Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 10-07 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER OCTOBER 7, 1985 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum 5. Approval of Consent Agenda All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a 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 *a. September 9, 1985 - regular session *b. September 16, 1985 - special session c. September 23, 1985 - regular session 7. Performance Bond Release *a. Quick Lube, 6806 Brooklyn Boulevard 8. Subdivision Bond Release: *a. Dale & Davies 1st Addition *9. Proclamation Declaring the Week of October 20 -26, 1985 as National Business Women's Week 10. Resolutions: *a. Authorizing Loan from Capital Projects Fund to Liquor Fund -This resolution will authorize a loan for the acquisition and remodeling f the Humboldt Liquor g q or Store. b. Relating to a Project under the Municipal Industrial Development Act and Calling for a Public Hearing Thereon -This resolution relates to awarding industrial development bonds to Ryan Construction Company. c. Approving and Authorizing the Execution of a Negotiation Agreement *d. Authorizing the Mhyor and City Manager to Execute an Agreement with the Shingle Creek Land Company Relating to Surplus MN /DOT Right -of- Way Adjacent to Tract B, R.L.S. 1377 R i CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- October 7, 1985 11. Planning Commission Items: (7:15 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 85026 submitted by Ryan Construction Company requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel of land at the northeast corner of John Fartin Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway. This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September 26, 1985 meeting. b. Planning Commission Application No. 85028 submitted by Gregory L'Allier requesting special use permit approval to conduct a chiropractic office home occupation in the residence at 6336 Lee Avenue North. This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September 26, 1985 meeting. c. Planning Commission Application No. 85029 submitted by Lombard Properties, Inc. requesting site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a two -phase office development, south of Freeway Boulevard and north of I -94 in the I -1 zone, east of Earle Brown Bowl. This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September 26, 1985 meeting. d. Planning Commission Application No. 85030 submitted by Lombard Properties, Inc. requesting preliminary R.L.S. approval to resubdivide into five tracts the three tracts of land south of Freeway Boulevard between Earle Brown Bowl and the Holiday Inn, and vacated highway right- of-way where the old Humboldt interchange used to be.- This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September 26, 1985 meeting. 12. Ordinances: a. Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Allow Chapels, Churches, Synagogues, and Temples as a.Special Use in the R5 Zoning District (7 :34 P.M.) -This item was first read on September 9, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on September 19, 1985, and is offered this evening for a second reading. This item requires a 4/5 vote by the City Council. b. Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Allow Convenience Food Restaurants as a Permitted Use in Shopping Centers over 250,000 Sq. Ft. in Floor Area (8:00 p.m.) -This ordinance was first read on September 9, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on September 19, 1985,_ and is offered this evening for a second reading. This item requires a 4/5 vote by the City Council. 13 Discussion Items: a. Sewer Lift Claims b. Joint School -City Meeting, November 25, 1985 7:00 p.m. *14. Licenses 15. Adjournment A,, y " MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council and Housing & Redevelopment Authority FROM: Gene A. Lhotka, Councilmember SUBJECT: City Council and HRA Agendas for 10/7/85 DATE: October 4, 1985 The reason I am writing this memo is because I will be out of town Monday, October 7, and have concerns over some of the items on the agendas. I would like this memo to be part of the public record showing my concerns. The following are my concerns: 10a on the Council agenda. I have no idea what they are saying here. Is this different from what has been approved already? I will leave it up to the Council, but would like to know what it's all about. . 10B on the Council agenda and 4A on the HRA agenda. Originally Brad stated that the site would take a 137,000 square foot building (approximately) based on peak hour traffic generation, but that could be expanded to a 179,000 square foot building if X amount of traffic generation was taken away from housing development. The proposal right now is asking for a 120,000 square foot building immediately and a second building size to be determined later. I am not content with that. We have certain figures we use to determine the size of the building, and I see no problem using those figures at this point to make that determination. In essence, what I am gathering from Brad is that Ryan wants cheaper dollars, larger buildings and the staff is willing to give it to him and I am opposed to it. I am also opposed to the cheap dollars. We had budget items 'left over from the special budget meeting and I'am requesting that those items not be dealt with until I am there. t (dictated but not read) cc: staff - f MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION SEPTEMBER 9, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Housing Coordinator Brad Hoffman, and Deputy City Clerk Geralyn Barone. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Lhotka. 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, and no requests were made. PROCLAMATION Councilmember Scott introduced the following proclamation and moved its adoption: PROCLAMATION DECLARING SEPTEMBER 17 THROUGH 23 AS CONSTITUTION WEEK IN BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing proclamation was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said proclamation was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 85 -161 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION URGING CONGRESS TO ADOPT S.F. 1570 EXEMPTING STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES FROM THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and 9 -9 -85 -1- s the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the following list of licenses: MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Cronstrom's Heating & Air Cond. 4410 Excelsior Blvd. Flare Heating &Air Con d. � d• 664 Mendelssohn Ave. N. NON- PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd. Cass Screw Mfg. 4748 France Ave. N. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager introduced a Resolution Declaring September 16, 1985 through September 22, 1985 as Crime Prevention Week in Brooklyn Center. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Phil Cohen, President of the Brooklyn Center Crime Prevention Fund, who requested the City Council's consideration for declaring Crime Prevention Week. Mr. Cohen reviewed a recent activity report of the Crime Prevention Fund and introduced two members of the Board of Directors of the Crime Prevention Fund who are serving as chairpersons of Crime Prevention Week committees. Mr. Cohen recognized Mr. Warren Lindquist, chairperson of the Walk -A Thon Committee, and Officer Dave Grass, chairperson of the Police Department open house. Mr. Cohen also recognized Mary Jane Gustafson, another board member of the Crime Prevention Fund, who is present at this evening's meeting. Mayor Nyquist recognized Officer Grass who said the open house in the Police Department is scheduled for September 22, 1985 beginning at "1 :00 p.m., and briefly reviewed activities scheduled for the open house. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Lindquist who stated the Walk -A -Thon i's scheduled for September 21, 1985. He noted that this year's Walk -A -Thon will be more of a family affair because of the desire to include adults in the Walk A -Thon. Councilmember Hawes asked where the Walk -A -Thon starts, and Mr. Lindquist stated it begins in Central Park. Mayor Nyquist again recognized Mr. Cohen who noted Mary Jane Gustafson was chairperson of the Walk -A -Thon committee in 1983 and 1984. He stated the original goal of the Crime Prevention Fund of raising $25,000 remains the same, and $17,000 has already been raised. He noted the Crime Prevention Fund operation is different from most communities because it involves a public /private partnership with cooperation from both City officials and private citizens. Mr. Cohen thanked the City for its cooperation and asked the City Council to consider the resolution before ore them evenin . this Councilmember Hawes asked at what of g point a neighborhood watch sign can be posted in a neighborhood, and Mr. Cohen responded saying that once a neighborhood watch group is established signs may be obtained by contacting the Police Department. 4 9 -9 -85 -2- RESOLUTION NO. 85 -162 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING SEPTEMBER 16 TO SEPTEMBER 22, 1985 AS CRIME PREVENTION WEEK IN BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. OPEN FORUM (CONTINUED) Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Cohen who stated as Chairman of the Brooklyn Center High School 25th anniversary he would like to invite members of the Council to the scheduled events. He requested that a resolution recognizing the 25th anniversary be considered at the September 23, 1985 City Council meeting. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager introduced a Resolution Ordering Abatement of Nuisance at 5126 Drew Avenue North. Councilmember Theis noted that it appears the City has worked a great deal with the residents at 5126 Drew Avenue North and the City has not received much cooperation, so it may be time to take action. The City Manager stated that the resolution before the City Council this evening is the last option considered by the City. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated an attempt had been made to make an inspection on the last compliance report, but the inspector was unable to gain entry into the house. He stated there were some garbage bags outside of the house which appears to show some effort on the part of the residents to comply, but he urged the Council to pass the resolution which would give the resident 20 days for compliance. He added this allows the residents some time for correction before the City would have to clean the site if compliance is not met. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -163 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND HAZARDOUS CONDITION OF REAL ESTATE EXISTING AT 5126 DREW AVENUE NORTH IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCES The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Allow Convenience Food Restaurants as a permitted use in shopping centers over 250,000 sq. ft. in floor area. The City Manager stated this ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening, and requires a 4/5 vote by the Council. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated this item was discussed at the August 29, 1985 Planning Commission meeting and was recommended for approval to the City Council. He noted this ordinance amendment was drafted in response to an application before the City Council in August relating to Arby's special use 9 -9 -85 -3- application at Brookdale Center. He stated following review of the proposal, it was determined that it would be best to allow convenience food restaurants as permitted uses rather than special uses. Councilmember Hawes asked how many shopping centers in Brooklyn Center are over 250,000 sq. ft. in floor area, and the Director of Planning & Inspection stated that Brookdale Center is the only one. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Allow Convenience Food Restaurants as a permitted use in shopping centers over 250, 000 sq. ft. in floor area and to set the public hearing date on the ordinance for October 7, 1985 at 8:00 p.m. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Allow Chapels, Churches, Synagogues, and Temples as a Special Use in the R5 Zoning District. He stated this ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening, and relates to-Planning Commission Application No. 85009 submitted by Foundation Stone Ministries, Inc. He added this item requires a 4/5 vote by the Council. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that following the City Council consideration at the last meeting in which the first reading of this ordinance failed due to lack of an extraordinary majority, the ordinance was returned to the Planning Commission. He stated the Planning Commission had no further comments on the ordinance and had reviewed the various options and affects of the ordinance. He noted that at the August 29, 1985 meeting of the Planning Commission, it was recommended that the City Council reconsider zoning the parcel of land at the southwest corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard to C1 and allowing churches as a special use, but alternately that an R3 zoning of the property could be considered as well because both the zoning designations are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Director of Planning & Inspection informed the Council that the applicant requests that if the first reading of this ordinance passes, they wish to proceed with the application process knowing the City Council must pass the second reading of the ordinance before final approval can be granted. Council-member Theis asked if both C1 and R3 zoning are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plana and the Director of Planning & Inspection stated that both are consistent. Councilmember Hawes asked for confirmation that the Council could approve the first reading of the ordinance this evening but review of the permits by the City would occur prior to final passage of the ordinance. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that with approval of the first reading of the ordinance this evening, the public hearing would be set for October 7, 1985 and the City Council would have the option of delaying final action at that time. He noted with rezoning of property, the City Council has often held off the effective date of an ordinance amendment until all submitted plans have been approved. Mayor Nyquist pointed out that it would be dangerous to go too far through the process if there will not be enough votes to pass the ordinance anyway. A discussion ensued on what uses are permitted on the site and what would be permitted with any ordinance changes. Councilmember Hawes expressed concern for safe access to Brooklyn Boulevard from the site, and the Director of Planning & Inspection stated concerns about access can be controlled by either plan approval or 9 -9 -85 -4- Special use approval given by the City Council. There was a discussion on improving access to the site by incorporating lots south of the proposed site and moving the access further south on Brooklyn Boulevard. Councilmember Theis asked what the procedure would be and how much time would be involved if the City Council wishes to pursue rezoning the site to R3. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated either the City or the owner must initiate the rezoning process, and this could take another 60 to 90 days before reaching the City Council again. He added such action would have significant impact on the application. Councilmember Lhotka stated there have been several proposals before the City Council in the past, and he cannot understand why a C1 zone is not an appropriate use. He added he personally prefers a C1 zone. Mayor Nyquist suggested the City work together with the residents to investigate the possibilities of combining the lots in an effort to improve access to the site. Councilmember Theis stated he would prefer to see the site developed with as good of access to Brooklyn Boulevard as possible and would even approve of purchasing the lots to improve access if necessary. He asked if the homes on the three lots south of the application site have convenance, and the City Manager responded affirmatively. Councilmember Theis said his concern is not of what use is made of the property, but rather of the potential traffic problems. Councilmember Scott stated her preference is to make churches special uses in R5 zones because then the City would have control of development of the site. Councilmember Theis requested staff to investigate the alternatives for improving access to the site, and the City Manager stated that at the September 23, 1985 City Council meeting a report could be presented. Mayor Nyquist suggested the City Council pass the first reading of the ordinance this evening and instruct staff to review the alternatives in the meantime. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. K. Peter Stalland, an attorney representing the owner of the property involved in the application. Mr. Stalland urged the City Council to pass the first reading this evening and stated the seller of the property believes the church is the most appropriate use because of the lower traffic levels to be generated. He pointed out that his client does not want the property to be rezoned to R3 because his client would suffer some economic damage if this were done. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Allow Chapels, Churches, Synagogues, and Temples as a Special Use in the R5 Zoning District and to set the public hearing date on the ordinance for October 7, 1985 at 7 :30 p.m, Mayor Nyquist stated he would support the motion with the understanding that staff would investigate alternatives, and Councilmember Theis stated he also wishes to have the staff explore alternatives. Upon vote being taken on the foregoing motion, the following members voted in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: Councilmember Lhotka. The motion passed. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to 9 -9 -85 -5- direct City staff to explore the alternatives for improving access to the site and to P g report findings to the City Council at the September 23, 1985 City Council meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Director of Planning & Inspection asked if the applicant may pursue a special use permit knowing the risks involved, and Mayor Nyquist responded affirmatively. Councilmember Theis stated the applicant may proceed at his own risk knowing the possibility that the final reading of the ordinance amendment may not be approved. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 85022 SUBMITTED BY JOAN MOE REQUESTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO OPERATE A PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIO IN THE BASEMENT OF THE RESIDENCE AT 9�RIMES AVENUE NORTH TMie City Manager -stated d this item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its August 15, 1985 meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted this application was laid over from the last City Council meeting because the applicant was not present. He added this evening the applicant is present, and proceeded to review the application. Councilmember Hawes asked if the City has had any problems with other photography studios within Brooklyn Center, and the Director of Planning & Inspection stated he is not aware of any problems. Councilmember Lhotka asked what the width of the house is, and the Director of Planning & Inspection stated he believes it is 42 feet wide. Councilmember Lhotka asked if an addition is built, would it be less than one /third of the first floor area. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted there are no provisions in the ordinance stating the perimeters of a work area, and noted the addition would serve both as a family room and an area where photographs- can be taken. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 85022 submitted by Joan Moe requesting special use permit approval to operate a photography studio in the basement of the residence at 6906 Grimes Avenue North. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested_ to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 85022. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lhotka asked if the hours of operation of the studio are 10:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m., seven days a week. Mayor Nyquist recognized the applicant, Ms. Joan Moe, 6906 Grimes Avenue North, who stated the primary use of the studio would be on Monday through Friday, because usually weddings are photographed on Saturdays away from the studio. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Planning Commission Application No. 85022 subject to the following conditions: 9 -9 -85 -6- 1. Special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is nontransferable. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3• The hours of operation shall be from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. by appointment only. 4. The applicant shall install a 10 lb. fire extinguisher in the area of the home occupation. 5. The premises shall be inspected by the Building Official and any recommendations made by the Building Official with respect to proper ingress and egress of the premises shall be completed prior to the issuance of the special use permit 6. The applicant shall widen the driveway on the premises to 20 feet from the street to the front of the house prior to the issuance of the special use A permit. 7. Permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:12 p.m. and reconvened at 8:28 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING ON ANNUAL CITY BUDGET AND USE OF FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS The City Manager stated this evening an overview of the annual City budget and use of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds will be presented to the City Council,_ and the public hearing may be continued to September 16, 1985• The Finance Director began the overview by reviewing aspects of the proposed budget, and then proceeded to discuss revenues, federal revenue sharing, and other funding sources. He stated at the September 16, 1985 special City Council meeting, individual departmental budgets would be reviewed. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to continue the public hearing on the annual City budget and use of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds to September 16, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS EARLE BROWN FARM PROJECT UPDATE The City Manager informed the City Council of information discussed at the most recent Earle Brown Farm Committee meeting and stated the committee is scheduled to 9 -9 -85 -7- meet again next week. The City Manager stated he will provide a written report to the City Council on the Earle Brown Farm Committee's progress and will also forward minutes of the committee meetings to the City Council. He stated no action is required by the City Council at this time. Mayor Nyquist reported on his most recent meeting of the North Suburban Mayor's Group and stated he did not sign a resolution before the Mayors regarding fiscal disparaties. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10:00 p .m. Deputy City Clerk Mayor I � 9 -9 -85 -8- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL SESSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1985 CITY HALL Y ,x r CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn, Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:07 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 Finance Paul Holmlund, and Deputy City `Clerk Geralyn Barone. PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Nyquist reconvened the public hearing on the 1986 annual City Budget and use of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. Councilmembers began review of the 1986 revenues for the City. The Director of Finance noted the state homestead credit is contained in the ad valorem levy. Councilmember Lhotka requested an explanation for the large increase in rental dwelling permits, and the Director of Finance stated that revenues received from this permit are higher every other year and 1985 was one of the low years. Councilmember Theis requested that City staff review the license fee structure, and the City Manager stated that this review is in progress and will be completed by December 31, 1985. Mayor Nyquist proceeded to the review of the appropriation budget, and began with ,the City Council Budget, Unit No. 11. The City Manager stated that contrary to his budget message, funds have been allocated for lobbying. Councilmember Hawes stated he objects to lobbying efforts, and the City Manager stated that although the City has not expended anything in this account, he recommends maintaining the fund. Mayor Nyquist said he would like to keep the lobbying fund in the budget, but spending of such funds should be done judiciously. The Council next reviewed the Charter Commission Budget, Unit No. 12. The Council had no questions at this time. The Council proceeded to review the City Manager's Office Budget, Unit No. 13. The City Manager pointed out that the Office M'anager's position would be shifted to that of City Clerk, and the position of Administrative Aid would be added to the staff as a paraprofessional position between the Clerk IV and Administrative Assistant position. "Councilmember Lhotka asked if the shift of the Office Manager to City Clerk would be a promotion, and the City Manager stated it would be. Councilmember Lhotka requested additional detail on the capital outlay for government access television, and the City Manager stated he would prepare this information. Councilmember Theis asked for what purpose the paper shredder would be used, and the City Manager stated it would be used to shred documents that the City is required to purge. The Council next reviewed the Elections and Voter's Registration Budget, Unit No. 9 -16 -85 -1- y 14. The City Manager stated that the request for 1986 is more expensive than 1985 because two elections will be held in 1986. Councilmember Hawes asked why the Professional Services' Budget is doubling for 1986, and the City Manager stated this item includes fees for paying election judges, and with two elections in 1986 the amount is doubled. The Council had no questions on the Assessing Department Budget, Unit No. 15• The Council had no questions on the Finance Department Budget, Unit No. 16. The Council proceeded to review the Independent Audit Budget, Unit No. 17. Councilmember Theis requested staff to present the total audit bill, and to inform the Council of those people in the field responsible for completing the audit. The Director of Finance stated this information would be prepared for the Council. The Council then reviewed the Legal Counsel Budget, Unit No. 18. The Council expressed concern for the ever - increasing costs for legal services, and directed staff to present additional justification for the increases. The Council also requested that staff investigate alternatives that may help lower or maintain legal costs. The City Manager said staff will prepare such information. The Council proceeded to review the Government Buildings Budget, Unit No. 19. The Council requested information on why the request for equipment repair has nearly doubled, and the City Manager stated he would provide the staff with additional information on this item. Councilmember Lhotka asked for an explanation of other contractual service and janitorial service. The City Manager stated the janitorial service is for cleaning of the police department which is done by a service agency, and the Director of Finance stated the other contractual service is for regular maintenance of the cooling and heating equipment. The Council turned to the Data Processing Budget, Unit No. 20. Councilmember Theis requested additional information and clarification of the memorandum prepared by the City Engineer, as well as a projection of all future costs for such a project. Councilmember Theis asked what the timing of the project is, and the City Manager stated that at the earliest, the project would commence at the start of 1986. Councilmember Theis expressed concern for investing $30,000 in a project and stated he does not want the City using the logic that once $30,000 is invested in a project it is too late to back out of it. Councilmember Theis then asked what the fire department would be receiving as part of the Logis system. The City Manager stated that Brooklyn Center would be participating with other communities and it will allow the Fire Department to collect more information on their activities. The Council continued their review of the 1986 budget by proceeding to the Police Department Budget, Unit No. 31. Councilmember Theis asked why the City is not trading in police cars, and the City Manager stated that no vehicles will be traded in, but four of them will be sold at the City auction. He added he will see to it that the revenue from the auction is included 'in the budget. Councilmember Lhotka requested a breakdown of the 911 equipment repair costs, and the City Manager stated he would prepare this information for the Council. Councilmember Theis requested additional information on the overtime of regular employees, and the City Manager said he would prepare additional information. Councilmember Theis asked if the City purchased four squad cars in 1985, and the City Manager responded affirmatively. Councilmember Theis asked if the Council can expect to see a request for four squad cars every year, and the City Manager stated this will 9 -16 -85 -2- probably be the case. Councilmember Hawes asked for clarification of the PERA budgeted amounts, and the City Manager explained the differences between regular, combined, and police PERA. Councilmember Theis asked why no funds have been allocated for dental insurance, and the City Manager stated the police department union voted as a group to eliminate the coverage, due to the increasing cost of premiums. Next, the reviewed the Fire Department Budget, Unit No. 32. Councilmember Scott asked why no funds had been allocated for automotive equipment repair, and the City Manager stated most of the repairs are accounted for in the vehicle maintenance unit of the budget. Councilmember Lhotka requested additional information on the carry -all wagon, including what its usage will be. The City Manager stated he would provide this information for the Council. The Council had no questions on the Planning & Inspection Department Budget, Unit No. 33. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8 :32 p.m. The City Council continued its public hearing on the 1986 annual City budget by reviewing the Emergency Preparedness Department Budget, Unit No. 34. Councilmember Lhokta inquired as to why the budget request for this unit decreased by half, and the City Manager stated there are no capital outlay costs in this budget. The Council proceeded to the Animal Control Budget, Unit No. 35• Councilmember Lhotka asked if the City still contracts with Funk Animal Hospital, and the City Manager responded affirmatively. Councilmember Lhotka asked if the code enforcement officer promoted to police officer is being replaced in the department, and the City Manager stated a replacement is being recruited The Council proceeded to the Engineering Division Budget, Unit No. 41. The Council had no questions on this budget. The Council then reviewed the Street Maintenance Budget, Unit No.` 42. Councilmember Theis asked if the City needs the vacuum sweeper and asked if there is a cheaper alternative. The City Manager stated the City does need it and added that the sweeper does more than just vacuum the street. He stated in the winter and spring the sweeper is able to draw in the water from potholes and also off the street after it rains. Councilmember Theis asked if the City has two of these vehicles`, and the City Manager stated the City has a three wheel vehicle. He noted the requested vehicle is a truck and although it is more expensive it costs only approximately 20% more than a three wheeler vehicle. Councilmember Scott asked why the recommended amount for replacement trees is three times as much as the amount requested, and the City Manager stated he proposes planting larger diameter trees. Councilmember Scott asked if the City is having problems with the contractor who is removing the trees marked because of disease, and the City Manager stated there have been no problems. Councilmember Scott pointed out that several marked trees by the Mississippi River have not been removed, and the 'City Manager stated he would investigate this. Councilmember Hawes noted he received a call from a citizen whose tree had been cut but was not immediately removed. He stated someone from the City was able to get a crew to remove the tree. The City Manager noted sometimes the crew dropping the tree is different from the crew removing the tree. Councilmember 9 -16 -85 -3- Hawes noted that three stumps have not been cleaned out at 54th and Queen Avenues North, and the City Manager stated he would rectify the problem. Councilmember Theis requested an inventory on the number of vacancies from trees removed, and the City Manager stated he would prepare this information. The City Council next reviewed the Vehicle Maintenance Division Budget, Unit No. 43. Councilmember Lhotka stated the City should investigate the alternative of a fiber glass lift when purchasing a new one in 1986. Councilmember Theis astred why there is a substantial increase in the amount requested for motor fuel, and the City Manager stated that fuel prices were down in 1984 and have once again increased. He added prices tend to fluctuate and it is difficult to completely predict an accurate amount. Councilmember Lhotka asked why the process for replacing the fuel tanks is so long, and the City Manager explained the process used to replace the tanks. The Council proceeded to review the Traffic Signals Budget, Unit No. 44. Councilmember Hawes asked if the cost of the new signals installed due to the newly built businesses coming into the City will be assumed by these businesses. The City Manager stated that the businesses will pay a portion of the costa Councilmember Lhotka requested clarification of the cost budgeted for traffic signals, and the City Manager noted the cost of new signals is included in the state aid account. The Council reviewed the Street Lighting Budget, Unit No. 45• - Councilmember Lhotka requested a list of the locations of the ornamental street lights in the City, and the City Manager stated this information will be forwarded to the Council. The Council then proceeded to the Weed Control Budget, Unit No. 46. Councilmember Lhotka requested information on the process used for notifying violators of the weed control ordinance, and a list of those violators who are notified on a regular basis by the City. The City Manager stated this information will be prepared for the Council. Councilmember Scott asked who is supposed to mow the lawn at River Ridge Park, and the City Manager stated it is the City's responsibility. The Council next reviewed the Health Regulation and Inspection Budget, Unit No. 51. The City Manager noted that $7,600 will be moved from this budget to the Contingency Fund because the City of Crystal did not approve the additional personnel request. The Council reviewed the Recreation and Parks Administration Budget, Unit No. 61._ The Council and staff discussed the request for a portable bandstand and the benefits of it. Councilmember Lhotka asked why the clerical position for shade tree disease control was removed from the budget, and the City Manager stated the responsibilities of this position have been transferred to the Engineering Department. The Council proceeded with the Adult Recreation Programs Budget, Unit No. 62. Councilmember Scott asked what type of tape recorders are being purchased for $350, and the City Manager stated he would investigate this request and report back to the City Council. Councilmember Theis asked if there has been an increase in the scheduling of adult programs because of the increase in the budget over the past few years. The City Manager stated there has been an increase in activity due to the interest of more females participating in the programs and a general interest in staying physically active longer in the adult's life. Councilmember Theis expressed concern that the teen program would be neglected, and the City Manager stated that the teen programs are expanding. . 9 -16 -85 -4- There were no questions or comments on the Teen Recreation Programs Budget,, Unit No. 63. The Council reviewed the Children's Recreation Programs Budget, nit No. g g , U 64. < The City Manager explained the major increase in this unit is due to the unrealiability of the availability of state Tree Trust funds. He said the City is proposing to fund this unit because of the possibility that the Tree Trust program will not be funded by-the state. The Council proceeded to the General Recreation Programs Budget, Unit No. 65. The City Manager noted that the professional services request includes funds for entertainment in the parks and fireworks. Councilmember Scott asked if the City would be able to recuperate money spent for entertainment in the parks, and the City Manager stated he did not think this would be possible. The Council next reviewed the Community Center Recreation Programs Budget, Unit No. 66. Councilmember Theis asked why the budget for the community center reflects such a drastic reduction, and the City Manager stated the capital outlay is much less than 1985. Councilmember Lhotka asked for an explanation of the social hall floor (fill) which had been eliminated from the budget and the City Manager gave a brief explanation. Mayor Nyquist pointed out that the salaries have increased but the social security amount budgeted has decreased. The Director of Finance stated that he would make adjustments for this. The Council reviewed the Parks Maintenance Budget, Unit No. 69• Councilmember Lhotka asked what the shade tree disease control item includes, and the Director of Finance stated this is for trees on City property that are diseased. Councilmember Lhotka requested a report of vehicles owned by the City, and the City Manager stated a report would be presented to the City Council. The Council proceeded to review the Unallocated Departmental Expenses Budget, Unit No. 80. Councilmember Theis noted the substantial increases in insurance costs. The Council discussed the $25,000 budgeted for the 75th anniversary celebration for the City of Brooklyn Center. The Director of Finance informed the Council that a correction on page 35 of the budget document should show that object No. 4100 is salaries, full- time employees and object No. 4130 is salaries, part -time employees. The City Council proceeded to review the 1986 annual budget as proposed for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City. Councilmember Theis asked for an explanation of the salary of regular employees, and the City Manager stated that 75% of the Housing and Purchasing Coordinator's salary will be absorbed in this account, and 20% of the staff accountant's salary would generate from this account. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to continue the public hearing on the 1986 annual City Budget and use of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds to September 23, 1985. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.m. i Deputy City er Mayor 9 -16 -85 -5- r ��J t MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION SEPTEMBER 23, 1985 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 :06 p .m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, City Engineer Bo Spurrier, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Housing Coordinator Hoffman, and Deputy City Clerk Geralyn Barone. Councilmember Celia Scott was absent from this evening's meeting. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Mayor Nyquist. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist recognized Ms. Roberta Johnson, 2712 O'Henry Road, who stated in January of 1984 the sewer backed up into her home, and the City Engineer told her to hire a cleaning crew and submit a claim to the City. She told the Council that last week she met with the City Attorney and was aware that her claim had been denied by the City's insurance company. Ms. Johnson asked for an explanation of why her claim was denied, and what action the City has taken. Mayor Nyquist informed Ms. Johnson that the Council intends to discuss the sewer backup claims later on this evening as a discussion item on the agenda. Mayor Nyquist asked if anyone else present wished to speak at the Open Forum. He recognized Ms. Dolores Hastings, 5813 Aldrich Avenue North, who stated she is a spokeswoman for the Residential Alternatives home. She announced to the Council that Residential Alternatives is having an open house at the Brooklyn Park home located at 6525 Edgewood Avenue North. Ms. Hastings stated the open house is scheduled for October 6, 1985 from 1:OO p.m. to 5:00 p.m., and she invited the Mayor, the City Council, and City staff to attend the open house. Mayor Nyquist next recognized Mr. Roger Lippold, 7012 Humboldt Avenue.North, who stated he wished to speak before the Council this evening regarding the speeding and reckless driving on Humboldt Avenue North between 69th and 73rd Avenues North. He stated cars will not stop for crossing guards, and residents have difficulty backing out of their driveways onto Humboldt. Mr. Lippold noted the Police Department has conducted traffic surveys but the residents have been unable to obtain results of the surveys. He stated he feels the results of the surveys will not be accurate anyway because of where the police car was parked while taking the surveys. Mr. Lippold stated the City has posted a 11 25 mile per hour -while children are present" speed limit sign, but drivers slow down for the sign and then speed up again once they are past it. He complained about having only three active police cars patrolling the City at one time. Mr. Lippold offered several suggestions to the Council, 9 -23 -85 -1- e including installing "stop" signs at 71st and Humboldt Avenues North. Mr. Lippold acknowledged that he and his wife had received a letter from the City addressing their concerns, but he felt the letter defined the problem that already exists. Mayor Nyquist asked if this complaint had been addressed by the Traffic Safety Committee and the City Manager responded affirmatively, saying that staff is aware of the problem and has been dealing with it. The City Manager noted that under state law the speed limits cannot be reduced to less than 30 miles per hour except in school zones, and this has been done with the installation of a 25 mile per hour speed advisory when children are present. He added the Police Department has conducted traffic surveys and noted there is heavy traffic in the area and somewhat of a speed problem. The City Manager also noted that problems may be alleviated when West River Road is finally upgraded. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ms. Barb Lippold, 7012 Humboldt Avenue North, who stated that she is afraid there will be more traffic on Humboldt prior to the completion of West River Road improvements. She questioned the validity of the speed surveys conducted on Humboldt Avenue North, and the City Manager stated the results were obtained by an unmarked vehicle which found that 85% of the cars were traveling 35 miles per hour or less. Ms. Lippold expressed concern for the heavy amount of traffic, and the City Manager pointed out that the street is a public roadway. Ms. Lippold said the highway department informed her that more constant surveillance is needed to control the problem. The City Manager stated the Police Department has been most productive in tagging offenders at the busiest times, and can only enforce the 25 mile per hour speed advisory when children are present. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Carmelo Martinez, 70+2 Humboldt Avenue North,, who stated he has lived at this address for the past eight years and the problem has worsened. Mr. Martinez stated that installing "stop" signs may help solve the problem, and he pointed out that this is a residential area. Mayor Nyquist asked if Humboldt Avenue North is a state -aid street, and the City Manager responded affirmatively. The City Manager noted that City staff has delayed action on making design changes on Humboldt Avenue North until after the upgrading of West River Road is completed. The City Manager added that the residents on Humboldt Avenue North are not alone in experiencing these problems, as there are other locations in the City also with heavy traffic. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ms. Jean Egan, 7118 Humboldt Avenue North, who stated she has been a school crossing guard on Humboldt Avenue North for seven years, and this is the first year that vehicles will not stop for her. She expressed the opinion that installing a "stop" sign will help solve the problem. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Lee Hollister, 7019 Humboldt Avenue North, who expressed concern with the heavy traffic problems on Humboldt Avenue North. Mr. Hollister asked if it is legal to park on Humboldt Avenue North, and the City Manager stated it is. Mr. Hollister said that the residents will then do so in an effort to slow the traffic. Mr. Hollister stated he has three young children who are unable to cross even with a crossing guard present. He requested installation of "stop" signs at 71st Avenue North. The City Manager responded that under state law the City has an obligation to install "stop" signs where needed. To stop a straight- through street at a T intersection, in the opinion of the City Manager, will not meet state standards. The City Manager stated that a neighborhood meeting will be held to discuss the problems and the possibility of installing additional sidewalks in the area 9 -23 -85 -2- Councilmember Theis told the residents that he shares their concern for the problem, but parking cars on Humboldt Avenue North to slow traffic may create problems for children in the neighborhood who will not be seen by drivers. He said he sees this effort as more of a hazard than a help, so he recommended the residents consider their action very seriously before implementing it. Councilmember Hawes asked if the speeding vehicles are traveling northbound or southbound on Humboldt Avenue North, and Ms. Lippold stated that generally the traffic is northbound in the morning because of the students traveling to the vocational school in Brooklyn Park, and in the evening the traffic flows both northbound and southbound. Councilmember Hawes asked if there is any way for a diversion lane to be created for buses, and the City Manager stated staff will investigate this option. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Carl Dahietl, 7024 Humboldt Avenue North, who stated he has watched his neighbors try to back out of their driveways, and has witnessed one neighbor waiting 12 minutes before being able to leave. He noted the worst times are between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., and asked if it would be possible to post the 25 mile per hour advisory between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. The City Manager said that state law allows the City only to post the advisory when children are present. He added the City will contact the residents when arranging a neighborhood- meeting. DISCUSSION ITEM SEWER BACKUP CLAIMS The City Manager informed the City Council of the background of this issue and said the residents were told to submit their claims to the City. He stated because the problem was caused by the contractor, the City is not negligent and therefore the City's insurance will not cover the claims. He added the contractor's insurance company has also denied the claim. The City Attorney also reviewed the situation and told the Council that he met with the claimants at a meeting at City Hall last week . He stated he had suggested that the claimants hire an attorney and bring suit against the contractor. Mayor Nyquist asked what the City pays in premiums to the insurance company and the Finance Director stated the City pays $80,000 per year in general liability insurance. Councilmember Hawes asked if it would be more effective to have numerous claims filed by numerous attorneys or one large claim filed by one attorney, and the City Attorney stated an insurance company would respond better if the claims are grouped together. He added it would not be economically feasible for each claimant to hire their own attorney. Councilmember Lhotka asked what the total amount of the claim is, and the City Attorney stated it is approximately $20,000. Mayor Nyquist asked why the City cannot pay the claimants and then collect the money from the City's insurance company. The City Attorney stated an .attempt was made to draw up an agreement with the City's insurance company to adjust the claims and then sue the contractor. However, if the City is ultimately found liable, the City's insurance company will not pay back the City for the funds paid out to the claimants. Councilmember Lhotka requested staff to review the situation more closely and present the pros and cons of the situation to the Council at the next City Council meeting. Mayor Nyquist expressed concern for delaying this much longer because he wishes to resolve it for the residents. The City Manager stated staff can prepare a report and present it at the next City Council meeting. Councilmember Theis asked what the City can gain by paying the money now to the residents rather than running 9 -23 -85 -3- r this all through the system, and the City Attorney stated that if the problem is resolved at this time there would not be additional attorneys fees that could be aperued otherwise. Councilmember Theis requested an analysis of costs for the City pursuing a speedy resolution to the problem versus the residents bringing suit against the contractors themselves. The City Manager stated a report will be prepared. Mayor Nyquist again recognized Ms. Roberta Johnson who requested that other people involved in this problem be notified, and the Mayor stated they will be notified. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist informed the Council that item No. 8b is removed from the Council Agenda this evening. He inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the Consent Agenda, and no requests were made. APPOINTMENT OF ELECTION JUDGES There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the appointment of election judges for the November 5, 1985 General Election. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. PERFORMANCE BOND REDUCTION There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to reduce the performance bond to $40,000 for Ryan Construction, 6200 Shingle Creek Parkway. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 85 -164 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING THE BROOKLYN CENTER HIGH SCHOOL SILVER ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -165 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1985 -H (SEAL COAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -15) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -166 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 9 -23 -85 -4- RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER RATE FOR THE ELDERLY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the following list of licenses: COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE Brooklyn Pet Hospital 4902 France Ave. N. Daisy Mae Dog Grooming 6830 Humboldt Ave. N. Pet Centers, Inc. Brookdale Center ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Brooklyn Center Athletic Boosters 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Lioness 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Lions 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. Earle Brown PTA 5900 Humboldt Ave. N. Willow Lane School 7020 Perry,Ave N. RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Mryna Vest 6839 Colfax Ave. N. Renewal: James Sautter 5933 Aldrich Ave. N. Charles & Linda Sabatke 6306 Brooklyn Dr. D.L. Jurries Ent. 6518 Chowen Ave. N. Paul A. Dorfman 5245, 47 Drew Ave. N. Helene Ebhardt 5637, 39 Girard Ave. N. Michael L. Goodwin 5006 Howe Lane Harold & Sharon Schindele 5407 James Ave. N. Gary & Nancy Clark 4207 Lakeside Ave. #239 Daryl Losey 5931 Pearson Dr. Timothy & Nancy Phillips 6113 Quail Ave. N. Robert Nechal 5332, 36 Russell Ave. N. Fred & Judie Swenson 5340, 44 Russell Ave. N. L. Futscher, E. Johnson 6424 Willow Lane Jack & Mary Jane Herrlin 5803 Wingard Place Hyun M. Choe 4512 63rd Ave. N. Nell Davis 3827 69th Ave. N. Gary W. Anderson 5413 70th Circle SIGN HANGERS LICENSE Arrow Sign Company 18607 Highway 65 NE Voting in favor: Mayor N uist Councilmembers Lhotka, Haw Yq , L , es, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 9 -23 -85 -5- APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 1985 - REGULAR SESSION There was a mot o by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the minutes of the regular session of the City Council meeting of August 26, 1985 as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council-members Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager introduced a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Eagan. He noted this agreement is similar to the agreement the City of Brooklyn Center has with the City of Crystal. Councilmember Lhotka asked if this item requires only a simple majority vote of the Council, and the City Attorney stated it does. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -167 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF EAGAN 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, Bill Hawes,and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: Gene Lhotka, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 85023 SUBMITTED BY VILLAGE PROPERTIES REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL TO RELOCATE A 16 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE EVERGREEN PARK APARTMENTS PROPERTY IN THE 7200 BLOCK OF CAMDEN AVENUE NORTH _ The City Manager stated this item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September 12, 1985 meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection referred the Council to pages one and two of the September 12, 1985 Planning Commission meeting minutes and the attached informational sheet regarding Application No. 85023. He reviewed the application and stated the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to three conditions. He recommended adding a fourth condition regarding a financial guarantee. Councilmember Hawes asked if the highway department is able to not declare this as excess property, and the Director of Planning & Inspection stated there is no guarantee that in three to four years they will not do so, but the highway department has given their assurances at this time. Councilmember Hawes asked what the minimum setback is, and the Director of Planning & Inspection stated it is normally 50 feet, but with the noise wall it can be 40 feet. Councilmember Lhotka asked why the noise wall will be made of wood, and the Director of Planning & Inspection stated this is the preference in this area. The Director of Planning & Inspection also pointed out that there is no public hearing needed for this application this evening. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve Application No. 85023 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. 9 -23 -85 -6- 5 2. Utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. 3• Approval is contingent on fulfillment of all conditions pertaining to Application No. 85016, particularly that the applicant shall enter an agreement with the City assuring that they (the applicants, their successors and assigns), shall purchase excess right -of -way abutting this property when it becomes available and shall combine it by plat or registered land survey with the existing site into a single parcel. 4. The applicant shall provide a financial guarantee (in an amount to be approved by the City Manager) to assure acquisition and combination of excess right -of -way to the Evergreen Park Apartments. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 85024 SUBMITTED BY RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY REQUESTING FOR SITE AND BUILDING PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVE -UP RESTAURANT AND ATTACHED RETAIL CENTER AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND JOHN MARTIN DRIVE _ Ti City Manager stated is item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September 12, 1985 meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection referred the Council to pages two and three of the September 12, 1985' minutes of the Planning Commission and an attached information sheet to those minutes. He proceeded to review the application and noted the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application subject to ten conditions. Upon reviewing the plans, Councilmember Hawes asked if the U- shaped area is for a trash receptacle, and the Director of Planning & Inspection stated it is and it will be built with brick walls with an iron gate. Councilmember Hawes asked if the driveway will provide ample space in order to bring a truck through to get at the trash, and the Director of Planning & Inspection stated it is large enough. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application No. 85024. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. Councilmember Lhotka asked if there are building plans available, and the Director of Planning & Inspection responded affirmatively. He proceeded to review the plans with the members of the Council. Councilmember Lhotka asked that condition 8b clearly allow for additional landscaping in the area. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to close the public hearing on Application No. 85024. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Application No. 85024 subject to the following conditions: 9 -23 -85 -7- 5 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 Y su g �P permits. 3. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 4. 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. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 6. Plan a approval is ex clusi PP ve'of all si ner which is subject to g Y J Chapter of t P 34 he City Ordinances. 7. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 8. The plans shall be modified prior to issuance of Building permits to indicate: a) Parking delineators as required by the City Engineer. b) The additional landscape screening in the area south of Building B in the greenstrip adjacent to John Martin Drive. 9. Driveway layout for the drive -up window shall be subject to 'review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ORDINANCE The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Suntan Studios. He stated this ordinance was first read on August 26, 1985, p ublished in the 9 P City's official newspaper on September 5, 1985, and is offered this evening for a second reading. He added 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 Suntan Studios. He inquired 9 -23 -85 -8- 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 Theis to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Suntan Studios. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka Hawes and Theis. oti V against: none. he T motion � g passed. ORDINANCE NO. 85 - Member Rich Theis introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING SUNTAN STUDIOS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka Bill Hawes and Rich eis• and nd the following g voted against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. PLANNING COMMiISSION ITEMS (CONTINUED) PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 85025 SUBMITTED BY RONALD BASHEL REQUESTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO OPERATE A TANNING STUDIO IN THE HUMBOLDT SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER AT 06$ O HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH The City Manager stated this item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September 12, 1985 meeting, and was contingent upon the passage of the Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Regarding Ordinances Re ardin Suntan Studios. The Director of Planning & Inspection referred the Council to a es three and four p g of the September 12 p , 1985 minutes of the Planning Commission and the attached informational sheet with those minutes. He reviewed the application and stated no new materials had been received from the applicant. He added the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application subject to four conditions. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application No. 85025. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Application No. 85025. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Application No. 85025 subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all a¢plicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violations thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. Permit approval acknowledges suntan services only. Services 9 -23 -85 -9- L 4 such as massage or saunas are expressly prohibited in accordance with the City's Zoning Ordinance, 4. The establishment shall be inspected by the City Sanitarian prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy and yearly thereafter for compliance with applicable health and sanitation regulations. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against:- none. The motion passed. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8 :40 p.m. and reconvened at 8:56 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1 5-04 AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 90 The City Manager noted these public hearings are for the Lyndale Avenue Water Main Installation and Street Reconstruction Assessments. The Director of Public Works stated he had some comments regarding all of the hearings and assessments before the Council this evening. He said notices have been published in the official newspaper and individual notices were sent to owners to be assessed. He noted all those receiving notices also received information on the City's policy regarding assessment deferrals and to date three applications had been received. He stated the Public Works Department had not received any written correspondence on any of the assessment items. With regard to the Lyndale Avenue Project, the Director of Public Works stated that J � both projects were initiated by action of the City Council. He proceeded to review the projects and the costs involved for both the Water Main Project and the Street Improvement Project. The Director of Public Works recognized that there have been construction problems on the street improvement project but it is now nearly complete. The final results will eventually be a project that does meet the specifications of the contract. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Proposed Assessments for Water Main Improvement Project No. 1985 -04 ( Lyndale Avenue Water Main Installation) and Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -05 ( Lyndale Avenue Street Reconstruction) Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Bud Murphy, 5607 Lyndale Avenue North, who critized the work of the contractors of the Street Improvement Project. He specifically pointed to areas of the street being patched and stated the City should not accept the street the way it is has been done. He added that he does not feel he should be assessed for this project. Mayor Nyquist asked if the project will meet specifications when completed, and the Director of Public Works said it would. Mr. Murphy stated that within two to three years there will be problems with soft spots in the street because of the very poor surface. He noted that the parking lot of the Riverside Motel is having water drainage problems. Council-member Lhotka asked who conducted testing on the compactness of the street, and the Director of Public Works stated that personnel from the City Engineering Division had done it. He added that the contractor has been advised to correct the drainage problem at the Riverside Motel. 9 -23 -85 -10- Mayor Nyquist recognized Ms. Susan Schmid, 5500 Lyndale Avenue North, who stated the project is far from being completed. She pointed out that this is supposed to be a new project and patching is already being done. She complained about the problems with new sod which is not all rolled out at this time. She pointed out problems with water drainage, and the stench caused by the pumphouse on Lyndale Avenue North. Ms. Schmid told the Council that in May of 1985 the residents informed the Council that they did not want this project, and objects to the assessment which includes interest. Ms. Schmid continued pointing out problems related to the project including the poor water pressure and the problem of sand getting into the water system. She asked if the $100 per day damages fee is being paid by the contractor. The Director of Public Works stated this amount will not be paid until the project is completed. Ms. Schmid demanded to have in writing an explanation of where the $100 per day will be put to use in the City, stating she does not wish it to go in some sort of slush fund. Ms. Schmid asked if it is fair for the residents to pay interest even when the project is not completed because she feels it is impossible for the contractor to be finished by the suggested date of October 23, 1985• She feels the residents should not pay when the project is not yet finished. She also feels that the assessments create a hardship for senior citizens and those working at the minimum wage. Ms. Schmid asked if the completed project will include both the street ,improvement and landscaping. The Director of Public Works stated the contractor will not be paid until the entire project is completed. The City Manager noted that the planting of trees is not included in the contract, and Ms. Schmid asked when the trees would be planted. The City Manager stated this will be done once the contractor has finished his work, but no sooner than this. The Director of Public Works addressed the complaints issued by Ms. Schmid. He stated the soft spots in the road will be repaired and brought up to standard once the final blacktop is added. He said curb and gutter repairs will be done, particularly where some damage was done by the contractor during the installation of the bituminous base. He said he will review the problems with the sod, and at this time was unaware that problems existed. In referring to the water drainage problems, the Director of Public Works stated the contractor has been advised that these problems must be alleviated. He noted the odors from the lift station are not related to this project, and a consultant has been contracted by the City to determine a solution for the problem. He acknowledged that the original completion date was August 16, 1985 and no extension was granted to the contractor. He pointed out that there has been an extremely heavy amount of rain since the middle of August which has caused problems for the contractor. With regard to the damages to be charged against the contractor for the delays, the Director of Public Works stated that only liquidated damages may be pursued according to state law. He added these are not penalties and the City is allowed to charge only the amount of liquidated damages which is defined as additional costs incurred by the City because of the delays. He added the money will be used to pay additional engineering costs such as inspections and survey costs. The Director of Public Works pointed out that the interest accumulation has been totaling since the start of the project and the City has been absorbing these costs. He stated that depending on the weather and performance of the contractor, the project should be completed no later than October 23, 1985. With regard to 9 -23 -85 -11- landscaping, the Director of Public Works stated that the original proposal presented by the City included extensive landscaping, but the residents rejected this. He added there will be some landscaping done in the area and the City will attempt to reach a consensus with the residents on the landscaping to be done. Finally, the Director of Public Works stated the senior citizens living on Lyndale Avenue North may be eligible for deferment of special assessments according to the recently revised policy on assessments which make the costs more financially acceptable to the residents. Ms. Schmid told the Council that the City should not use weather as an excuse for the performance of an incompetent contractor. She stated there have been nice days when only two men were working on the site. The City Manager acknowledged that there has been a problem of performance by the contractor and the City is doing everything possible under the law to handle the situation. Ms. Schmid also pointed out the potential safety problem of the curve approaching Lyndale Avenue North, and the Director of Public Works stated that once the project is completed there will be signing and striping which will help relieve the problem. Mayor Nyquist recognized Vs. Delores Karr, owner of the Riverside Motel, 5608 Lyndale Avenue North, who stated the water is not draining from her parking lot and the lot would be an ice rink this evening if there were freezing temperatures. The City Engineer stated that staff is aware of the problem and the pavement will be replaced. Ms. Karr said the curb is breaking down again and she will not accept the project for what it is costing her. The City Engineer stated the damage to the curb will be repaired and because he is unaware of the specific damage he is unable to tell Ms. Karr what can be done this evening. A member of the audience expressed concern for the safety of children playing around the retaining wall, and asked who would be liable for any law suit due to injury. The City Manager stated the City of Brooklyn Center would assume liability. Mayor Nyq}iist recognized Mr. Frank Belatz, 5323 Lyndale Avenue North, who questioned the estimated versus the actual cost of the water main project. The Director of Public Works stated the current project costs from 53rd to 57th Avenues North on Lyndale Avenue North are included in the original estimate, and the actual cost includes monies spent previously to install the water main from across the freeway. Mr. Belatz expressed concern for the large decrease between the estimated and actual cost of the street improvement project and asked if the large decrease was due to the contractor making a very low bid. The City Manager explained the City's bidding process, and pointed out that two other contractors were relatively close to the amount of the low bidder. Mr. Belatz asked if the stone retaining wall is part of the street improvement project, and the Director of Public Works responded affirmatively. Mr. Belatz asked why stone is used, and the Director of Public Works said that this is the standard and most people have liked it. Mr. Belatz stated that a concrete wall is fine for the freeway and he objected to installation of a fancy stone retaining wall. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ms. Eunice Peter, 5331 Lyndale Avenue North, who expressed dismay over the work performed by the contractor. Mayor Nyquist again recognized Mr. Bud Murphy who questioned the process of the blacktopping, and the City Manager explained what procedures are usually followed. Mr. Murphy complained about the poor lighting on the lower end of Lyndale Avenue North and stated there are problems with vandalism because of the poor lighting. He 9 -23 -85 -12- also stated that there are speeding problems on the street, particularly during rush hour. The City Manager said the Police Department will investigate the problem. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Henry Wos, 5510 Lyndale Avenue North, who stated he has also had problems with the water drainage. He noted that his basement has been cracked in several places, and the cracks are of a result of the improvement project work. The City Manager stated the City will investigate the problem. Mr. Frank Belatz requested that prior to the full completion of the job, the City should notify every property owner who will be able to voice their opinion on what the existing problems are with the project. Mayor Nyquist asked if there was anyone else present at the meeting this evening who wished to speak at the public hearing on the Lyndale Avenue Improvement Projects. There being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to close the public hearing on Proposed Assessments for Water Main Improvement Project No. 1985 -04 and Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -05• Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -168 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -04 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -169 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -05 Councilmember,Lhotka asked what would happen if the weather does not clear up and the project is not completed by October 23, 1985• The Director of Public Works stated from a legal standpoint there are no problems with levying the assessments. Councilmember Hawes asked what would happen if there were problems with the street in six months, and the Director of Public Works stated there is a one year warranty on the project. Upon vote being taken, 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, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. DISCUSSION ITEMS (CONTINUED) REPORT ON FOUNDATION STONE MINISTRIES RI S SITE The City Manager stated that the City Council had requested staff to prepare a report 9 -23 -85 -13- on options to improve access to the proposed Foundation Stone Ministries Site. The Housing Coordinator proceeded to present a report on this request. He stated the first obstacle that the City would encounter is demonstrating public purpose. He described the possible approaches that the City can follow which include making a public street out of one lot or creating a development district. The Housing Coordinator reviewed the various problems associated with these approaches. He then reviewed the financing options available to the City and concluded that the City,may purchase the property to improve access to the site but there are many obstacles to doing so. The Council and staff discussed the traffic problems related to accessing the property. The Council took no action on this report. PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED) PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSE SSMENTS FOR LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1984 -05 (RAMADA INN LIFT STATION) - The City manager stated notices regarding this evening's public hearing have been sent to residents affected by the assessments and a notice was published in the City's official newspaper. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Proposed Assessments for Lift Station Improvement Project No. 1984 -05 (Ramada Inn Lift Station) , and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Proposed Assessments for Lift Station Improvement Project No. 1984 -05 (Ramada Inn Lift Station). Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -170 Mbmber Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1984 -05 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, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -09 (XERXES AVENUE STREET RECONSTRUCTION The City Manager stated notices regarding this evening's public hearing have been sent to residents affected by the assessments and a notice was published in the City's official newspaper. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Proposed Assessments for Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -09 (Xerxes Avenue Street Reconstruction) , 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. 9 -23 -85 -14- l Councilmember Theis left the Council Chambers at 10:30 p.m. • There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on the Proposed Assessments for Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -09 (Xerxes Avenue Street Reconstruction). Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka and Hawes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -171 Member Bii1 Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -09 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, and Bill Hawes; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -12 (DALLAS ROAD CURB, GUTTER AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION The City Manager stated notices regarding this evening's public hearing have been sent to residents affected by the assessments and a notice was published in the City's official newspaper. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Proposed Assessments for Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -12 (Dallas Road Curb, Gutter and Street Reconstruction), 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 Lhotka to close the public hearing on Proposed Assessments for Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -12 (Dallas Road Curb,,Gutter and Street Reconstruction). Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka and Hawes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -172 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -12 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, Gene Lhotka, and Bill Hawes; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -14 (65TH AVENUE CURB, GUTTER AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION) The City Manager stated that notices regarding this evening's public hearing have been sent to residents affected by the assessments and a notice was published in the City's official newspaper. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Proposed q P g P p A l g P P 9 -23 -85 -15- Assessments for Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -14 (65th Avenue Curb, Gutter and Street Reconstruction), and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Proposed Assessments for Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -14 (65th Avenue Curb, Gutter and Street Reconstruction). Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka and Hawes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -173 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -14 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, and Bill Hawes; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED) Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on the following items: PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 1984 DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL COSTS PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 1985 DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL COSTS PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITY HOOKUPS PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY ACCOUNTS PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR DELINQUENT WEED DESTRUCTION ACCOUNTS Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing on these items. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on the Proposed Assessments for 1984 Diseased Shade Tree Removal Costs, 1985 Diseased Shade Tree Removal Costs, Public Utility Hookups, Delinquent Public Utility Accounts, and Delinquent Weed Destruction Accounts. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka and Hawes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -174 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL COST TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member 9 -23 -85 -16- l Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, and Bill Hawes; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.` RESOLUTION NO. 85 -175 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL COST TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, and Bill Hawes; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -176 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING ASSESSMENTS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY HOOKUPS 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, Gene Lhotka, and Bill Hawes; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -177 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY ACCOUNTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, and Bill Hawes, and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -178 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT WEED DESTRUCTION ACCOUNTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS 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, Gene Lhotka, and Bill Hawes; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Councilmember Theis returned to the Council Chambers at 10:35 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ON ANNUAL CITY BUDGET AND USE OF FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS Mayor Nyquist reconvened the public hearing on the Annual City Budget and Use of 9 -23 -85 -17- Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. Councilmember Lhotka asked what the deadline is for passing the budget and the City Manager stated the absolute deadline is October 7, 1985. The Director of Finance reviewed the changes made to the budget following the City Council's September 16, 1985 special session. Councilmember Lhotka asked for additional information on the use of the carry -all van by the Fire Department. Councilmember Theis also requested additional information on the Fire Department's proposed computer operation. A request was also made for additional information on the Ulti -map system proposed in the Data Processing Unit. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to pass the resolutions related to the budget subject to the condition that the following items must have specific City Council approval before expenditures for them can be made: the Fire Department's carry -all vehicle and computer operation, and the Ulti -map system. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -179 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1986 BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -180 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A TAX LEVY FOR 1986 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. DISCUSSION ITEMS (CONTINUED) ANOKA- HENNEPIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 411 REQUEST REGARDING FISCAL DISPARITIES The City manager stated the City has received a request from the Anoka - Hennepin School District #11 regarding fiscal disparities After a brief discussion, the consensus of the Council was to leave the City's options open regarding fiscal disparities, so no action will be taken regarding the request from School District X611. APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR 1985 FINANCIAL AUDIT There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the contract for the 1985 financial audit. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 9 -23 -85 -18 RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 10:52 p.m. and reconvened at 10.58 p.m. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) RESOLUTION NO. 85 -181 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE -THIRD MILL LEVY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 462.411 THROUGH 462.711, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE YEAR 1986 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10:59 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Mayor 9 -23 -85 -19- MEMORANDUM TO: Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning arming a d Lnspection FROM: Gary Shallcross, Planner DATE October 3, 1985 SUBJECT: Performance Guarantee The following performance guarantee is recommended for release: 1. Quick Lube 6806 Brooklyn Boulevard Planning Commission s on Application No 8403 8 9 Amount of Guarantee - $6,500.00 Letter of Credit Improvements for the Quick Lube portion of the site have been installed in accordance with the approved plan. Most landscaping was planted when the original Car -X building was built and is still viable. Presently, there is a small trailer filled with used mufflers and a pile of wood pallets stored outside. Have informed owner of the prohibition of such storage and he has promised to clean it up. Recommend total release, subject to clean -up and /or screening f outside storage in accordance h g ce with the Zoning 9 Ordinance. (" . Approve by Ronal A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection FA CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY :1 OF BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 C ENTER TELEPHONE 561 - 5440 ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 91,1 TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: Joe Oster, Public Works Coordinator DATE: October 3, 1985 RE: Release of Subdivision Bond Dale and Davies 1st Addition The City - currently holds a financial performance guarantee in the amount of $1,900, for the development of Dale and Davies 1st Addition in the form of a certificate of deposit with Minnesota Federal. The improvements included are placement of boulevard sod, boulevard trees and survey monuments which had been completed in conjunction with said development. Accordingly, it is recommended that the City Council release its interest in the performance deposit submitted by Mr. W.J. Dale. Recommended For Approval, Sy Xnapp Director of Public Works cc: Dale and Davies lst Addition File JGO . j l PROCLAMATION NATIONAL BUSINESS WOMEN'S WEEK WHEREAS working women constitute an ever increasing number of the Nation's working force, and are constantly striving to serve their communities, their states and their nation in civic and cultural programs; and WHEREAS major goals of business and professional women are to help create better conditions for business women through the study of social, educational, economic and political problems; to help them be of greater service to their community; to further friendship with women throughout the world; and WHEREAS all of us are proud of their leadership in these many fields of endeavor. NOW, THEREFORE I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, by the authority vested in me, do hereby proclaim the week of October 20 -26, 1985 as National Business Women's Week sponsored by the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc and urge all citizens in the North Hennepin Area, all civic and fraternal groups, all educational associations, all news media and other community organizations to join in this salute to working women by encouraging and promoting the celebration of the achievements of all business and professional women as they contribute daily to our economic, civic and cultural purposes. Date Mayor Seal Attest Clerk THE NORTH HENNEPIN A&Rhoa aAl pla esBianal Name), B C/V September 9, 1985 The Office of the Mayor City of Brooklyn Center Your Honor: The North Hennepin Business and Professional Women's Organization is inviting you to join in our observance of the NATIONAL BUSINESS WOMEN'S WEEK by signing the enclosed Proclamation. The Proclamation will be read at our October 16 meeting which is our special day of the observance. You will be acknowledged with all mayors of the North Hennepin area issuing the Proclamation. I have enclosed a brochure which tells you about our organization. The North Hennepin organization has over 60 members. One of our major projects is awarding a $500.00 scholarship to a woman who is continuing or upgrading her education and thereby becomes a more valuable employee and member of her community. The October 16 meeting begins a 5:30 p.m. with a social hour, and dinner served at 6:00 p.m, at the Westphal American Legion Club, 36th and France Ave, N, Robbinsdale, MN. This year we are honored to have Senator Ember Reichgott, Senator Linda Berglin and Nina Rothschilds join us in a panel discussion. This panel will discuss many issues affecting all of us. Although we'd like to be able to issue an invitation to join us at our expense, our coffers will not allow us this privilege. However, if you would like to attend at your expense, you can make reservation by calling me no later than Friday, October 11. The charge for the meal is $9.00. Many men and women who support the BPW will be celebrating with us. Please have the Proclamation returned to my attention at Citizens State Bank of St. Louis Park, Robbinsdale Office, 3700 West Broadway, Robbinsdale, MN 55422 no later than October 7. Your support will be remembered. Thank you.. Sincerely, rley Kra National Business Womens Week Chairman North Hennepin BPW SK:sm Enc: Member introduced the following resolution and % , J moved its adoption: / RESOLUTION NO. . RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN.INTERFUND LOAN FROM THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND TO THE MUNICIPAL LIQUOR S TORES 'F Y WHEREAS, on October 1, 1984, the City Manager presented the City Council a proposal to purchase a building located at 69th and Humboldt Avenues in _Brooklyn Center, to be used as a municipal liquor store; and WHEREAS, on October 15., 1984, the City Council authorized the purchase of the building; and WHEREAS, the plan, as presented on October 1, 1984, included a recommen- dation by the City Manager to finance the purchase through an interfund loan from the Capital Projects Fund to the Municipal Liquor Stores Fund; and WHEREAS, the building has been acquired and remodeled, the costs have been determined, and permanent financing is necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that a loan from the Capital Projects Fund to the Municipal Liquor Stores Fund is hereby approved with the terms as follows: Loan Amount: $300,000 Dated: September 1, 1985 Annual Interest Rate: 8.50% Loan Period: 15 years Payments: Monthly __w___--- — Date �� ~T - ----- - ---.- -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: wehreupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. y r , F , (AHLAM15) HUMBOLDT SQUARE LIQUOR STORE LOAN AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE Loan Amount: $ 300,000.00 Annual Interest Rate: 8.5% Term (yrs): 15 Start 1st period_1 1 others= blank Monthly Payment: $ 2,954.22 Beginning Principal Month Balance Interest Paid Principal Paid 1 $ 300,000.00 $M 2,125.00 $� 829.22 2 299,170.78 2,119.13 835.09 3 298 335.69 2,113.21 841.01 4 297,494.68 2,107.25 846.96 5 296,647.72 2,101.25 852.96 6 295,794.75 2,095.21 859 7 294,935.75 2,089.13 865.09 8 294,070.66 2,083.00 871.22 9 293,199.44 2,076.83 877.39 10 292,322.05 2,070.61 883.60 11 291,438•44 2,064.36 889.86 12 290,548.58. 2,058.05 896.17 13 289,652.42 2,051 902.51 14 288,749.90 2,045.31 908.91 15 287,840.99 2,038.87 915.34 16' 286,925.65 2,032.39 921.83 17 286,003.82 2,025.86 928.36 18 285,075.46 2,019.28 934.93 19 284,140.53 2,012.66 941.56 20 283,198.97 2,005.99 948.23 21 282,250.75 1,999.28 954.94 22 281,295.80 1,992.51 961.71 23 280,334.10 1,985.70 968.52 24 279,365.58 1,978.84 975.38 25 278,390.20 1,971.93 982.29 26 277,407.91 1 ,964.97 989.25 27 276,418.66 1,957.97 996.25 28 275,422.41 1,950.91 1,003.31 29 274,419.10 1,943.80 1,010.42 30 273,408.68 1,936.64 1 ,017.57 31 272,391.11 1,929.44 1,024.78` 32 271,366.33 11922.18 1,032.04 33 270,334.29 1,914.87 1039.35 34 269,294.94 1,907.51 1,046.71 35 268,248.23 1,900.09 1,054.13` 36 267,194.10 1,892.62 1,061.59 37 266,132-50 1,885-11 1,069.11 38 265,063.39 1;877.53 1,076.69 39 263,986.70 1,869.91 1,084.31 40 262,902.39 1,862.23 1,091.99 41 261,810.40 1,854.49 1,099.73 42 260,710.67 1,846.70 1,107.52 43 259,603.15 1,838.86 1,115.36 44 258,487.79 1,830.96 1,123.26 45 257,364.53 1,823.00 1,131.22 46 256,233.31 1`,814.99 1,139.23' 47 255,094.07 1,806.92 1,147.30 48 253,946.77 1,798.79 1,155.43 49 252,791.34 1,790.61 1,163.61 50 251,627.73 1,782.36 1,171.86 51 250,455.87 1,774.06 1,180.16 52 249,275.72 1,765.70 1,188.52 53 248,087.20 1,757.28 1,196.93 54 246,890.27 1,748.81 1,205.41 55 245,684-85 1,,740.27 1,213.95 56 244,470.90 1,731.67 1,222.55 57 243,248.35, 1,723.01 1,231.21 58 242,017.14 1,714.29 1,239.93 59 240,777.21 1,705.51 1,248.71 60 239,528.50 _1 1,257.56 61 238,270.94 1,687.75 1,266.47 62 237,004.47 1,678.78 1,275.44 63 235,729.04 1,669.75 1,284.47 64 234,444.57 1,660.65 1,293.57 65 233,151.00 1,651.49 1,302.73 66 231,848.26 1,642.26 1,311.96 67 230,536.30 1 1,321.25 68 229,215.05 1,623.61 1,330.61 69 227,884.44 1,614.18 1,340.04 70 226,544.40 1,604.69 1,349.53 71 225,194.87 1,595.13 1,359.09 72 223,835.78 1,585.50 1,368.72 5 73 222,467.07 1,575.81 1,378.41 74 221,088.66 1,566.04 1,388.17 75 219,700.48 1 1,398.01 76 218,302.48 1,546.31 1,407.91 77 216,894.57 19536.34 1,417.88 78 215,476.69 1,526.29 1,427.93 79 214,048.76 1,516.18 1,438.04 80 212,610.72 1,505.99 1,448.23 81 211,162.49 1,495.73 1,458.48 82 209,704.01 1 1,468.82 83 208,235.20 1 1,479.22 84 206,755.98 1,464.52 1,489.70 85 205,266.28 1,453.97 1,500.25 86 203,766.03 1,443.34 1,510.88 87 202,255.15 1, 1,521.58 88 200,733-58 1,421.86 1,532.36 89 199,201.22 1 1,543.21 90 197,658.01 1,400.08 1,554.14 - 91 196,103.87 1,389.07 1,565.15_ 92 194,538.72 1,377.98 1,576.24 93 ' 192,962.48 1,366.82 1,587.40 94 191,375.08 1,355.57 1,598.65 95 189,776.44 1,344.25 1,609.97 96 188,166.47 1,332.85 1,621.37 97 186,545.09 1,321.36 1,632.86 98 184,912.24 1,309-80 1 99 183,267.81 1,298.15 1,656.07 100 181,611.74 1,286.42 1,667.80 101 179,943.94 1 1,679.62 102 178,264.32 1,262.71 1,691.51 103 176,572.81 1,250.72 1,703.49 104 174,869.32 1,238.66 1,715.56 105 173,153.76 1,226.51 1,727.71 106 171,426.04 1,214.27 1,739.95 107 169,686.09 1,201.94 1,752.28 108 167,933.82 1,189.53 1 109 166,169.13 1 1,777.19 110 164,391.94 1 1,789.78 111 162,602.17 1 1,802.45 112 160,799.71 1,139.00 1,815.22 113 158 1 1,828.08 114 157,156.41 1013.19 1 115 155,315.39 1,100.15 1,854.07 116 153,461.32 1,087.02 1,867.20 117 151,594.12 1,073.79 1 118 149 713.69 1,060.47 1,893.75 119 1 47,819.94 1,04 7.06 1,907.16 120 145,912.78 1 1,920.67 121 143,992.11 1 ,019.94 1,934.27 122 142,057.84 1,006.24 19 947.98 123 140,109.86 992.44 1,961.77 124 138,148.09 978.55 1 ,975.67 125 136,172.42 964.55 1,989.66 126 134 950.46 2,003.76 127 132 936.27 2,017.95 128 130,161 921 2,032.24 129 128,128.80 907.58 2,046.64 130 126,082.16 893.08 2 131 124,021.02 878.48 2,075.74 132 121,945.29 863.78 2,090.44 133 119,854.85 848.97 2,105.25 134 117,749.60 834.06 2,120.16 135 115 819.04 2,135.18 136 113,494.27 803.92 2,150.30 137 1119343.97 788.69 2,165.53 138 109,178.43 773.35 2,180.87 139 106,997.56 757.90 2,196.32 140 104 742.34 2,211.88 141 102 726.67 29227.54 142 100,361.82 710.90 21243.32 143 98,118.50 695.01 2 144 95 679.00 2,275.22 145 93,584.07 662.89 2,291.33 146 91,292.74 646.66 2,307.56 147 88,985.18 - 630.31 2932.3.91 148 86,661.27 613.85 2,340.37 149 84,320.90 597.27 2,356.95 150 81,963.96 580.58 2,373.64 151 79,590.32 563.76 2,390.45 152 77,199.86 546.83 2,407.39 153 74,792.48" 529:78 2,424.44 154 72 512.61 2,441.61 155 ` 69,926.43 495.31 2,458.91 156 67 477.89 2,476.32 157 64,991.20 460.35 2,493.86 158 62,497.33 442.69 2,511.53 159 59 424.90 2,529.32 160 57,456.48 406.98 2 161 549909.25 388.94 2,565.28 162 52,343.97 370.77 2,583.45 163 49,760-52 352.47 2 164 47,158.77 334. 2, 620.18 165 44.538.60 _ �19.48 2.6?R_7h R 9 1 166 41,899.86 296.79 2,657.43 167 39,242.43 277.97 2,676.25 168 36,566.18 259.01 2,695.21' 16 9 33,870.97 239.92 2 : 714.30 170 31,156.67 220.69 2,733.53 171 28,423.15 201.33 2,752.89 1 7 2 25,670.26 181.83 2,772.39 173 22,897.87 162.19 2,792.03 174 20,105.84 142.42 2,811.80 175 17,294.04 122.50 2,831.72 176 14,462.32 102.44 2,851.78 177 11,610.55 82.24 2,871.98 178 8,738.57 61.90 2,892.32 179 5,846.25 41.41 2,912.81 180 2,933.44 20.78 2,933.44 181 0.00 Totals $ 231,759.36 $ 300,000.00 .44 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION No. RESOLUTION RELATING TO A PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT; CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the City), as follows: SECTION 1 Recitals 1.1. Brookdale Corporate Center III Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership to be formed in which Ryan Properties, Inc. will be a general partner (the Borrower), has advised this Council of,its desire to acquire certain land in the City and to construct and equip thereon an approximately 110,000 square foot facility (the Project) to be leased by the Borrower to various tenants, for use as a commercial office facility. The Project will be located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive in the City. 1.2. The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474 (the Act), to issue its revenue bonds to finance capital projects consisting of properties used and useful in connection with a revenue- producing enterprise. The Borrower has requested the City issue its revenue bonds in an aggregate Principal amount not to exceed $9,000,000 (the Bonds) to finance a portion or all of the cost of the Project. SECTION 2 Public Hearing 2.1. Section 474.01, Subdivision 7b of the Act requires that prior to submission of an Application to the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development requesting approval of the Project as required by Section 474.01, Subdivision 7 of the Act, this Council conduct a public hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project. Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and regulations promulgated thereunder, requires that prior to this issuance of the Bonds, this Council approve the Bonds and the Project, after conducting a public hearing thereon. A public ' hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project through the issuance of the Bonds is hereby called and shall be held on November 4 1985, at 7 :30 o'clock P.M., at the City Hall. 2.2. The City Manager shall cause notice of the public hearing to be published in the Brooklyn Center Post the official newspaper of the City and in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune a newspaper of general circulation in the City, at least once not less than fifteen (15) nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for the public hearing. The notice shall be in substantially the following form: S RESOLUTION NO. s NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED PROJECT AND THE ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 474, AS AMENDED CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the City), will meet on N ovember 4 , 1985, at 7 :30 o'clock P.M. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, for the purpose of conducting a public hearing in accordance with Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as- amended (the Code) on a proposal that the City issue revenue bonds, in one or more series, under the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended, in order to finance the cost of a project. The proposed project will consist of the acquisition of land in the City and the construction and equipping thereon of an approximately 110,00o square foot, six -story facility to be owned by Brookdale Corporate Center III Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership to be formed in which Ryan Properties, Inc. will be a general partner and leased to various tenants for use as a commercial office facility. The project will be located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Summit Drive and Earl Brown Drive in the City. The maximum aggregate principal amount of the proposed bond issue is $9,000,000. The bonds shall be limited obligations of the City, and the bonds and interest thereon shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof, except that such bonds may be secured by a mortgage and other encumbrance on the project. No holder of any such bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the bonds or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment against any property of the City except moneys payable by the Borrower to the City and pledged to the payment of the bonds A draft copy of the proposed Application to the Minnesota: Department of Energy and Economic Development for approval of the project, together with draft copies of all attachments and exhibits thereto, is available for public inspection at the office of the City Manager between the hours Of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M., on normal business days. All persons interested may appear and be heard at the time and place set forth above, or may file written comments with the City Manager prior to the date of the hearing set forth above. Dated: 1985. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL Gerald Splinter City.Manager RESOLUTION NO. e 2.3. A draft copy of the proposed Application to the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development, together with draft copies of all attachments and exhibits thereto are hereby , ordered laced o n file With Y P the City Manager and shall be available for public inspection, following publication of the notice of public hearing, between the hours of 8 :00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M., on normal business days. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. l a MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant DATE: September 30, 1985 SUBJECT': Ryan Development on Earle Brown Farm Prior to any development agreement with Ryan Construction, the party's involved, namely Ryan Construction, the Brooklyn Center HRA and the City of Brooklyn Center, must conclude a maximum level of development based upon peak hour traffic generation. At the meeting today representing the developer were Jim Ryan of Ryan Construction and Deane Wenger of Barton- Aschman and Associates. Representing the City /HRA were Gerald Splinter, Sy Knapp, Brad Hoffman, Ron Warren and Bo Spurrier from the City and Bob Byers from Short- Elliot - Hendrickson Inc. A memorandum from Short - Elliot dated September 24, 1985 was distributed which outlined maximum development under three (3) options. Maximum development using a 1 office trip rate per 1,000 and assuming an elderly development would allow a maximum office development of 250,600 square feet. Using a 2.2 trip rate the maximum development would be 159,500 square feet. Dean Wenger from Barton- Aschman Associates made the Ryan case for using a lower trip figure in the area of 1.5 trips per 1,000 based upon the amount of corporate space within the area. The Ryan position argued that a potential 400,000 square feet of office is possible. Following our discussion, it was agreed that: 1. Ryan Construction will construct one (1) office building of 120,000 square feet. Construction to start in early 1986. 2. The maximum size of the second phase of Ryan Construction's office development will be determined at a future date and will take into consideration actual site trip generation numbers, 3. Total trip generation during `.'peak p.m. hours" will not exceed 3, trips in T.A.Z. 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18 as defined in SEH's study report dated May 6, 1985. 4. S ject to the total trip generation requirement of 3,200 trips d ing peak hours, the City /HRA will attempt to maximize the Ryan second phase office development to include pm peak hour tr,p generations reserved for but not used on the Earle Brown Farm and the residential development per SEH study report of May 6, 1985 . IDS Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A NEGOTi TION AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the HRA desires to promote development with the Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment roject Area in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Finance Plan approved by the Brooklyn Center City Council on July 22, 1985 (Resolution No 85 -135); and WHEREAS, a proposal has been submitted by Developer proposing the construction of a senior citizen residential complex together with related facilities (Project); and WHEREA,$, HRA and Developer are willing and desirous to undertake the development of he Project if (i) a satisfactory agreement can be reached for the HRA and the City's commitment for the public improvements hereinafter specified, (ii) satisfactory mortgage and equity financing for the Project can be secured, (iii) specific design of the facility and agreements concerning the use and management of adjacent properties can be resolved by the parties, and (iv) the economic feasibility and soundness of the Project and other necessary preconditions have been confirmed to the satisfaction of the parties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to Authorize the Mayor and the City Manager to Execute a Negotiation Agreement between the .City of Brooklyn Center, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following , voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SHINGLE CREEK LAND COMPANY RELATING TO SURPLUS MN /DOT RIGHT OF WAY ADJACENT TO TRACT B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1377 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn n Cent er Minnesota that hat the Mayor and City Manager are hereby uthorized and directed Y to execute an agreement with the Shingle Creek Land Company providing for the following: 1. an assignment and release of the City of Brooklyn Center's interest (as provided by Minnesota Statutes Section 161.44, Subdivision 1'and Subdivision 4) in certain properties now owned by the State of Minnesota, in the Northeasterly quadrant of the I694 /Xerxes Avenue interchange area; 2. certain limitations upon development of the property; and • 3 the a ent of utility P Ym y.hookup charges.. Date Mayor r ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • a CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C E1\ 1 L'JR EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: October 3, 1985 RE Release of City's Interest to Surplus MN /DOT Right -of -Way in the Northeast Quadrant of the I -694 /Xerxes Avenue Interchange Area Shingle Creek Properties, Inca (a subsidiary of Lombard Properties Company) has requested that the City release its interest in the surplus right -of -way in the Northeast quadrant of the I- 694 /Xerxes Avenue interchange. This is where the old exit ramp from I -694 to Xerxes Avenue was removed (see attached sketch). An agreement for this purpose is being prepared by the City Attorney's office. This agreement will provide 1. that the City release its interest; 2 that the property and the adjacent tract must be replatted, in accordance with our Subdivision Ordinance; 3. that Shingle Creek Properties will pay hookup charges equal to the special assessments which would normally have been levied against this property. The agreement will be completed by the City Attorney and presented to the City Council at the meeting on October 7, 1985. A resolution approving this agreement is submitted for consideration by the City Council. Respec fully submitted, Sy K app SK: j n Jlre Sorcetll au e ,. V F` C)N i ,• r GG P9O1 3..90.25 e89 S - 2 aui� Ov ✓ / l .. .-� Vl mod- •� �� -�,. rj) 5�gno9 Marl ro� m Poet 6° .� ; \ '� \ �' •, .,,g M h 2 {6 . gi p 5p 1N } h 1 0 s a o I\ cl 1 1;1C M • �� \, 0 C P 1t N1 ` P 1 r ank , ll I- fa51, {1 \ 0 u� N a C z \ f,U` °a U a aP1 ail S Ni 'P o1a P Pj ° rY o NP A A A F P ��� p. I tv'EOSa� °�5 t IpF\A w"°i ..t ay i ✓tea.^.. JS-66EF�7 �V .1 � Tar6aP F °olero ay1 10 .f9.S IA J OtrS �M N1 h 15a .<.r�yao`W; all 000$ t 1 r Member and moved its adoption introduced the following resolution RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH BRAUN ENGINEERING FOR GBDTECHNICAL D ESIGN SERVICES RELATING TO DESIGN OF MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE WHEREAS, it is necessary to obtain soil borings, soil analysis, and geotechnical design services relating to the proposed Municipal Golf Course (Project No. 1985 -23); and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has obtained the following two proposals for providing such services: Braun Engineering Inc. $5,300 + geotechnical analysis and report preparation Soil Testing Services Inc. $5,800 + geotechnical analysis and report preparation and further estimates that the total cost for said services will be $7,900.00. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: I. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute an agreement for said services with Braun Engineering Inc. at an estimated total cost of $7,900.00. 10 2. Costs for said services shall be charged to Division 48 of the Capital Projects Fund. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk f 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. r L O 6 1 i 1� I CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTE R MEMORANDUM TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public works �+ FROM: H.R. Spurrier, City Engine DATE: October 4, 1985 SUBJECT: Proposed Golf Course, Project 1985 -23 Geotechnical Investigation The location of improvements for the proposed Golf Course has been established by the architect. The next step in project development is obtaining detailed geotechnical information about the site. The estimated cost of this consulting work will exceed $5,000 so that it is neces o ry t .get two formal quotations. The work consists of sampling the site in twenty -seven (27) locations. Depending on the conditions found at the sampling locations other tests may be required. Conditions that required other tests would be conditions where deep layers of organic soil or deep layers of soft cohesive soils were found. Two geotechnical testing firms were asked to prepare proposals for the drilling and testing work and that was the base amount which was used to select a firm recc mended for this work. Ther firms were Braun Engineering and Soil Testing Services of Minnesota. In addition to the base amount there is the additional cost of the Engineering report and the potential cost of additional tests if the site has very poor soil. It is likely that the site would have very poor soil. The table below contains the comparison of the two proposals. Braun Engineering is low with $5,300 for drilling and testing. Additionally, Braun has been working ith Brauer and Associates ociates on this project. Braun Engineering STS Drilling $5,050 $5,500 Testing 250 300 subtotal $5,300 $5,800 Estimated Cost of Engineering Report 2,600 2,600 TOTAL $7,900 $8,400' f MEMORANDUM October 4, 1955 Page 2 Based on the cost of Drilling and Testing and based on the previous experience, staff recommends accepting the proposal of Braun Engineering for the estimated cost of $7,900. Approved or Submittal A Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION SEPTEMBER 26, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Pro tem Nancy Manson at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pro tem Nancy Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson, and Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Pro tem Manson stated that Commissioners George Lucht and Lowell Ainas were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 12, 1985 Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to approve the minutes of the September 12, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Munson, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards.. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 85026 (Ryan Construction Company) 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 the northeast corner of John Martin Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85026 attached). Chairman Pro tem Manson asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Scott Nettles of Ryan Construction Company stated that he had nothing to add. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85026) Chairman Pro tem Manson. then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing none, she 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. 85026 (Ryan Construction Company) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend approval of Application No. 85026, 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. Agreements for cross access and parking between both lots in this subdivision and the Target lot shall be filed with the plat at the County. 9 -26 -85 -1- 4 Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 85027 (FOUNDATION STONE MINISTRIES, INC.) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a church on the 4.5 acre parcel, of land at the southwest corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85027 attached). The Secretary pointed out that the long -range plan for access to the site is right -in /right -out only and that the City desires the median within Brooklyn Boulevard to be extended all the way to 65th Avenue North. Commissioner Bernards asked, when the 60 day review period allowed to the Planning Commission began. The Secretary stated that it began now at this meeting. The Director of Public Works reiterated the concern for the City's long -range plan for Brooklyn Boulevard to extend the median all the way to 65th Avenue North. He stated that this improvement may not be that far in the future. The Secretary also explained that the City Council had looked at the possibilities of acquiring lots to the south of the church site. He stated that the Council had decided to pass on the option of acquiring any land because of the cost and the legal difficulty of defining a public purpose for such acquisition. The City Engineer also pointed out that staff are concerned regarding the storm drainage of the church site. He stated that there is a concern whether the existing storm sewer facilities built for the site are adequate for the proper drainage of the side. Chairman Pro tem Manson then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Nark Anderson of Foundation Stone Ministries, Inc. stated that the church had planned on building this fall and that it cannot now because of the delays in receiving zoning approval. He stated that delays are expensive and asked the Planning Commission not to table the site and building plan and special use permit application because it would cost more money every day that construction was delayed. Chairman Pro tem Manson responded that delays of major construction projects are not unusual. She assured the applicant that the Commission was not trying to single out the church for any harsh treatment, but that the Commission does want to have a thorough analysis completed before recommending approval to the City Council. - 1x. Anderson responded that most of the concerns raised by the staff in a meeting with the architect have been met with the new site and building plan. Commissioner Sandstrom asked Mr. Anderson whether the church could live with the requirement for the extension of the median in Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Anderson responded in the affirmative. He stated that the church is _willing to live with a single access off Brooklyn Boulevard that is right -in /right -out only. Mr. Dennis Batty, the project architect, stated that the church was not trying to slide anything through the Planning Commission.and City Council without proper review. He stated that he had met with the staff the previous week and that most all of the concerns expressed at that time have been met with the new plan. Regarding site drainage, Mr. Batty pointed out that the drainage plan does call for -a single catch basin on the site and that, in the event of a major rainfall, the runoff would be contained on the site for some time since the storm sewer line can only handle so much water during a given period. Mr. Batty also pointed out that a 6' high wood fence has been added along all sides of the property adjacent to single family for 9 -26 -85 -2- screening and to make the site secure. He added that berming has been provided on the west and south sides of the development so that screening should be quite effective. Chairman Pro tem Manson stated that she wanted to give staff adequate time to analyze the plans and to recommend appropriate conditions of approval. Commissioner Sandstrom suggested moving along the application subject to certain conditions. He stated that the Commission has consistently stated that they favor a church use on the site. Chairman Pro tem Manson asked the Secretary what he would suggest. The Secretary responded that the staff could recommend conditions if the Planning Commission does want to move the application along. Regarding the length of the process that the church had gone through, the Secretary stated that the time spent prior to -the present application was on a land use question. He pointed out that the present application is a special use permit application and that it is a separate question from the zoning request reviewed during the summer. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he would like to move the application along if possible. Commissioner Bernards stated that he did not want to put staff on the spot to respond hastily. He stated that he wanted a careful review of the proposal. Commissioner Malecki agreed. She pointed out that the Planning Commission could probably act on the application in two weeks, rather than take the full 60 days allowed under the ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85027) Chairman Pro tem Manson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Peter Stalland, an attorney for the present owners of the site, stated that his clients wish to see the application moved along. Mrs. Pat Johnson of 4207 66th Avenue North asked whether a study had been done of the level of traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard between 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. on Sundays. She stated that there was an existing traffic problem on Brooklyn Boulevard during those hours from other churches. The Director of Public Works stated that he was not aware of any study of traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard at that time. He stated, however, that the capacity of Brooklyn Boulevard is approximately 750 cars per lane per hour, or 1500 cars in each direction. He stated that this definitely exceeds the volume of traffic that would be generated by the church. Mrs. Johnson also noted the provision of a basketball court on the site plan and wondered whether there would be a school operated on the property. Chairman Pro tem Manson responded in the negative. Mr. Dennis Batty, the architect for the project, stated that the basketball court is only for recreational use by youth groups. He stated that this would not draw a significant amount of traffic. - Mrs. Johnson pointed out that the long range plan of the church is for 1500 people. She stated that this would double the traffic problems presented by the proposed plan. There followed a brief discussion of the possibility of expanding the church in the future. Chairman Pro tem Manson explained that any expansion of the church would have to come back for an amended special use permit approval in the future. The f Director of Public Works also pointed out that the Engineering Department had done a review of alternate uses for the site: residential, commercial and the church. He stated that the church has by far the lowest traffic generation of the three options. 9 -26 -85 -3- f Mrs. Esther Jensen of 4213 66th Avenue North stated that the neighborhood had waited a long time for the City to install a light at 65th Avenue North. She stated that the traffic from the church would certainly cause problems for people in the neighborhood getting on Brooklyn Boulevard. She asked whether the City would consider giving access from 66th Avenue North in the future. Chairman Pro; tem Manson responded in the negative. Mrs. Jensen asked how long it would likely take to empty the church lot. The Director of Public Works estimated approximately 20 minutes. Mrs. Jensen noted that the traffic signal at 65th Avenue North is activated by traffic and asked whether this would mean that the light would not change for 20 minutes. The Director of the Public Works responded in the negative. He explained that the signal is activated by traffic, but that the maximum wait on the 65th Avenue North leg of the intersection is 4 minutes. The Secretary stated that it was impossible to rule out forever the possibility of access to the site from 66th Avenue North. He stated, however, that such a change in access would require an amendment' of the special use permit and action by the City Council before such action would be taken. Mrs. Jensen went on to point out that an office development would not dump 250 cars onto Brooklyn Boulevard at one time. Chairman Pro tem Manson acknowledged this, but added that the office traffic would be concentrated at the peak hour periods for Brooklyn Boulevard. Mrs., Jensen also pointed out the fact that the church would probably have funeral services during weekday hours which might cause greater traffic problems. Commissioner Sandstrom pointed out that this can happen anywhere -there is a funeral. Chairman Pro tem Manson stated that the other activities of the church such as a bible study or a funeral would not draw full attendance as would church services. Mr. Gary Zimmermann, owner of the property at 6527 Brooklyn Boulevard, stated that he did not like the idea of extending the median past the front of his property. He stated that it was difficult to get out onto Brooklyn Boulevard now and that it would be more difficult if the median were put in. Chairman Pro tem Manson responded that any development of the property at the southwest corner of Brooklyn Bouelvard and I- 94 would require an extension of the median. Mr. Zimmermann also pointed out difficulties presented by the off ramp from eastbound I -94 onto southbound Brooklyn Boulevard. Ms. Pat - Kinch of 4218 66th Avenue North briefly expressed her appreciation to the Planning Commission for taking the concerns of the neighborhood into account in their deliberations. There followed -a lengthy discussion amongst the Planning Commission as to the options for action at this meeting. Mr. Lenny Samuelson, part owner of the parcel in question, stated that the church has been very patient in seeking approval of their development plans from the City. He stated that if the Planning Commission chose to table the matter, it would be beneficial for the Commission to give some direction to the applicants so they would know how to proceed. Nor. Mark Anderson, pastor of the Church on the Move, stated that the church has complied with everything that has been requested by staff and the Planning Commission. He stated that the church was not trying to irritate anyone or to threaten, but that if the approval were delayed for two more months, the church would have to look for another site. Chairman Pro tem Manson explained that the Planning Commission is a voluntary organization and that it relies upon the staff to analyze development proposals in detail and to provide reports to the Planning Commission. She stated that the most recently submitted plan had not been 9 -26 -85 -4- thoroughly reviewed by the staff and that the Planning Commission was, therefore, • hesitant to act on those plans without further staff review. Mr. Anderson asked that the Commission specify why the application is to be tabled if that is the action taken. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the proposed church is a good use for the site and suggested that the Planning Commission could move the application subject to certain conditions, or specify what needs to be done with ,a tabling action. Commissioner Nelson stated that, if the application were tabled it would be for. staff review and that, therefore, the Commission may as well entrust the matter to the staff and send it on to the City Council. Commissioner Bernards stated that he did not want to abdicate the advisory responsibility of the Planning Commission which is to oversee the work and review of the staff. The Secretary then reviewed with the Planning Commission some possible conditions which could be attached with any motion recommending approval, if the Planning Commission chose to move the application along. Regarding the drainage of the site, the Director of Public Works stated that calculations regarding the drainage of the site should be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to the consideration by the City Council. He stated that, if a ponding area were required to accommodate normal drainage of the site, the plan may have to be changed significantly. Y The ecr t g S ear added that he felt the Y site could be better landscaped and recommended that additional landscaping be provided on the plan. In response to a question from Chairman Pro tem Manson regarding the deceleration lane, the Secretary stated that the design of the deceleration lane would be subject to review by the County. He stated that some comments regarding the deceleration lane were received from the Minnesota Department of Transportation two years ago when Brooklyn Boulevard was still a State Highway. There followed a discussion of timing for approval of the application and the effective date of an ordinance that would make churches a special use in the R5 zoning district. Commissioner Malecki pointed out that the Planning Commission has indicated support for the church use in the past and that, it would be unlikely, if the plans were in order, that the application would be tabled at the next Planning Commission meeting. She stated that she did not feel the Planning Commission would be doing its job if it sent the plans on without further review. There followed further discussion of the merits of tabling versus acting on the application at this time. It was pointed out that the effective date of the ordinance to allow churches by special use permit would be October 19, 1985 and that the City Council would have the application before it on October 21, 1985, assuming action by the Planning Commission at the October 10, 1985 meeting. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 85027 (FSM, Inc.) btion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Bernards to table Application No. 85027 on the grounds that the recently submitted plans have not been adequately reviewed by the staff and because of questions regarding storm drainage, landscaping and traffic. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tern Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: Commission Sandstrom. The motion passed. 9 -26 -85 -5- y There followed a further brief discussion regarding when the application would be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:21 p.m. and resumed at 9:38 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 85028 (Gregory L'Allier) Following the recess, the Secretary then introduced the next item of business, _a request for special use permit approval to conduct a chiropractic office home occupation in the residence at 6336 Lee Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85028 attached). The Secretary also briefly reminded the Commission of the application of Dr. Lescault, located at approximately Brooklyn Boulevard and 62nd Avenue North. He noted that that application was similar and that a home occupation such as a doctor's office which generates considerable traffic had to be considered a special use permit under the definition in the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Bernards asked what was the floor area of the house. Mr. L'Allier stated that it was approximately 1,100 sq. ft. In response to another question from Commissioner Bernards regarding therapy and equipment used, Mr. L'Allier stated that the therapy would be standard chiropractic therapies and that ultra sound would be used. Commissioner Bernards asked whether TV disturbance would result from the use of the equipment. Mr. L'Allier responded in the negative. Commissioner Bernards also asked whether the business was subject to any health codes. The Secretary responded that there were no local health codes regulating the business, but that Mr. L'Allier would probably have to be licensed by the State. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85028) Chairman Pro tem Manson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Corcoran of 6324 Lee Avenue North stated that the street was essentially a quiet dead end residential street and that the proposed business would generate an unacceptable amount of traffic. Chairman Pro tem Manson pointed out that there would be a condition of approval that all parking be off - street. Mr. Corcoran stated that he did not think such a condition could be enforced. Mr. Corcoran also asked whether proper bathroom facilities would be available and also expressed concern that any person related to the applicant could be an employee. Chairman Pro tem Manson explained that a relative who was a resident could work in the home occupation, but that no nonresidents would be permitted under this approval. Mr. Marlow Pederson of 6330 Lee Avenue North then approached the Commission and stated that he had lived in Brooklyn Center since 1952 and in his present house since 1957. He stated that he likes his home because of the convenience of shopping, .schools and the good planning of Brooklyn Center. He stated that the only traffic on the street is local traffic and that he did not want more traffic. He then reviewed with the Commission the standards pertaining to special uses from the Zoning Ordinance. Regarding public health and comfort, he stated that the proposed home occupation caused him stress. Regarding property values, he asked how much they would have to be diminished for this standard not to be met. He stated that he felt the chiropratic business would reduce his property values. Regarding impeding normal and orderly development of the surrounding land, he stated that the business would impede such because the neighborhood is a single - family area. Regarding traffic, he stated that the business should simply locate on Brooklyn 0 Boulevard where traffic is expected. Yr. Pederson stated that he did not think that a home occupation such as this was intended by the City forefathers. 9 -26 -85 -6- a Mrs. Pederson of 6330 Lee Avenue North pointed out that there was no place to widen the existing driveway on the property. She stated that it is right under their window at this time. She also complained that there would be a lot more traffic as a result of the home occupation and expressed concern regarding her grandchildren that visit their home. There followed a brief discussion regarding the question of expanding the driveway. The Planner discussed the layout of the lot and noted that, if the driveway had to be expanded to the north, this would be more difficult because of a rise in the grade, a planter area and sidewalk. He stated, however, that a driveway widening was definitely needed because the existing driveway is definitely too narrow to accommodate two cars parked side -by -side. In response to a question from Chairman Pro tem Manson, Mr. L'Allier stated that he may have up to four cars in an hour. He stated that he did not expect more than two cars at a time. He stated that two cars could park side -by -side if they parked up by the garage. He also explained that his business at home would be on a limited basis. He explained that he assists at a practice in West Saint Paul, but that friends and acquaintances in Brooklyn Center do not wish to go all the way to West Saint Paul to employ his services. He stated that he would move the practice out of the home in about two years when it gets going. Chairman Pro tem Manson stated that she expected patients to park in front of the house since this would be the quickest way to get in the front door. She stated that unless the driveway is widened, cars will likely end up parking on street. She asked the applicant whether he would widen the driveway. Mr. L'Allier answered that he would have to look at the cost of widening the driveway as a condition of doing business and decide what to do. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85028) Chairman Pro tem Manson asked whether anyone present wished to add anything more regarding the application. Hearing none, she 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. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the home occupation would not effect the value of the property, based on his experience in real estate. He pointed out that the conditions would restrict the business in such a way that it would not have an impact on the residential neighborhood. There were, at that point, unsolicited comments from the Pedersons that they had received opinions from three real estate agents that their property values would decline as a result of the business. Commissioner Ma.lecki asked why the practice had to be located in Brooklyn Center. Mr. L'Allier answered that he knew people in Brooklyn Center who would not come all the way to West Saint Paul for treatment, but who would come to him for treatment at his home. Commissioner Malecki asked how Mr. LIAllier would advertise the business and whether he would have a sign. W. L'Allier stated that he would not limit the business to friends and relatives, but that it would nevertheless be a limited practice. He stated that he would have a sign on the house simply to let people know that they had come to the right place, not really to draw additional business. Mr. L'Allier stated that he was willing to limit the duration of his home occupation to two years. 9 -26 -85 -7- s Commissioner Malecki stated that parking is an issue with home occupations. She stated that Mr. L'Allier should let his patients know that no parking would be allowed on street. There followed a discussion regarding widening of the driveway. Chairman Pro tem Manson expressed concerns regarding the hours of operation and the part -time nature of the practice. Mr. L'Allier stated that he practiced in West Saint Paul on Monday, Wednesday and Friday afternoons, but that he wanted flexibility in the hours so that he could treat people in cases of emergency. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the hours of such businesses have not been restricted much in the past. Chairman Pro tem Manson asked Mr. L'Allier how he would handle patients who were waiting for treatment if no one would be home to let the patients in. Mr. L'Allier stated that he would have a buzzer in his house to let him know when a patient is there. He stated that he could leave one patient in order to let another in and have them fill out forms. Commissioner Malecki stated that Mr. L'Allier seemed to be expanding beyond what was proposed in the letter by treating people after 5 :00 p.m. There followed further discussion regarding hours. The Planner pointed out that the hours of operation are not rigidly enforced, but are an indication of whether a home occupation is incidental and secondary to the residential use of the property. He stated that no one from the City would be at the front door checking to see whether anyone who came to the house after 5:00 p.m. was a patient, but that if there was regular coming and going after 5 :00 p.m. this might become grounds, for revocation of the special use permit. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85028 (Gregory L'Allier) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend approval of Application No. 85028, subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is nontransferable. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any - violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. n S 6 r 3. The hours of operation shall be fro , Monday ct ! tyw through Friday on an appointment only basis. .tea merr- &.ao, 2 <a 4. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off- street on improved space provided by the applicant. 5. Special use permit approval acknowledges use of the living room and one room approximately 11' x 10' for the home occupation. No expansion to other rooms for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment is acknowledged. No nonresident employee is acknowledged by this approval. 6. The premises shall be inspected by a City Building Inspector prior to the issuance of the special use permit. Any alterations to the home recommended by the Building Inspector shall be completed prior to issuance of the special use permit. 7. The applicant shall widen the driveway to at least 17' 4 in width toward the house prior to the issuance of the special use permit in order to accommodate at least two patient vehicles in the driveway at one time. 9 -26 -85 -8- 8. Permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favor: Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: Chairman Pro tem Manson. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 85029 AND 85030 (Lombard Properties, Inc.) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a two phase- office development south of Freeway Boulevard and north of I -94 in the I -1 zone, east of Earle Brown Bowl. The Secretary also introduced a request for preliminary R.L.S. approval to resubdivide into five tracts the three tracts of land south of Freeway Boulevard between Earle Brown Bowl and the Holiday Inn and the vacated highway right -of -way where the old Humboldt interchange used to be. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports for these two applications (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 85029 and 85030 attached). The Secretary added that the staff recommended widening the driveway leading from . Freeway Boulevard to the office sites within Tract B to allow two lanes out and one lane in divided by a median. The Secretary also noted that the applicant has been asked to provide calculations on sewer flow to be generated by the office development. Regarding the impact of the office development on traffic in the Freeway Boulevard area between Shingle Creek Parkway and Humboldt Avenue North, the Secretary noted that Short- Elliott - Hendrickson had done a brief analysis of the impact of the proposed development and that the level of service at both of those two intersections would still be acceptable with the office development. In response to a question from Commissioner Malecki regarding trees on the site, the Secretary stated that the proposed landscape plan provides a single specie of trees down the entire entrance drive and that the recommendation of the staff is to vary these trees somewhat so that a die -out of one species would not leave the entire area bare. The Director of Public Works also recommended to the Planning Commission a condition that access to Tract A be eliminated to the entrance drive within Tract B of the proposed R. L. S. and not be allowed from Freeway Boulevard. He stated that any access on Freeway Boulevard would create difficulties in the area between James Avenue and the proposed entrance drive. Chairman Pro tem Manson asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Al Beisner of Lombard Properties, Inc. asked whether the 10' setback for parking recommended for Tract A would be from the entrance drive or from the property line. The Secretary answered that it would be from the property line; There followed a lengthy discussion regarding the widening of the entrance drive to allow for two lanes of traffic outbound and the need to widen Tract B and to establish a greenstrip on Tract A adjacent to Tract B. The Planner explained the dimensions of the layout as it might exist if a driveway widening were drawn up. The Director of Public Works strongly recommended that 15' of green area total be provided on either side of the entrance drive since that would provide adequate snow storage space. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 85029 and 85030) Chairman Pro tem Manson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding either the registered land survey or the special use permit. Hearing none, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. 9 -26 -85 -9- re krl ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85029 (Lombard Properties, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend approval of Application No. 85029, 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 tT 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. (-)-I 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 �J of 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. ~� 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. w 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. .r- 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9• Storm sewer outlets into I -94 right -of -way are subject to permit (� by MN /DOT prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. The new R.L.S. for the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, b ordinances and regulations and any violation shall be grounds for � revocation. v 12. Approval acknowledges general office occupancy only. No of medical or dental tenants are comprehended because of the number !' �. of parking and ,proof -of- king_ spa s, prov' e n the plan. l 13. Sewer calculations Ishall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to to ` determine that the proposed use is within existing sewer capacities. 14 The plans shall be died prior to cons iderat o - by-the City Counci l--to provide addition ce for two exit lanes in driveway coni ng Freeway Bouleva 'th the office site 9 -26 -85 r ` SGZa i n S c�€,(, ( �U c f G 'd er s Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85030 (Lombard Properties, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 85030, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final R.L.S. is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final R.L.S. is subject to the provisions of the Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. An easement agreement covering Tract A and stipulating a minimum 10' parking setback and 25' building setback shall be executed and filed with the R.L.S. at the County. 4. Vacation of Irving Avenue North right-of -way over Tract D R.L.S. Y , 1482 shall be subject to an agreement stipulating peak sewer flow and payment of utility hookup charges as drafted by the Director of Public Works. Said agreement to be executed prior to final R.L.S. approval. 5. Tract B of the proposed R.L.S. shall be widened to accommodate an entrance drive within Tract B with one entrance lane and two exits lanes as recommended by the Director of Public Works. Tract B shall also be wide enough so that a total of 15' of greenspace shall exist between the entrance drive and adjacent parking lots. 6. Access to Tract A of the proposed R.L.S. shall be limited to the entrance drive within Tract B of the proposed R.L.S. No access shall be permitted from Freeway Boulevard directly to Tract A. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion P asked. APPLICATION NO. 85031 (Federal Lumber) The Secretary then introduced the last item of business, an appeal from a determination by staff that an office building cannot be permitted at the Federal Lumber site at 4810 North Lilac Drive on the grounds that office uses are not permitted in the I -2 zoning district. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85031 attached). The Secretary also noted that the Soo Line tracks in the area of the Federal Lumber site lend themselves to heavy industrial uses with outside storage. Chairman Pro tem Manson asked the appellant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Bernard Herman, an architect representing Federal Lumber, then addressed the Commission. He explained the recent evolution of the use of the Federal Lumber property. He stated that there was excess space in the storage yard because the truss operation had been abandoned. He stated that a market analysis had been done that showed a demand for office space along the Highway 100 corridor. He doubted that a rezoning of the property was appropriate. He stated that the question is what is the most appropriate vehicle for allowing office uses in this area adjacent to Highway 100. He then showed the Commission a plan for an office building on the west side of the site facing Highway 100. He noted landscaped areas around the 9 -26 -85 -11- office portion of the site and that there would be no windows on the north or south sides of the building. He estimated the cost of the building at approximately $850, 000.00. Mr. Herman went on to discuss the changing character of the area in the neighborhood g g g ood of the France Avenue /Highway 100 intersection. He stated that there is little I -2 zoned land abutting Highway 100 compared with other zoning districts along this corridor. He stated that the nature of this particular neighborhood was more like an industrial park zone than a heavy industrial zoning district. Regarding the Soo Line tracks, W. Herman noted that they are being used less frequently as time goes on. He stated that there was a unique situation surrounding this particular property that made office use logical. Commissioner Sandstrom noted that if the property were zoned I -1, Federal Lumber would become a nonconforming use. He asked what would happen ,then. Mr. Herman stated that Federal Lumber did not want an I -1 zoning. That, he explained, is why an appeal was pursued rather than a rezoning. He discussed the market demand for office in the area and encouraged the Commission to allow office uses by special use in the L -2 zoning district. The Planner asked Mr. Herman what he felt the implications of an office use on the Federal Lumber property would be for the industrial area just north of the Soo Line at 50th and France Avenues North. Mr. Herman stated that he did not want to comment about that property because he was not familiar enough with it. He stated, however, that if the area is rundown it may be an indication that property the is inappropriately zoned. Chairman Pro tem Manson briefly mentioned the possibility of allowing office uses in the I -2 zoning district as part of a planned unit development which might be allowed under a new PUD ordinance under consideration. The Secretary agreed. He stated that offices are presently allowed by special use permit in the I -1 zoning district, but not in the I -2 zoning district and that this was a major difference between these two districts. The Secretary also expressed concern regarding the Joslyn Pole Yards $ g Y Y ds property and the possibilities for a large development in that area. He stated that there was a need for study of this entire area of the City which was ripe for either redevelopment or new development. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the Federal Lumber site had benefited from the improvements to other properties in the area and that a different environment has now been created which may support office use. The Secretary asked for direction from the Planning Commission and which option it preferred. Commissioner Malecki recommended that the City consider office use as a special use in the I -2 zone and that storage be screened. Commissioner er Nelson stated that he wanted to look at other er I -2 areas in the City. The Secretary pointed out on an overhead transparency the entire I -2 district within the City, that it is basically along the Soo Line tracks. The Planner suggested that there were essentially two questions that the Planning Commission should answer. One was whether office use was good in this particular location and the second would be' what mechanism to adopt to allow offices if they were deemed to be appropriate. MOTION DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Following fuurther discuss n - was a motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Nelson to direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to allow office uses by special use permit in the I -2 zoning district. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tern Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 9 -26 -85 -12- ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 85031 (Federal Lumber) Motion by Commissioner M,alecki seconded by Commissioner Nelson to table Application No. 85031 until staff have prepared ordinance language to allow office uses by special use permit in the I -2 zoning district. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson, and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Chairman Pro tem Manson then informed the Commission that she would be resigning after the October 10, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. She stated that the reason for her resignation was that she would be taking a class on Thursday evenings over the next two ,years and that this would simply not allow her to participate in the Planning Commission as a member. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 12:28 a.m. Chairman 9 -26 -85 -13- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85026 Applicant: Ryan Construction Company Location: 6000 Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two parcels the recently created lot at the northeast corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and John Martin Drive. The property in question is legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Shingle Creek Center Addition and was platted earlier this year as part of the Target /Ryan development. The property is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by the lot for the Target store, on the east by LaBelle's, on the south by John Martin Drive, and on the west by Shingle Creek Parkway. The proposed legal description is simply Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Shingle Creek Center 2nd Addition. Lot 1 covers roughly the southerly 66,500 sq. ft. of the plat and is to contain "Building B" of the Ryan retail development. Lot 2 covers roughly the northerly 125,700 sq. ft. of the plat and will contain "Building A" of the Ryan development. Both lots will be served by an access off John Martin Drive. Lot 2 will, therefore, require a cross access easement from Lot 1. Actually cross access and cross parking agreements will be necessary over this subdivision and the Target lot. A 10' wide utility easement is indicated along the John Martin Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway rights -of -way. Altogether, the proposed 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. Agreements for cross access and parking between both lots in this subdivision and the Target lot shall be filed with the plat at the County. 9 -26 -85 Planning Commission Information Sheet ' Application No. 85027 Applicant: Foundation Stone Ministries, Inc. Location: SW corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan/Special q g Use Permit The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to con- struct a church on the 4.5 acre parcel at the southwest quadrant of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. The land in question is zoned R5 and is bounded by I -94 on the north, by Brooklyn Boulevard on the east, and by single family homes on the south and west. Churches are not presently allowed in the R5 zoning district. However, an ordinance amendment is under consideration by the City Council to allow churches by special use permit in the R5 zone. Any action on this application would, therefore, be contingent upon action on that ordinance. The proposed plan calls for a seating capacity of 800. Parking required for the facil- ity is at a ratio of l stall per, 3 seats, for a total of 267 spaces. The applicant has submitted three site layouts, one for immediate development and two potential layouts. The immediate ro osal shows 271 p p parking talls a few of which staff would r ecommend P not be put in. A second plan shows a potential of 293 within the existing property,at grade. Finally, a conceptual plan has also been submitted for a 1,500 seat church (Phase I plus a-700 seat expansion) including the two lots south of the church site on Brooklyn Boulevard and a parking ramp and a total of 494 parking spaces. Access in all plans is from Brooklyn Boulevard only. The proposed plans call for a deceleration lane in southbound Brooklyn Boulevard and extension of the median some 70' to make the access to the site right -in /right -out only. Staff have conveyed to the project architect some alternate designs for the de- celeration lane. We also recommend that the median be extended approximately 200' rather than 70' so that access north of France Avenue North will be blocked, but a future access across Brooklyn Boulevard from France Avenue North would have a left turn option. This would, of course, necessitate acquisition of the two lots immedi- atel south of the site, or at least the southerly f. the two lots. s. The landscape plan submitted has basically documented existing vegetation in the area around the site and calls for additional Spirea shrubs and berms to provide screening where none presently exists. Four maples are also proposed immediately west of the building. Staff have recommended that additional plantings be provided and that a 6' high wood fence be installed along all greenstrip areas adjacent to residences and con- necting up with the existing freeway fence. This fence would have both a security and a screening function. The grading, drainage and utility plan calls for all parking lot drainage to flow toward a single catch basin in the southwesterly portion of the site. This catch basin is to be connected by a 15" storm sewer line to an existing storm sewer line that runs along the west side of the lot at 4100 65th Avenue North. Our preliminary reaction to this plan is that it is too simplistic. Further analysis will be required to determine what is an acceptable drainage system f h' p g y or this site. Sanitary sewer will be connected to an existing main in Brooklyn Boulevard. The water connection will go to a 16" line within the I -94 right -of -way, north of the site. The plan is deficient in parking delineators and does not yet indicate 8612 curb and gutter (straight 6" curb only is indicated). Staff have transmitted these deficiencies to the project architect (Mr. Dennis Batty). 9 -26 -85 -1- y Application No. 85027 continued s The building plan calls for a two level worship area with seating for 550 on the main floor and an additional 250 in the balcony. The chancel is at the north end of the building. A one storey area with offices, classrooms, fellowship hall, nursery, rest rooms, etc. is located along the east and south sides of the building. The future expansion would roughly double the size of the proposed church, in roughly the same functions, to the west. The building materials and heights have not been listed. How - ever, the project architect has indicated a brick exterior for the outer one-storey portion of the building and a decorative concrete block for the two-storey worshi P area. The church would be 34' high. Proposed lighting for the site is all located in the perimeter greenstrip areas. Light poles are to be 24' high. No information has been provided on the fixtures, but Mr. Batty has indicated that they will shine directly downward and not produce glare into neighboring residential lots. No provision has been made on the plan for trash screen- ing. Inside storage may be planned. Regarding the standards for special use permits, staff see no conflict with the first standard relating to public welfare, nor with the last standard pertaining to code compliance. We also do not see the proposed church as Q n impediment to future develop- ment or redevelopment of neighboring land. As to impact on surrounding property, values, we feel it is very important that the proposed development be properly screened and secured from neighboring residential lots so that light from the parking lot and pedestrian traffic through the residential neighborhood can be effectively curtailed. Regarding standard (d) pertaining to impact on the flow of traffic in the public streets, the parcel in questi -on raises particular difficulties, for any development, permitted or special. The-off-peak nature of the traffic generated by the church use and the improvements within Brooklyn Boulevard (deceleration lane and median extension would seem to present no worse an impact than what would have resulted from the office condo development of this property approved in 1983 and extended in 1984. Because of the difficulties surrounding this property and the deficiencies noted in this report, it is recommended that the Commission table the application and direct the applicant to submit revised plans addressing the concerns outlined above and any other concerns raised in the public hearing and /or by the Commission. I 9 -26 -85 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85028 Applicant: Gregory L`Allier Location: 6336 Lee Avenue North Request: Home Occupation /Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to conduct a chiropractic office home occupation in the residence at 6336 Lee Avenue North. The residence is located in the R1 zone and is bounded by Lee Avenue North on the west, and by other single - family homes on the north, east and south. A chiropractic office has been considered a special home occupation in the Rl zone on the grounds of the equipment used and because of the customer traffic involved. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he describes certain aspects of his proposed home occupation. He notes that he will have no x -ray equipment (though he will have equipment for reading x- rays). X -rays will be taken at another chiropractic office. The home occupation is not expected to handle more than 20 patients per day, with no more than 4 patients per hour. Hours of operation would be 9:00 a.m. to noon and 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. There is presently a 16' x 66' driveway on the premises. Patients would enter by the front door (3' wide). The living room (13' x 19') is to be used as a reception area and a 10' 10" x 9' 10" room for consultation and treatment. (This amounts to 353 sq. ft. being used at least part time for the home occupation.) The letter also lists some equipment to be used in the home occupation. Staff would point out that a recent home occupation applicant was required to widen her driveway to over 17' as a condition of approval. It is expected that the chiropractic office proposed will generate more traffic than that of the photography studio and, therefore, a widening to at least 17' 4" to the house would seem to be in order in this case. Otherwise, the hours, floor space, activity, ingress and egress appear acceptable Approval is, therefore, recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is nontransferable. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. The hours of operation shall be from 9 :00 a.m. 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday on an appointment only basis. 4. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off- street on improved space provided by the applicant. 5. Special use permit approval acknowledges use of the living room and one room approximately 11' x 10' for the home occupation. No expansion to other rooms for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment is acknowledged. No non- resident employee is acknowledged by this approval. 6. The premises shall be inspected by a City Building Inspector prior to the issuance of the special use permit. Any alter- ations to the home recommended by the Building Inspector shall be completed prior to issuance of the special use permit. 9 -26 -85 -1- Application No. 85028 continued 7. The applicant shall widen the driveway to at least 17' 4" in width prior to issuance of the special use permit in order to accommodate at least two patient vehicles in the driveway at one time. 8. Permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 9 -26 -85 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet 4 Application No. 85029 Applicant: Lombard Properties, Inc. Location: 1600 block of Freeway Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Permit The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to con- struct two one - storey office buildings on the area of land adjacent to I -94, south of the Earle Brown Bowl and Holiday Inn. The property in question is zoned I -1 and is bounded on the east by the Humboldt Avenue North bridge approach, on the south by I -94, on the west by a vacant parcel formerly planned for an Embers Restaurant, and on the north by Earle Brown Bowl, vacant I -1 land and Holiday Inn. Office buildings are allowed by special use permit in the I -1 zoning district. Access to the development will be via a long 30' wide driveway from Freeway Boulevard, immediately west of the Holiday Inn site. This access will also serve a vacant tract of land immediately east of Earle Brown Bowl. Parking for the two buildings is based on the ordinance formula: G.F.A. (Gross Floor Area) divided by .0005 x G.F.A. + 190 equals the number of spaces. The westerly building (Bldg. A) is proposed at 48,087 sq. ft. and requires 225 parking stalls. Building B is proposed at 45,876 sq. ft. and requires 216 stalls. The total parking requirement is, therefore, 441 stalls. The plan provides 354 stalls with an additional 87 possible under a proof -of- parking plan. It should be noted that the proof -of- parking plan meets the requirement of general office use only. NO MEDICAL OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR. The parking requirement for medical uses is 1 stall per 150 sq. ft. of gross floor area (more restrictive than provided for here). Staff would comment that failure to provide for medical occupancy in these one storey office buildings seem very unwise. We expect that, in the future, medical or dental tenants will be very interested in these buildings, but will have to be turned away because of a refusal to design for this option. Nevertheless, there is no ordinance requirement that provision be made for medical use in a multi- tenant office building. The applicant has also stated a willingness to replan the site before building the second building if there is significant demand for medical space in the first building. The proposed landscape plan has been drawn by Arteka which is providing landscape architecture services to Lombard Properties (Blumentals Architecture is the Architect on the project). The landscape plan provides a boulevard effect along the long entrance drive with 3" diameter shade trees on either side, spaced 50 apart. Shade trees are also proposed in virtually all landscape islands in the parking lot. The shade trees total 82 and include Hackberry, Green Mountain Sugar Maple, Norway Maple, Marshalls Ash and Skyline Locust. Staff have encouraged the applicant to vary the species of trees along the long entrance drive to avoid a complete change of scenary in the future should a disease strike a particular species of tree. Conversely, the applicant wishes to create a sense of continuity. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss this with the applicant and make comment in their action. The landscape plan also provides decorative and coniferous trees in green areas bordering Building A and in larger green spaces around the Building B parking lot. Numerous foundation plantings are also proposed immediately adjacent to both buildings. Foundation plantings include 158 Seagreen Juniper, 106 Scandia Juniper, 81 Compact Japanese Yew, 83 A. W. Spirea, 105 Yellowtwig Dogwood, 128 Purpleleaf Intercreeper, and 292 Red and White Geraniums, along with lesser quantities of other plantings. 9 -26 -85 -1- Application No. 85029 continued The grading plan calls for the south central area of the site and at least Building B roof drainage to drain into the I -94 right -of -way. A permit from MN /DOT will be re- quired for this drainage flow. Runoff along the north side of the site will be con- veyed to City Storm sewer in Freeway Boulevard. The grading plan presently shows a 0 very steep grade to the west of Building A on the west end of the site leading into a low area on the vacant parcel to the west. It is recommended that the applicant seek permission to fill in this low area adequately to provide a gentler slope to the west of Building A. Curb and gutter has not been noted anywhere on the plans, but the project architect has agreed that this standard item is understood. There is no provision in the plans for trash pickup or screening. Storage is presumed to be in the building t this point. The plans c 9 p e p s all for 35 high light poles, mostly in perimeter green areas on the east side of the site and three in the parking lot on the west side of the site. The building plans call for a brick exterior, dark bronze aluminum windows and tinted double - insulated glass A pre - finished metal panel enclosure for mechanical equipment is proposed on the roof of the building. There are also skylights above landscaped areas within the building. The landscaped areas will be visible from common corridors and from adjacent tenant spaces. They will not be surrounded by corridor space. A brick wall to support planting beds will be provided in various locations outside the building. Regarding the standards for special use permits, staff see no conflict with standards pertaining to the public welfare, impact on surrounding property values, or compliance with regulations (assuming no medical tenancies). The main concerns would be relative to the traffic generated by the proposed use and the extent to which any sewer flow from this development may crowd out future options because of sanitary sewer 'constric- tion on 65th Avenue North between Humboldt Avenue North and Dupont Avenue North. The traffic generated by the proposed office use (264 trips @ 2.81 trips /1,000 s.f. G.F.A) is significantly greater than was projected in the probable scenario of the Short- Elliott- Hendrickson traffic analysis (the projected use at that time was retail show- room eneratin only 50 trips during 9 9 Y p u g the 5 -6 p.m. peak hour). However, it is less... than the maximum case scenario of 480 trips between 5 -6 p.m. with a fast -food con- glomeration. The sewer flow is not expected to unduly restrict development of neigh- boring vacant property. The peak hour sewer flow of the office development should be complementary to the peak hour flows for the neighboring businesses which are primarily nightime operations. Regarding the use standards for I -1 special uses in Section 35 -330 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached), the proposed office use is probably of greater intensity in terms of traffic and use of 'public facilities. However, the proposed use is not of greater intensity than other neighboring commercial uses in the I -1 zone and is certainly less intense than the Ryan office buildings in the I -1 zone south of the freeway. In light of the above, 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 p ermits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 9 -26 -85 -2- Application No. 85029 continued 's 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 equip- ment 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. 9. Storm sewer outlets into I -94 right -of -way are subject to permit by MN /DOT prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. The new R.L.S. for the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 12. Approval acknowledges general office occupancy only. No medical or dental tenants are comprehended because of the number of arkin p 9 and proof -of- parking spaces provided on the plan. 9 -26 -85 -3- r Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85030 Applicant: Lombard Properties, Inc. Location: 1600 block of Freeway Boulevard Request: Registered Land Survey The applicant requests preliminary R.L.S. approval to resubdivide into five tracts the three tracts of land and excess highway right -of -way south of Freeway Boulevard and north of I -94. The land in question is zoned I -1 and is the same as that described in the report on Application No. 85029. The existing legal description of the prop - erty is Tracts C, D, and E of R.L.S. No. 1482 and part of Section 35 (Township 119, Range 21, Hennepin County) which was formerly the exit ramp from westbound I -94 to Humboldt Avenue North. That ramp was eliminated by the highway reconstruction in 1981. The land has since been vacated by the highway department and is included with Tracts C, D, and E to make up this R.L.S. Tracts C, D and E of the new R.L.S. form the land area for the two- phase office de- velopment proposed under Application No. 85029. Tract B is to serve as a private access road to Tracts A, C, D and E. It extends some 448' south of Freeway Boulevard and provides an alternative to the old Tract D, R.L.S. 1482 which was dedicated as land for a public street (Irving Avenue North). The City has agreed to vacate the Irving Avenue North right -of -way under certain conditions limiting sewer flow from the and r property equiring the payment of utility hook -up charges. Tract A of the new R.L.S. is tentatively planned for a motel development, though plans have not been submitted. The staff's position relative to any development on Tract A is that access should be off the private access road and not off Freeway Boulevard. The total area of the proposed R.L.S. is approximately 10.57 acres. The breakdown is as follows: Tract A (future motel ?) 99,000 sq. ft. Tract B (private road) 20,100 sq. ft. + Tract C (Bldg. A /office) 68 sq. ft. Tract D (common office pkg.) 204,500 sq. ft. ± Tract E (Bldg. B /office) 68,000 sq. ft. + Total 460,229 sq. ft. (10.57 ac.) As noted in the area summary, Tract D is the parking area (including proof -of- parking) for the office development. Tracts C and E are basically the office pads with ad- jacent green areas. All access to development within this R.L.S. will be via Tract B and should be so stipulated by access easement agreements. A 20' wide utility easement for a 16" water main runs roughly northeast to southwest within Tract D. Of concern to the Planning Commission and Council would be the building and parking setbacks from the common boundary between Tract A and B. If Tract B were a public street, the parking setback would be 15' and the building setback 50'. In the case of the Red Lobster Addition, parking setbacks were established at 10' and building setbacks at 15'. In the resent case a 10 parking setback p � t ck ma be adequate, but a building P 9 Y q � t 9 setback of 25' is recommended. These setbacks will have to be established by easement over Tract A since there is no ordinance basis for requiring more than -a 10' interior sideyard setback from Tract B. Filing of such an easement is recommended as a condition of final plat approval. 9 -26 -85 -1- Application No. 85030 continued Altogether, the proposed R.L.S. appears to be in order and approval is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final R.L.S. is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2 The final R.L.S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. An easement agreement covering Tract A and stipulating a minimum 10' parking setback and 25' building setback shall be executed and filed with the R.L.S. at the County. 4. Vacation of Irving Avenue North right -of -way over Tract D, R.L.S. 1482 shall be subject cttoanagree � sti ulatin eak sewer flow and a stipulating pay- ment of utility hookup charges as drafted by the Director of Public Works. Said agreement to be executed prior to final R.L.S. approval. 9 -26 -85 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85031 Applicant: Federal Lumber Location: 4810 North Lilac Drive Request: Appeal This application is an appeal from a determination by staff that office uses are not allowed as either a permitted or special use in the I -2 zoning district. The appel- lant does not actually dispute staff's reading of the Zoning Ordinance (see Section 35 -331 attached), but wishes to develop a portion of the Federal Lumber property for an office building and is using the appeal application as a vehicle for initiating a discussion of uses permitted in the I -2 zone. The property in question is, of course, zoned I -2 and is bounded by Highway 100 on the west, by the Soo Line tracks on the north, by Ansari Abrasives on the east, and by four industrial buildings, including Cook Paint, on the south. The appellant has submitted a letter (attached) which makes a number of points as to why office and office /warehouse development of the type found in the Industrial Park is more appropriate in the Highway 100 corridor than heavy industrial use. The letter states that an office building is more appropriate for highway frontage than a lumber yard and will be more attractive. Mr. Segal promotes office development as an improvement to the area and part of a trend of improvements evident in the Highway 100 /France Avenue North neighborhood. Mr. Segal also points out that an office development along Highway 100 would be appropriate for the narrow configura- tion of the site and that the public facilities serving the site are adequate for an office development. The letter notes that I -1 zoning is appropriate for freeway frontage and argues that sites with Highway 100 exposure are perhaps more appropriate for I -1 zoning than for I -2. The appellant has had a market study done by Corner- stone Properties which indicates a market demand for office in this area (see also a letter to Stuart Segal attached). The letter adds that an office building would generate more tax revenue for the City. The appellant's objective is to build an office building on the west end of the Federal Lumber property, facing Highway 100. Office uses (unless part of an in- dustrial use ) are not - ermitted in that p zoning district (1-2). The City has various options: 1) the City an do_nothin y g, deny the appeal and leave the district at Highway 100 and the Soo Line tracks a purely industrial area; 2) the City can amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow office uses as either a permitted or special use in I -2 zoning district; 3) the City can eliminate the I -2 district and zone all land in the present I -2 district to I -1 (thus making certain operations noncon- forming; 4),.the City can consider a rezoning to I -1 of certain properties within the existing I -2 district which have exposure to Highway 100 (note: this would make Federal Lumber nonconforming as it has outside storage which is not p ermitted in the I -1 zone); 5) the City can even consider a non- industrial zoning for this entire area near the Soo Line if it is felt the long -run character of this neighbor- hood is moving away from industrial use altogether. These actions are not all mutually exclusive. Some can be pursued in the short run while others may be de- ferred until later time for further consideration. Staff agree that office development in this area is an improvement, an upgrading of the area. The question is whether it is an upgrading that can be sustained over the long term, whether a) development pressures support the need for office-de- velopment and b) whether office uses can coexist side by side with heavy industrial uses over the short and /or long run. We would agree that the recent upgrading of Cass Screw, Federal Lumber, and Dale Tile and the construction of the new tennis club lend a certain momentum to improve the quality of development in this area. We would also agree that office development is more appropriate than industrial uses with outside storage in locations that have high visibility, such as along Highway 100. 9 -26 -85 -1- r Application No. 85031 continued s We are, however, somewhat concerned over the question of compatibility. Office buildings next to storage yards may not be maintained well because tenants may not stay long in an unattractive environment. Perhaps the tradeoff between freeway visibility s it and a less attractive back and should o the market Y sou be left lace. On t Y P the other hand, preserving property values is a major aim of zoning and achieving compatibility through regulation is an essential tool in preserving those property values. If the Planning Commission is disposed to allowing office development at the Federal Lumber site, the immediate choice would seem to be between expanding the options of the I -2 zone or rezoning the land adjacent to Highway 100 to I -1.. One possibility would be to make both offices and outside storage special uses in the I -2 zone, perhaps requiring screening of all outside storage and a buffer strip unless immedi- ately adjacent to another storage yard. This kind of ordinance change could have the long -run effect of upgrading the aesthetic character of the I -2 zone without making n existing uses nonconforming as to use. But perhaps it is more a ro ri 9 Y 9 9 � P P PP P ate to rezone at least some parcels to I -1 and set the stage for phasing out outside storage in a light industrial "sleeve" along the Highway 100 corridor. Needless to say, there are many options to consider and the ultimate judgment may be that the present arrangement is, in fact, the most rational. We do not recommend any particular option at this time. Rather, we recommend that the application be tabled and the Commission perhaps indicate which options seem most deserving of further study. 9 -26 -85 -2- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MIq Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 7th day of October , 1985 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle= Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance making chapels, churches, synagogues and temples a special use in the R5 zoning district. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least , 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES TO " ALLOW CHAPELS, CHURCHES, SYNAGOGUES AND TEMPLES AS A SPECIAL USE IN THE R5 ZONING DIS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended by the addition of the following: S ection 35 -314. R5 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 3. Special Us c. Chapel churc synagog and temple pro pri vehicular access s hall be gained t the uses by a collec or arterial stree Section ?_ 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 Da:e (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matte =r to be deleted) 14.6 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that "a public hearing will be held on the 7th day of October , 1985 at 8:00 p.m. at the City Hail, 6301 Shingle Creek _Parkway to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow convenience food restaurants as `a permitted use in shopping centers over 250,000 sq. ft. in floor area. 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 TO ALLOW CONVENIENCE FOOD RESTAURANTS AS A PERMITTED USE IN SHOPPING CENTERS OVER 250,000 SQ. FT IN FLOOR AREA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Se ction 35 -322. C2 COMMERCE DISTRICT. 3. Special Uses c. Drive -in eating establishments and convenience food restaurants provided they do not abut an R1 R2, or R3 district including abutment at a street line. (However, convenience food restau- rants without drive -up facilities and located within the rincipal structure of a shopping center of over 2 ,000 sq. ft. of gross floor rea shall be considered a permitted use.) Section 2. This ordinance shall be come effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective 'Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) 13A MEMORANDUM TO: Brooklyn Center City Council FROM: Richard J. Schieffer City Attorney RE: Failure of Lift Station No. 1 DATE: October 2, 1985 At 11:15 p.m. on January 30, 1985, the City Public Utility Department received word of a sewer 'backup at 5900 Upton Avenue North. A City worker went to the scene and began water jetting the line to clear possible obstructions. Sewer backup was reported at a second location at 6268 Brooklyn Drive. Employees immediately determined that the problem covered a wider area and went to Lift .Station No. 1 were they.found that both pumps had failed to operate. One pump was turned on manually and the second pump was left off to avoid overloading the down stream force main. The Lift Station was pumped down and employees then checked both pumps and determined that they now operated normally in the automatic mode. (Both pumps are activated by electrical circuitry to cycle on and off as the sewage level rises and falls.) Employees stayed at the Station until 2:45 a.m., observ- ing the operation of the pumps. At 8 :00 a.m, on January 31 ,1985, Mike Paul Electric Company was called to the scene because they had recently installed the electrical circuitry. Motorola, Inc. was also called since they had a hand in installing the circuitry. The manufacturer and supplier of the circuitry controls (Healy- Ruff) was also called to the scene. The switch which turns on the pumps is activated by an air bubbler unit which pumps air through a 1/4 inch tube into the lift station well. When the liquid reaches a certain depth, it builds up pressure against the air line which turns on' the pump. It was this air pressure censor which failed. It appears that it failed because it was improperly set either at the factory or by one of the following: a city employee, an employee of Mike Paul Electric, an employee of Motorola, Inc., or it could have been improperly set at the Healy -Ruff factory. In addition, it is possible that the pressure regulator itself may have failed. Jim Grube, City Engineer, in his memorandum indicated that he sus- pected the pressure regulator itself had failed. See attached memo. Mr. Grube's memorandum also indicates that about ten days before the sewer backup occurred a redundant alarm system • triggered by a rise in the level of sewage in the wet well had failed to function. It was determined by Mr. Grube that a replacement parts were not immediately available and that installation could not reasonably take place in the winter season and the repair was scheduled for warm weather. City employees checked the several households affected by the sewer backup on January 31. Claims were filed by various homeowners_ beginning on February 4, 1985, and were immediately acknowledged by city employees and forwarded- to the city's insurance carrier. The carrier was notified on February 7 that the city expected approximately 14 claims to be filed.. The cover letter on the first claim urged the insurer to pay the claim and seek damages against one or more of the city's contractors By April 2, 1985, the last claim had been filed and forwarded to the insurance company. line claims, in total, were filed for an aggregate amount of $6,634.44, according to the engineer's records. (One additional claim from an unrelated incident was filed and forwarded on April 4, 1985. This claim is alleged to have arisen from a sewer backup on March 14, 1985.) The City Attorney estimates that additional claims and increases in existing claims will bring the total to $10,000 to $20,000. The handling of the claims by the insurance companies is as follows: March 25, 1985 - The city's insurance carrier informed- the finance director that their investigation revealed no liability on the part of the city. The city's insurance carrier forwarded the claims to the electrical contractor's insurance carrier. April 8 June 19, 1985 - The city finance director, the city attorney's office, and the city's insurance carrier by a series of telephone calls and letters pressured the' electric contractor's insurance company to act on the claims. June 19 1985 City staff met with the City Attorney and it was determined to meet with the city's insurance carrier to. work out some kind of solution. June 20, 1985 - City staff, the City Attorney and represen- tatives of the city's insurance carrier met and the City Attorney suggested that some kind of agreement be worked out between the city's carrier to purchase the claims of the residents and bring an independent action against other parties who might be liable. July 18, 1985 Pursuant to pressure from the city's carrier and further calls from the city staff and the City Attorney, the electrical contractor's insurance company stated that it would issue a letter "clarifying its position ". At this time they did not yet deny the claims. August 15, 1985 It was concluded by all concerned that the electrical contractor's insurance carrier would or had denied the !aims and several proposed drafts of an agreement were - exchanged between the City Attorney's office and the city's insurance carrier in the next several days. September 3, 1985 - It was determined on or about this date by the City Attorney that no satisfactory agreement could be reached between the city and its insurance carrier. The City Attorney was requesting the following kind of agree- ment: 1. The insurance company would meet with each resident and determine the fair amount of the claim and pay the claim out of city funds. The insurance company would pay the cost of adjusting the claim. 2. In the course of settling the claims, the city would obtain the right to sue all responsible third parties on behalf of each resident'. 3. The insurance company attorney (or the City Attorney if the company wished to do it that way) would start an action against all possible responsible third parties. 4. These third parties would: no doubt bring a third party action against the city for contribution for the city's possible negligence and the insurance company would have to defend the third party claim. 5. Any liability assessed by the jury against third parties would be paid by these third parties to the city in reimbursement of the claims paid "out. Any' amounts assessed against the city for its own negli- gence -would be paid to the city by the city's insurance carrier. These negotiations finally broke down for two reasons. First, the city's insurance carrier finally decided that it would pay only for the costs of adjusting the claims and would partici- pate in no additional expenses other than the possibility of hiring_ a lawyer to "ride the city's coattails" in its lawsuit_ against other responsible third parties. Secondly, the City Attorney's office decided that paying out public dollars for the legal expense of bringing the claims against the third parties, paying a share of a jury verdict without reimbursement from our insurance company, and the pos- sibility of a. "defense verdict" in which no money at all was recovered from third parties, was simply too much expenditure. of Public dollars in a case where there is no clear cut public legal responsibility. 6 Therefore, the City Attorney met with affected property owners on September 16, 1985 and discussed with them for approxi- mately two hours the possible avenues of recovery. In the first instance, I felt compelled to advise the residents (quoting from my letter to them), "as legal counsel for the city I must advise the officials that it would be improper to spend public funds for claims against the city unless some act of carelessness or negligence by a city employee caused the damage.- Therefore, the city cannot voluntarily pay your claim." In addition, we discussed at length the procedure for each resident filing a claim in the conciliation court in Brooklyn Center without hiring an attorney. This process is quick and inexpensive. One claimant who had a claim in excess of $2,000 would have to reduce that claim in order to meet the jurisdic- tional limits. That claim is in the amount of $2,800. I also discussed with the property owners their hiring a single attorney to represent all of them. I contacted a local attorney who stated that he would be interested in talking to the residents. Following that meeting one of the residents who agreed to be a spokesperson did contact the lawyer and he stated that he would meet with the residents at one of their homes to discuss their claims. At that meeting on September 16, 1985, the residents also discussed appearing before the City Council. I explained the open forum policy and one of the residents did appear and made a statement. The Council responded by requesting this written summary and I so notified the residents in my subsequent letter of September 24, 1985: In summary, it appears that the city has expended a great deal of effort in trying to get two insurance companies to do something which insurance companies are not inclined to do, that is, to pay claims where there is very little visible evidence of negligence on anyone's part. The only reasonable solution remaining is for the residents is to take independent action by filing claims in conciliation court or talking to a lawyer who would agree to file a single claim on their behalf. RJS /md TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public.Works FROM: Jim Grube, City Engineer T DATE: February 1, 1985 ' RE: Lift Station No. 1 Failure , Following is a summary of circumstances surrounding the failure of Lift Station No. 1 (6112 Vincent Avenue North ) o J - n Ja nuary 30 31 1985: Station Failure At approximately 11:15 p.m., January 30, 1985, the City's Police Department notified Bob Zimbrick (Utility Lead Man) of a citizen complaint of sewer backup into the residence at 5900 Upton Avenue North. Bob dispatched Dick Nordstrom to the site where he found that the City main was in fact holding water. As Dick and a second utility orker were in the process of ro t e of ty p t r ying . po obstructions �8 to clean the bons Po (by way of jetting) a second complaint, that from 6268 Brooklyn Drive, was relayed by the Police Department., At that point, Dick determined that the problem was not isolated to a blockage in Upton Avenue North, rather the problem appeared to be area wide. Accordingly, Dick went to Lift Station Nb. 1 where he found that both pumps had failed to operate. Dick placed one pump in the "on" position and the called for pump operated as expected, pumping down the station. The second pump was left "off' to avoid ten tial problems within Po th�.n the downstream ownstremn force main..: Upon completion of the station ��� down, Dick observed the system operation when both pumps were placed in - the "auto" The pumps appeared to operate as expected without further _ incidence. At approximately 2:45 a.m., January 31, 1985, Dick left the site with �. all operations apparently back to normal; the problem solving itself as myster- iously as.it had started. At 8:00 a.m. Dick was directed to return to the lift station to more closely inspect the system operation. Dick reported that system operation was normal and left the site as directed. � At 8:00 a.m. Mike. Paul Electric was called with a request that the firm's project electrician be immediately dispatched to the site to complete a thorough analysis of the recently installed electrical system. Likewise, Motorola, Inc. was requested to dispatch its project technician to the site to complete a thorough of the recently analysis y y installed telemetry system to determine the cause of its failure. As the elctrician arrived (approximately 9:00 a.m.) it was observed that the lift - station pump system had again failed (as had the telemetry unit) and that manual operation of the station's s was P� required:. The station was pumped down before S x.= the sewer backup affected any property owners. Upon discovery of the second system failure, the electrician contacted the m$nu facturer /supplier of the system controls, Healy- Ruff....A Healy -Ruff representative ' was dispatched to Pa the scene where it was determined"that the water level control - system had failed due to improper setting of a system caWm9nt. Follawing is a summary of the level control system operation and the cause of its failure: x The level control system is actuated by an air bubbler unit which constantly pumps air through a 1/4 .inch tube into the wet well. The system is calibrated to de liv er a' "Pressure (resulting th it in the wet well while sensing .the liquid g uid ressure head rom the depth of liquid), there q 'p dep �d ) • by automatically calling for <� TN lfl'tT M1[.1Tn t i nr. •.t� nw n :..w.. 1 •' :.� .tww..R i r w.v. wL �� -'Feb 1 1985 - 4 8 5 S. Knapp Page 2 In.the event of bubbler system failure, the alarm system had been based upon a high water alarm float within the wet well, that is until it was found to have failed the week of January 21, 1985. Upon discovery of the float failure, I weighed the options available to the department regarding the alarm system: Option 1 Replace float system. This was not completed because the float is not a "shelf item ', but more importantly, in order to insure proper installation two men would have to be lowered into. the wet well, - requiring the plugging of the influent line by the M.W.C.C. (The City does not have ball stoppers of the size of the influent dine.). - In addition, working under such conditions of varying temperature would have resulted in the making of "steam within the wet well making visibility nearly impossible. Option 2 - Connect telemetry unit to bubbler system for both high water and bubbler system failure (by way of low pressure, a sign of compressor failure) I chose- option 2 as an interim solution and believing that the system would operate acceptably until spring when the float system could be replaced, I ordered the two hookups be made. System failure of January 30, 31 occurred as a result of the faulty operation of a pressure regulator within the air bubbler system. the pressure regulator was set, or set itself, to allow an air pressure less than the pump activation pressure yet greater than the air system.failure alarm pressure (low pressure. or compressor failure). As a result, the bubbler could not sense the water level in the wet well to call for a pump or alarm yet it had enough pressure to avoid the low air pressure alarm. The faulty pressure regulator setting could have been accomplished one of two ways: 1 - Manual setting by a member of the Utility Department, the electricain, the system manufacturer's representative; or 2 - Pressure regulator failure. No one will admit to tampering, therefore component failure is suspected. I received a replacement component from the Healy -Ruff representative, but he refused to make the installation, therefore Mike Paul Electric will be directed to have the installation completed. Additional information will be forwarded to you as it becomes available. Extent of Property Damage It is known that 14 homes were affected by the sewer backup. I have spoken en to the owners of 13of the homes and have found varying dWees of damage ranging from minor wetness in an unfinished tile floor area l to -severe damage in a "finished off" basement. While the majority of homes lie along Upton Avenue North homes along Brooklyn. Drive and O'Henry Road are also affected. All owners, except the owner of 5919 Upton Avenue North have been instructed to contact me regarding g ing questions, claims, etc. mile I have generally explained the procedure for making claims for reimbursement, I have made it clear that reimbursement is not guaranteed and that all claims would be forwarded to the City's insurance carrier. A roster of the affected homes. is as follows:, February i 1985 - S. Knapp r Page 3 ` 842 Upton Avenue - N rth ✓5843 Upton Avenue North ✓5900 Upton Avenue North ✓t906 Upton Avenue. North - - - 5907 Upton Avenue North Z 19 Upton Avenue North - 24 Upton Avenue North - 5836 Upton Avenue North - - -"5912 Upton Avenue North 4 4 00 O'Henry Road 12 O'Henry Road''- 6268 Brooklyn Drive 6260 Brooklyn Drive , 16240 Brooklyn rive 511a JAMF-s It is my opinion that one additional home also may have been affected, but I have not been able to contact the owners. The address is: 2806 O'Henry Road. I am continuing in my efforts to make contact. Recommendation It is suspected that a component of the recently installed system malfunctioned, causing the failure. I recommend we investigate the feasibility of removing it - from the system as it appears to be redundant (the compressor has a pressure regulator on it). It is further recommended that the Mike Paul Electric be notified of the City's intent to claim liability due to faulty equipment. In addition, staff should take photographs of the damage at each home. Finally, I recommend that the City advise its insurance cmpany.of the circum- stances involved and forward any claims to them as soon as they are submitted to us. I recommend that the insurance company, on behalf of the City,; acknowledge liability for damages and process claims promptly. It is my belief that the question of final liability should lie between the two insurance companies i.e. the City's and the Contractor's. JNG: jn LeFevere Lef ler KennedN O'Brien & Drawz September 30, 1985 A Professional Association 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Telephone (612) 333 -0543 Mr. Gerald C. Splinter C1ty Manager Telecopier (612) 333 -0540 City of Brooklyn Center Clayton L. LeFevere 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway J. Denni O'Brien y � Herbert Lefler Bro o klyn Center Minnesota 55430 John E. Drawz David J. Kennedy Dea Mr Splinter: John B. Dean Glenn E. Purdue Richard J.Schieffer E please find my letter of September 24, 1985 Charles L. LeFevere to all concerned tenants regarding possible damages Herbert P. Lefler III Jeffrey J. Strand resulting from the sewer lift station failure on January Mary J.Bjorklund 30, 1985. I am also enclosing a correspondence list with John G. Kressel all the names and addresses of the parties who are Doyle Nolan Cindy L. Lavorato involved in this matter. Michael A. Nash Brian F. Rice s. clugg Very truly .yours, lift Jr. Ja s M. Strommen LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, Mary C. Nielsen ' BBIE & RAW Terry L. Hall f Ronald H. Batty ! William P. Jordan Susan Dickel Minsberg -- � Y Kurt J. Erickson Rl S ch ' f er RJS /kj Enclosure CORRESPONDENCE LIST 1. Mr. James Woods 5900 Upton Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 2. Mr. Bertil Anderson 5912 Upton Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 3. Mr. William Fischer 5934 Upton Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 4. Mrs. Betty Gustafson 5442 James Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 5. Mr. Vernon K. Lindstrom 2800 O'Henry Road Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 6. Mr. Robert Nelson 5906 Upton Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 7. Mr. E.C. Johnson 5843 Upton Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 8. Mr. Mark Johnson 2712 O'Henry Road Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 9. Mr. Gary T. Peikarczyk 5842 Upton Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 10. Mr. Gordon L. Peterson 6240 Brooklyn Drive Center, Brooklyn en C Minnesota 55430 , LeFevere Lefler Kenned }• O'Brien R Dra September 24 1985 A Professional .lssm ialion 'r 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis Mr. Mark Johnson Minnesota 55402 2712 O' Henry Road Telephone (612) 333 -0543 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Telecopier (612) 333 -0540 Clayton L. LeFevere Dear Mr. Johnson: Herbert P. Lefler J. Dennis O'Brien As you know, I represent the City of Brooklyn Center John E. Drawz as legal counsel and I previously wrote to you regarding David J. Kennedy John B. Dean a meeting at 4:30 p.m. on Monday, September 16, 1985 " Glenn E. Purdue regarding possible damages resulting to your home as a Richard J. Schieffer result of a sewer lift station failure on January 30, Charles L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler III 1985. That meeting was held on September 16, 1985 and Jeffrey J. Strand was attended by many of the affected property owners. John G. Kressel Dayle Nolan Michael A. Nash At that meeting I indicated that I would send everyone Brian F. Rice a copy of the City's report on the incident, and that Lorraine S. Thomson, Ja copy is enclosed. Also, at that same meeting, we discussed Ja Thoms on, Jr. s Ja srommen the options available to you to get some money into your M iI esen hands to compensate for the damages. We talked about Terry L. Hall the following lternatives Ronald H. Batty g William P. Jordan Susan Dickel Minsberg 1. Each individual could sue the City in Conciliation Kurt J. Erickson Court for an amount u to $2 , 000.00 without hiring an attorney. William R. Skallerud P g e y Thomas R. Galt This process is fairly quick. You should be able to get Rodney D. Anderson on the Trial Calendar in about one month. It is also Gary R. Bryant -Wolf inexpensive 2. The property owners discussed appearing before the City Council to explain their position fully. The disadvantage is that the City staff has already explored all of the avenues for getting money out of the insurance company without starting a lawsuit and the City Council could probably not accomplish anything further. The City Council could voluntarily pay the claims out of the public treasury but I stated that I would advise the City Council that such an expenditure would not be legal because, although there is some evidence of City negligence it is not conclusive and it appears that the fault lies either with the manufacturer of the component or the electrical contractor or the City, or some combination f o those persons. e e P Mr. Mark __gin September 1985 Page 2 3. The hiring of a single lawyer to handle all of the claims was also discussed. It is likely this would be done on a contingent fee basis, meaning that each homeowner would pay a percentage of the amount of money obtained, to pay the lawyer's fee. The ercenta a would be set i e n advance. Th P 9 e disadvantage is that you would have to incur some attorney's fees. Another advantage is that all of the claims put together would increase the amount at stake and make a settlement more likely than if each person hired their own lawyer or independently pursued the claim. In addition, the `lawyer might be able to find additional damages which would increase the amount of your claim. Hiring a lawyer would take most of the burden of going forward with this matter off the shoulders of the homeowners I agreed to make the enclosed information available and to write this letter summarizing the meeting. At that same meeting two of the homeowners agreed to contact attorneys. In checking with these two parties, I find that one of the attorneys has been contacted and has agreed to meet with the homeowners at one of the homes. and Mrs. Woods, who live at 5900 Upton Avenue North, and whose telephone number is 566 -5686 will make arrangements for that meeting if enough people are interested. Please call them if you are interested. Mr. Piekarczyk who lives at 5842 Upton Avenue North and whose telephone number is 560 -9374 was also going to contact an attorney. He has not yet been able to reach the lawyer he had in mind. This matter was discussed at the City Council meeting at the request of one of the homeowners and the City Council asked me to provide them with a written summary at the meeting of October, 7, 1985. I do not expect that this summary will provide any new opportunity for ;a quick solution, therefore you should probably pursue your plan for independent legal action in the meantime. Very truly yours, LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ Richard J. Schieffer Brooklyn Center City Attorney RJS /kjj Enclosure Licenses to be approved by the City Council on October 7, 1985 ANIQIDID CIGARETTE LICENSE Jimmy Jingle 1304 E. Lake St. Brookdale Corp. Ctr. II 6200 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. ` Brookdale Corp. Ctr. 6300 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. «C� City Clerk COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE Northbrook Animal Hospital 413 66th Ave. N. Sanitarian GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE LICENSE Hilger Transfer — 8550 Zachary Ln. Waste Management g 10050 Naples St. NE ,4 Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE General Sheet Metal Corp. 2330 Louisiana Ave. N. Metropolitan Mechanical 40 Washington Ave. S. 73 g ' 6800 Shingle Cr. Pk Buildi fficial NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Coca Cola Bottling 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd. Budgetel Inn 6415 James Circle Jimmy Jingle 1304 E. Lake St. Brookdale Corp. Ctr. II 6200 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Brookdale Corp. Ctr. 6300 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. A •( Q. Sanitarian PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Jimmy Jingle 1304 E. Lake St. Brookdale Corp. Ctr. II 6200 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Brookdale Corp. Ctr. 6300 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Sanitarian SIGNHANGERS LICENSE �• .� Cragg Inc. 9636 85th Ave. N. Buildi �g Official GENERAL APPROVAL: Ge G. Spl ter, City Clerk