over for two weeks to give the City Manager and anyone else on the City staff or the Planning Commission time to raise any objections to the proposed change. The Secretary stated that he had held some discussions with the City Manager and that he felt action could be taken at this time. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ALTERING THE RETAIL PARKING FORMULA — — Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment reducing the retail parking formula from the Present formula to approximately five spaces per 1, 000 sq. ft. of gross floor area up to 500,000 sq. ft. and 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. thereafter. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. c. Central Neighborhood Advisory Group Meeting The Secretary then advised the Planning Commission that a meeting of the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group would be held on May 1, 1986 at Brookdale Christian Center Assembly of God Church. The Secretary also discussed with the Commission the status of the Neighborhood Advisory Groups which have not been used heavily in the past. He stated that many people have either moved away or are no longer interested in serving and that the groups should be reconstituted over the coming year or so. He stated that the staff would develop a form letter to send out to people in the Neighborhood Groups to keep track of who is still interested in serving. The Planner suggested the possibility of notifying members of Neighborhood Advisory Groups of special use permits and major development plans within their neighborhoods so that they are aware of planning applications that might affect their neighborhoods. He clarifed that he was not suggesting that all of these matters be referred to Neighborhood Groups for review and comment. The Secretary and members of the Commission generally agreed with this idea so that members of these advisory groups would be aware of what is going on in their neighborhoods. The Secretary also informed the Commission that the American Planning Association Minnesota Chapter would present the City with an award on Saturday for the Year 2000 Report. He stated that Councilman Gene Lhotka would represent the City. is 4-24-86 -2- i ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:01 p.m. Chairman 4-24-86 - 24 86 3_ 3 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , of 1986 at p.m. at the City Hall, 301 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. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561- 5440 to make 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 -704. MINIMUM PARKING SPACES REQUIRED 2. Commerce (Retail and Service /Office) c. Other retail stores or centers and financial institutions: [Eleven] Ten spaces for the first 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or fraction thereof; [eight spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in excess of 1,000 square feet, but not exceeding 15,000 square feet; six spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in 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 30,000 square feet.] Five (5) spaces for each additional 1,000 square feet of gross floor area up to 500,000 square feet; 5.5 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area over 500,000 square feet. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) i Licenses to be approved by the City Council on May 5, 1986 AMUSEMENT DEVICE - OPERATOR Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Drive Chief of Police BULK VENDING LICENSE Brooklyn Center Lions 7131 Knox Avenue N. �� . ��( ' 4 ) -C C141 Yt Sanitarian CATERING FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE John Licciardi 1709 Polk Street NE Sanitarian FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Alano Society 4938 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Babe Ruth 72nd and Camden Brooklyn Center Babe Ruth 1600 59th Ave. N. B. C. National Little League Hwy. 100 and Lilac Dr. Chuck's Q. 1505 69th Avenue North 50's Grill 5524 Brooklyn Boulevard Harron United Methodist Church 5452 Dupont Ave. N. Kentucky Fried Chicken 5512 Brooklyn Boulevard Korean Presbyterian Church 6836 Quail Ave. N. St. Alphonsus Church 7025 Halifax Ave. N. r` Sanitarian �- � TINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Earle Brown PTA 5900 Humboldt Ave. N. l 1f Sanitarian z MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Burner Service & Combustion Control 2119 Lyndale Ave. S. Cronst rom s Heating Air Cond. Inc. 4410 g Excelsior Blvd. Egan & Sons Co. 7100 Medicine Lake Road Furnace Care Inc. 8733 Humboldt Ave. N. Golden Valley Heating & Air Cond. 5182 West Broadway Harris Mechanical Contracting Co. 2300 Territorial Road Hutton & Rowe, Inc. 2126 2nd Avenue Marsh Heating & Air Cond. 6248 Lakeland Ave. N. Riccar Heating 3095 162nd Lane NW G. Sedgwick Heating & Air Cond. 1001 Xenia Ave. S. / Superior Contractors, Inc. 6121 42nd Ave. N. �? t�- Build' g Official NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Northern Vending Co. 403 98th Ave. NE Brookdale Towers 2810 Cty. Road 10 U( • 7 1 k�}Z ; Sanitarian (. PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Northern Vending Co. 403 98th Ave. NE Brookdale Towers 2810 Cty. Road 10 Sanitarian RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Renewal: Kenneth E. Patterson 3614 50th Ave. N. Director of Planning SIGN HANGERS LICENSE and Inspection / Sign Service, Inc. 1016 N. 5th Street (,� . .,` 2L -li Build 'i'ng Official SWIMMING POOL LICENSE _ Earle Brown Farm Apartments 1701, 07 69th Ave. N. r( '7/Y'/✓✓� Sanitarian — GENERAL APPROVAL: 2 D. K. Weeks, City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspecti n ?�' DATE: May 1, 1986 SUBJECT: Rental Dwelling License for 3614 -16 50th Avenue North At the April 21, 1986 City Council meeting the approval of a rental dwelling license for Kenneth Patterson at 3614 -16 50th Avenue North was deferred after various questions were raised by Councilmember Hawes. He noted that it appeared that the occupants of the dwelling were parking on an unimproved boulevard area close to the corner of 50th and Ewing Avenues. Parkin g in this area caused some sight visibility problems at the intersection of Ewing and 50th, particularly for traffic that was southbound on Ewing seeing traffic that was westbound on 50th. Also, the boulevard where cars had been parked needed to be restored. The Building Inspector reviewed the site within the past week and verified that the area in question had been used for parking and needed to be repaired. He has contacted the owner of the building, who lives in one of the units, and advised him to notify tenants that parking on the unimproved driveway or on the boulevard is prohibited and that this area must be restored. A compliance order to this effect will be sent to the owner of the property and the Police Department will be requested to periodically review the area for compliance with the boulevard parking restrictions. . This property is licensed as a three -plex, although it has the appearance and addressing of a two - family dwelling. It is a rambler -style structure with two units on the ground level and a single car garage on each end. At one time the property had been licensed as a legal four -plex ( two units on the ground level and two basement units) . Now, however, it is licensed for three dwelling units as the owner occupies the easterly half of the dwelling and utilizes the upper and lower portions as a single dwelling unit. Based on the Inspector's report and expected compliance with prohibiting parking on the unimproved boulevard area and restoration of the area, it is recommended that the rental dwelling license for Kenneth Patterson at 3614 -16 50th Avenue North be approved. mlg cc: James Lindsay, Chief of Police Clay Larson, Building Inspector DEPARTMENT CITY OF OF ROOKLYN . FINANCE .0 ENTER MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Director of Finance DATE: May 5, 1986 SUBJECT: CONDITIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT OF CHARLES R. HANSEN FOR THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FINANCE It will be necessary for the City Council to approve by a motion tonight the special conditions for employment of Charles R. Hansen for the position of Assistant Director of Finance. A motion is necessary so as not to con - flict with City Ordinance, Section 17 -111, Subdivision 1 on vacation and Ordinance Section 17 -112, Subdivision 1 on sick leave. The motion should be as follows: "Motion to allow Charles R. Hansen three weeks of vacation accrual for his first ten years of employment with the City and then according to the personnel ordinance and a 100 hour block of sick leave, which can be used in the first year, but must be earned accord- ing to the City Plan before additional hours accrue." Paul W. Holmlund PWH:ps