The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1986 03-10 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MARCH 10, 1986 7:00 p.m. 1 Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum 5. Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a j 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 - February 24, 1986 Regular Session 7. 1985 Crime Prevention Report - Bill Fignar 8. Resolutions: a. Rejecting All Bids for Installation of a Water Utility Control System, Directing the Revision of Specifications therefor and Authorizing Advertisement for New Bids (Project No. 1985 -19, Contract i 1986 -D) b. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Two (2) 72 -inch Lawn Mowers This is an approved i ` et. tem from the 1 86 Parks Maintenance Budget. g c. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project No. 1986 -04 (Contract 1986 -F) d. Accepting Proposal and Approving Contract for Installation of H.V.A.C. Improvements at West Fire Station /Liquor Store No. 2 (Project No. 1985 -25) e. Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1985 -G (Xerxes Avenue Improvement Project No. 1985 -09) f. Regarding Off -Site Gambling Licenses -This resolution confirms the o i which p l cy hich was approved by the City Y Council on January 13, 1986. - 9• Planning Commission Items: (7 :30 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 85032 submitted by Arby's requesting a variance from Section 34 -140, Subsection 3.a.1.b of the sign ordinance to allow a tenant identification wall sign on the canopy above the northwest entrance to Brookdale Mall and not on exterior wall space of the Arby's tenant space. This item was tabled indefinitely at the November 4, 1985 City Council meeting and is now before the Council to acknowledge withdrawal of the application. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- March 10, 1986 b. Planning Commission Application Nos. 85038 and 85039 submitted by Robert Schell requesting site and building plan and variance approval to expand the dental clinic at 412 66th Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the site and building plan at the February 27, 1986 meeting. The variance was recommended for denial on the basis of a finding that excess right -of -way exists to the east of the clinic and that there is no hardship in providing the required 15' greenstrip. c. Planning Commission Application No. 86007 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center requesting preliminary plat approval to resubdivide the land surrounding the Earle Brown Farm site. This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its February 27, 1986 meeting. 10. Proclamations: (7:45 p.m) a. Declaring April 6 -12, 1986 as Peacemaker Week b. Declaring March 16 -22, 1986 as Camp Fire Birthday Week 11 Ordinances: a. An Ordinance Amending Chapters 34 and 35 Regarding Rummage Sale Signs and Real Estate Signs -This ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening. *12. Licenses 13. Adjournment The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Installation of Traffic Control Signal Systems on Shingle Creek Parkway at John Martin Drive and at Summit Drive (Project No. 1985 -20, Contract 1985 -M). Councilmember Hawes asked what the difference was between regular municipal state aid funds and local municipal state aid funds. He also asked if there was a chance that the traffic signals would not meet the warrants and that the money would have to be returned to the' State. The Director of Public Works stated that at this time the intersection of Summit Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway do not meet the warrants. He noted that the City has two years in which to meet the warrants and added that when the Target store opens there is no doubt that the warrants will be met by the end of 1986. The Director of Public Works went on to explain the difference between regular municipal state aid funds and local municipal state aid funds. Councilmember Hawes asked if it is the City's responsibility to pay back the funds if the warrants are not met. The Director of Public Works stated that the City does not pay this share back in a lump sum but rather a set amount is deducted from all other approved state aid projects. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -24 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. 1985 -20, CONTRACT 1985 -M ( INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEMS ON SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AT JOHN MARTIN DRIVE AND AT SUMMIT DRIVE) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Establishing Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project No. 1986 -04, Approving Specifications and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1986 -F). Councilmember Theis noted that in the past the City has had problems with contractors not completing the work in a timely manner) A lengthy discussion then ensued relative to the problems connected with working with a large contractor. Councilmember Theis asked about the possibility of awarding to multiple contractors. The Director of Public Works noted that in the specifications for 1985, the City retained the option to claim the contractor in default and obtain a second contractor. Councilmember Theis stated that by awarding to multiple contractors trees could be assigned to the second contractor immediately instead of waiting for the other contractor to be declared in default. Councilmember Lhotka asked if the City runs a check on the low bidder and the Director of Public Works responded affirmatively. Councilmember Lhotka noted that it is possible then that the City would have one or two other contractors as a backup before choosing the best bidder. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -25 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT NO. 1986 -04, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1986 -F) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member - Celia Scott, and the motion carried. Councilmember Theis voted against the motion. The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1985 -C (Liquor Store #1 Remodeling Project No. 1985 -03)• Councilmember Lhotka asked what the change was on the resolution. The Director of Public Works noted 2 -10 -86 -4- Snyder Brothers Brookdale Center Sound of Music 5715 Xerxes Ave. N. St. Paul Book 5810 Xerxes Ave. N. Union 76 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. Vicker's Oil 6830 Brooklyn Blvd. Washington Inventory Service 6086 Brooklyn Blvd. Willow Lane School 7030 Perry Ave. N. F & M Marquette National Bank 5825 Xerxes Ave. N. Interstate United Corporation 1091 Pierce Butler Route Hoffman Engineering 6350 James Ave. N. K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr. Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home 5401 69th Ave. N. Midwest Screw Products, Inc. 3501 48th Ave. N. Minnesota Vikings Food Service 5200 W. 74th St. Silent Knight 1700 Freeway Blvd. NSI /Griswold Co. 8300 10th Ave. N. Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Dr. Pilgrim Dry Cleaners, Inc. 5748 Morgan Ave. Servomation 7490 Central Ave. NE Dayton's Brookdale Center Donaldson's Brookdale Center Graco 6820 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Snyders Brookdale Center PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE American Vending P.O. Box 380 Sears Automotive Brookdale Center Interstate United Corporation 1091 Pierce Butler Route Ault 1600 Freeway Blvd. ° Hoffman Engineering 6503 James Ave. N. K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr. Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home 5401 69th Ave. N. Minnesota Viking Food Service 5200 W. 74th St. North France Health Club 4001 Lakebreeze Ave. N. NSI /Griswold 8300 10th Ave. Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd. Servomation 7490 Central Ave. NE Dayton's Brookdale Center Donaldson's Brookdale Center Graco 6820 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE American Bakeries 4215 69th Ave. N. Bridgeman's 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING LICENSE Children's Palace 5900 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. LaBelle's 5925 Earle Brown Dr. Snyder Brothers Brookdale Center Total Petroleum Inc. 6830 Brooklyn Blvd. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) 2 -10 -86 -3- 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 FEBRUARY 24, 1986 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, Director of Recreation Arnie Mavis City Attorn Richard Schieffer, Y Y , and Administrative Aid Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Pastor Tom Brock of Hope Lutheran Church. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Craig Ruschmeyer, Field Representative to Senator Rudy Boschwitz. Mr. Ruschmeyer explained that he is here this evening to discuss upcoming legislation and answer any questions that the City Council may have. A brief discussion then ensued relative to the Tax Reform Act of 1985 (H.R. 3838) and the City Manager noted that he had passed out a draft of a resolution and a letter regarding H.R. 3838. He stated he would like the Council to review these items and recommended that action be taken at the March 10, 1986 City Council meeting. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Lhotka requested that items 6b, 10f, and 10j be removed from the Consent Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1986 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of January 27, 1986 as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, PANAYOTOFF ADDITION There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded b Councilmember Theis t y o approve the final plat f th Pp p o e Pana otoff Addition, Y The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 86 -28 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) 33,000 GVW CAB AND.CHASSIS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. 2 -24 -86 -1- i RESOLUTION NO. 86 -29 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) FOUR -WHEEL UTILITY VEHICLE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the following list of licenses: CIGARETTE LICENSE Five Star Vending 15034 Fillmore St. NE Hiawatha Rubber 1700 67th Ave. N. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Alta Mechanical & Electrical P.O. Box 545 Binder & Son, Inc. 120 E. Butler Ave. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE ARA Services 2830 N. Fairview Northwestern Bell 5910 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Open Systems 2700 Freeway Blvd. Beach Homeowners Association 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. Canteen Company 6200 Penn Ave. S. FMC 1800 Freeway Blvd. Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. M.T.C. 6845 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Medtronics 6700 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Chuck's Q. 1505 69th Ave. N. Coca Cola Bottling 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd. Firestone 5445 Xerxes Ave. N. Cook Paint 4800 N. Lilac Dr. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle J.R. Vending 5312 Perry Ave. N. Brooklyn Law Office 5637 Brooklyn Blvd. Jimmy Jingle 1304 E. Lake Street Brookdale Corp. Center 6300 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Brookdale Corp. Center II 6200 Shngle Cr Pkwy. Johnson Control 1801 67th Ave. N. Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 N. Lilac Dr. Major Vending 6440 Major Ave. N. M & S Drug Emporium 5900 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Malmborg's Inc. 5120 N. Lilac Dr. Royal Crown Beverage Co. P.O. Box 43466 American Bakeries 4215 69th Ave. N. Ansari Abrasives 4811 Dusharme Dr. Denne's Market 6912 Brooklyn Blvd. Eye Works 5900 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. Industrial Metal Fab. 2255 49th Ave. 2 -24 -86 -2- Kruger Galleries 6045 Brooklyn Blvd. Lutheran Church of the Master 1200 69th Ave. N. Marksman Metal 6801 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Northport Elementary 5421 Brooklyn Blvd. North Star Dodge 6800 Brooklyn Blvd. Poly Optics 6800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Red Owl Country Store 3600 63rd Ave. N. Twin Lake North Apts. 4539 58th Ave. N. PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE ARA Services 2830 N. Fairview Northwestern Bell 5910 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Budgetel Inn 6415 James Circle Canteen Company 6300 Penn Ave. S.' FMC 1800 Freeway Blvd. Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. M.T.C. 6845 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Medtronics 6700 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Jimmy Jingle 1304 E. Lake Street Brookdale Corp. Center 6300 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Brookdale Corp. Center II 6200 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE Ted Burlingame 5919 June Ave. N. RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Lanny & Judith Berke 5018 Ewing Ave. N. James & Agatha Eckman 5350 Irving Ave. N. Kristin Norstad 4201 Lakeside Ave. #103 Marvin '& Joan Stavig 4201 Lakeside Ave. #205 John & Elizabeth Hass 4201 Lakeside Ave. #306 Daniel & Nadia Graskow 4201 Lakeside Ave. #310 Thomas Theisen 4201 Lakeside Ave. #321 Renewal: Garden City Court Garden City Court Apts Invespro V Limited Partnership Unicorn Apts. R. Willwerscheid, F. Robbins, J. M. Rafter 6331, 6401 & 6425 Beard Ave. Lance & Debra Bennett 5327 Colfax Ave. N. Leo Vogel 1513 Humboldt Place M & J Properties 1537 Humboldt Place M & J Properties 1543 Humboldt Place Dennis & Eunice Temple 4201 Lakeside Ave. # #108 Molitor & Associates 4201 Lakeside Ave. #218 K & S Investments 4207 Lakeside Ave. #233 Residential Alternatives, Inc. 5449 Lyndale Ave. N. Molitor & Associates 6900 Toledo Ave. N. John M. Guider 5115 E. Twin Lake Blvd. Gladys Schwartz 4006 65th Ave N. John DeVries 2931 67th Lane 2 -24 -86 -3- SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING LICENSE Fun Services, Inc. 3615 50th Ave. N. Maid of Scandinavia Co. Westbrook Mall Betty Vareoe Holiday Inn Gift Shop` TAXI CAB LICENSE Blue & White Cab Co. 2404 Sheridan Ave. N. Town Taxi 2812 University Ave. SE Yellow Taxi Service 127 1st Ave. NE The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 1986 - REGULAR SESSION Councilmember Lhotka stated that he felt the comments made by Councilmember Theis regarding the Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project should be added to the minutes of the February 10, 1986 City Council meeting. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of February 10, 1986 as corrected. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager stated that Mr. Bill Fignar had requested that the Crime Prevention Report for 1985 be tabled until the next Council meeting. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT - HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to appoint Ms. Lorna Seburg to the Human Rights Commission. The motion passed unanimously. PERFORMANCE BOND RELEASE FOR EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES - JOHN DEVRIES There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the performance bond release for Earle Brown Estates subject to the two conditions outlined in the memorandum from the Director of Planning & Inspection. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Installation of a Water Utility Control System. He noted that staff is asking the Council to defer the bid award because of the difference between Killmer Electric and Collins Electric. The Director of Public Works went on to explain the advantages of installing a utility control system and the potential to cut the payback period to ten years. He noted that the cost of installing a new well and pump would greatly exceed the cost of this monitoring system. Councilmember Theis asked if there would still be a need to have someone on standby duty. The Director of Public Works responded affirmatively but noted that the checks would not have to be made as frequently. Councilmember Lhotka asked on a scale of one to ten, with one being highest, where the Director of Public Works would place this project. The Director of Public Works stated that he would give this project a one as being the highest priority to improve the system's performance. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to table the Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Installation of a Water Utility Control System until the next meeting so that staff can review the bids more closely. 2 -24 -86 -4- The City Manager reviewed his M&C relative to the golf course option. He noted that the golf course option is the most feasible and that this park would be paying for its own maintenance and operation. He further noted that staff would like to discuss all resolutions pertaining to the golf course before any votes were taken. Councilmember Scott asked if staff believes there will be more soil work needed in the area. The Director of Public Works stated that by requiring the contractors to make a lump sum bid the City is asking the contractors to take the risks not the City itself. He added that staff is quite confident that there should be no more work needed on the soil. The City Manager stated that the Resolution Approving Limited Use Permit from MN /DOT for Use of Properties at Centerbrook Golf Course should be tabled until the next meeting when staff should have the limited use permit from MN /DOT. The Director of Public Works reviewed the Resolution Approving Amendment to Contract with Brauer & Associates Limited; for the Design and Construction Administration of the Centerbrook Golf Course. He noted that the increase was due to the soil problems found on -site and the additional work that was needed to satisfy the needs of the Watershed Commission. He went on to review the bidding procedure and noted that in the beginning the City had planned to bid all work under one contract but now it is staff's opinion that it would be best to have one contract for the construction of the golf course and one contract for the construction of the clubhouse and other buildings. Councilmember Hawes asked about the great difference between- Shafer's bid and the bids from the other contractors. The City Manager stated that each contractor adds their profits into one or two items instead of an equal division. He noted that Shafer admitted he may have underestimated in some areas but that the difference will most likely be made up. The City Manager noted that this is a firm bid and that the contractors cannot exceed the bid price. Councilmember Hawes asked if the contractors would be able to shortcut somewhere else to get past the extra cost. The City Manager stated that staff does not expect any problems. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -30 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE (PROJECT NO. 1985 -23, CONTRACT 1986 -C) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -31 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH BRAUER AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION OF THE CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE (PROJECT NO. 1985 -23) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion- passed unanimously. 2 -24 -86 -5- RESOLUTION NO. 86 -32 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING SERVICES FOR PROJECT NO. 1985 -23, CONTRACT 1986 -C (CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager noted that the Resolution Approving Limited Use Permit from MN /DOT for Use of Properties at Centerbrook Golf Course would be tabled until the next meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 86005 SUBMITTED BY STEPHEN COOK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 35 -400 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO- FAMILY DWELLING ON TWO COMBINED PARCELS OF LAND THAT TOGETHER ARE DEFICIENT IN REQUIRED LAND AREA The City Manager noted this item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its February 13, 1986 meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection referred the Council to pages one through four of the February 13, 1986 Planning Commission minutes and the attached informational sheet on Application No. 86005 attached with those minutes. He proceeded to review the application and noted that the deficiency is 290 square feet or approximately 2.34 %. He added that the Planning Commission did recommend approval of Application No. 86005 subject to the property being combined into a single parcel through platting or registered land survey. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that there were many people present at the February 13, 1986 Planning Commission meeting who objected to the duplex because of the negative impact it may have on the other sites in the area which are larger. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the Planning Commission does not normally ask for site and building plan approval for one and two family residences. Councilmember Lhotka asked about the required setbacks. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated the front setback would be 35' and the side setback would be 10 noting the exception that it could be less than 10' but no closer than 5' provided it is 10' on the other side and that there are no doors or windows on the 5' side. Councilmember Hawes asked about the width of the lots to the north of the proposed site. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that these lots are between 100' and 110' in width. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 86005 submitted by Stephen Cook requesting a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a two - family dwelling on two combined parcels of land that together are deficient in required land area. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to speak at the public hearing. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ms. Vivian Hedlund, 5316, 20 Russell Avenue North, who stated that she is concerned that the proposed lot is much smaller than the other duplex lots in the area. She added that her lot is 117' wide. 2 -24 -86 -6- Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Alonzo Ellenwood, 5300 Russell Avenue North, who asked what the setbacks are. The Director of Planning & Inspection explained the setback policy. Mr. Ellenwood then stated that he felt the lots should be left as they are. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Mr. Lewis Hedlund, 5316, 20 Russell Avenue North, who stated both the owners to the north and south object to the proposed lot and the owner to the east also objects. He stated that there are three single- family homes around the proposed lot and that the proposed lot is smaller than any of the other duplex lots in the area. He stated he was concerned with the fact that the building would be very close to the property lines. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Mr. Robert Hansen who is the owner of the property. Mr. Hansen stated he felt the variance should be granted. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Mr. Stephen Cook, the applicant, who stated that this would be an owner occuppied duplex with one side being rented. Mr. Cook noted that he felt with the apartments across the street and duplexes on most of the block he felt his property would be devalued if he built a single - family home. Councilmember Scott asked Mr. Cook what the width of his building would be. Mr. Cook stated the width is 66' and the depth is 70' to 77'. Councilmember Hawes asked if the duplex would be two or three bedrooms. Mr. Cook stated they would be three bedroom units with the bedrooms above the garage area. Councilmember Hawes asked if the units would be similar to those on Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Cook stated that they would be similar to the units on Brooklyn Boulevard but they would be cut down in size. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mrs. Vincent Hall who stated that she lives directly behind the proposed site. She stated that she has no objections to this building. Mayor Nyquist asked if there was anyone else present at the meeting this evening who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained - a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 86005 submitted by Stephen Cook. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka to approve Planning Commission Application No. 86005 with the condition that site and building plans be brought back to the Council for approval. The City Attorney stated that the City has the right to attach certain conditions on the size to protect the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood, but that if the site and building plans meet code the plans must be approved. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that the platting must come before the Council. Councilmember Lhotka agreed to rephrase his motion. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve Planning Commission Application No. 86005 submitted by Stephen Cook requesting a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a two- family dwelling on two combined parcels of land that together are deficient in required land area, subject to the following conditions: 1. The property in question shall be combined into a single parcel through platting or registered land survey, said plat or R.L.S. to be filed at the County prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2 -24 -86 -7- 2. The site and building plans are to be brought back to the City Council for the purpose of adding such conditions as are necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. The motion passed unanimously. The Director of Planning & Inspection asked if the Council would like the Planning Commission to also review the site plan. Councilmember Lhotka responded affirmatively. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the applicant had requested indefinite tabling of Planning Commission Application No. 86006. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to table Planning Commission Application No. 86006 indefinitely. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:44 p.m. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) RESOLUTION NO. 86 -33 FIem e� r Gene - Mo c7a introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT 1986 -E (RECONDITIONING OF WATER TOWER NO. 3 - LOCATED SOUTH OF T.H. 100, WESTERLY OF LIONS PARK, PROJECT NO. 1985 -28) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. Y The City Manager presented a Resolution Establishing Project, Accepting City Engineer's Report and Approving Plans and Specifications for Project No. 1985 -27 and 1986 - 07, Contract 1986 -G (Geometric Improvements and Resurfacing of Shingle Creek Parkway from C.S.A.H. 10 to 194 -694) . He noted that in order to conform to the requirements of the bonding laws the City was required to separate this resolution into two separate projects. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -34 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT, ACCEPTING CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT NO. 1985 -27 AND 1986 -07, CONTRACT 1986 -G The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Relating to Commercial Development Revenue Bonds (Brookdale Three Limited Partnerships Project); Authorizing the Execution of a First Supplemental Indenture of Trust and Certain Other Documents. He noted that this resolution refers to phase one of the Ryan office building adjacent to the Earle Brown Farm buildings. He stated that this resolution establishes a final funding location for the bonds. 2 -24 -86 -8- RESOLUTION NO. 86 -35 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RELATING TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS (BROOKDALE THREE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PROJECT); AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST AND CERTAIN OTHER DOCUMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed. Councilmember Lhotka voted against the motion. ORDINANCES The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Vacating Part of the Right -of -Way of Logan Avenue North Along Lot 6, Block 2, Northbrook Center Addition. The City Manager stated this ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening. Councilmember Lhotka asked exactly where the area is located. The Director of Public Works reviewed a transparency pointing out the three inch wide strip of land where the building projects into the street right -of -way. Councilmember Theis asked how long the strip of land was. The Director of Public Works stated it is between 250' and 300'. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve for first reading An Ordinance Vacating Part, of the Right -of -Way of Logan Avenue North Along Lot 6, Block 2, Northbrook Center Addition and set the public hearing date on the ordinance for March 6, 1986 at 8:00 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEM REPORT ON SIZE OF REAL ESTATE SIGNS The Director of Planning & Inspection briefly summarized the written report submitted to the Council. He noted that the most common size of on -site real estate sign is 6 sq. feet. He stated that the most common off -site size is 3 sq. feet, which exceeds the size allowed by current ordinance. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that it had been recommended that a 10 sq. foot size sign be allowed for both on and off -site. Councilmember Theis asked what the current limitation for size is on off -site signs for rummage sales. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated there is no limitation on size but on the placement of signs. He noted that the signs must be placed on private property, must have the owner's consent, and only four sales per year are allowed. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that currently the maximum size for on- site real estate signs is 10 sq. ft. He added that the most common size found was 6 sq. ft. He stated that the current size for off -site real estate signs allowed under the ordinance is 2.5 sq. ft. He added that the most common off -site sign found was 3 sq. ft. Councilmember Theis stated he would like off -site garage sale signs to be 3 sq. ft. Councilmember Lhotka stated he would like to see both on -site real estate and garage sale signs reduced to 6 sq. ft. The City Manager recommended that the staff bring back a revised ordinance amendment. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated it would be roughly 45 days from the first reading before the ordinance would be in effect. Councilmember Theis asked 2 -24 -86 -9- if there was a possibility of a first reading tonight on garage sale signs and a first reading for real estate signs at a later date. Councilmember Lhotka asked why Councilmember Theis would like the first reading this evening. Councilmember Theis stated he felt it would be more convenient for the people that were here this evening. He then asked what the advantage or disadvantage was to having two separate readings. The Director of Planning & Inspection_ stated that if the City uses only one ordinance amendment there would only be one publication date. Councilmember Lhotka stated he does not want pennants, balloons and streamers included in the ordinance. Councilmember Theis asked the residents in the audience when they would use banners and balloons. The resident stated she would never use them all at one time but that she would use common sense. The City Manager stated that if the Council wishes to change the section regarding pennants, streamers and balloons it could be done at the first or second reading. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9:06 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 2 -24 -86 -10- r FA Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: ion• P RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL BIDS FOR INSTALLATION OF A WATER UTILITY CONTROL SYSTEM, DIRECTING THE REVISION OF SPECIFICATIONS THEREFORE, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR NEW BIDS (PROJECT NO. 1985 -19, CONTRACT 1986 -D) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1985 -19, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 30th day of January, 1986. Said bids were as follows: Alternate Alternate Alternate Alternate No 2 No. 3 Base Bid No. 1 No. 1 Add Add Bidder Amount Bid Amount Manufacturer (Deduct) (Deduct) Collins Electric No Bid $138,484.00 Edison $ 2,357.00 ($5,238.00) Construction Co. Controls Killmer Electric $199,400.00 $149,400.00 Edison ($20,220.00) ($6,175.00) Company, Inc. Controls A & K Construction $234,315.00 No Bid N/A ($21,433.00) ($6,545.00) Inc WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has advised the City Council that u the specifications on which these bids were submitted are non- specific in defining important features and required performance standards; and he further recommends that all bids be rejected, that the plans and specifications be revised so as to more specifically define those features and performance standards and identify the City's needs and requirements, and that new bids be taken on the basis of the revised specifications; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. all bids received for this improvement on January 30, 1986 are hereby rejected. 2. the consulting engineer, Orr - Schelen- Mayeron and Associates, Inc. is hereby authorized and directed, to revise the plans and specifications for this improveme'fit; and RESOLUTION NO. 3. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such revised plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than twenty (20) days prior to the date for receipt of bids, and specify the work to be done, state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. on April 10, 1986 at which time will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers at City Hall by the City Clerk and City Engineer, will then be tabulated and will be considered by the City Council at 7:00 P.M. on April 21, 1986 in the Council Chambers, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF I :BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTE l EI R EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE March 7, 1986 RE: Consideration of Bids For Installation of Water Utility Control System Contract 1986 -D Following is a summary of bids received on January 30, 1986 for installation of a Water utility Control System in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by our Consulting Engineers, Orr- Schelen- Mayeron & Associates (OSM): Alternate Alternate Alternate Alternate No. 2 No. 3 Base Bid No. 1 No. 1 Add Add Bidder Amount Bid Amount Manufactures (Deduct) (Deduct) Collins Electric No Bid $138,484.00 Edison $ 2,357.00 ($5,238.00)_ Construction Co. Controls Killmer Electric $199,400.00 $149,400.00 Edison ($20,220.00) ($6,175.00) Company, Inc. Controls A & K Construction $234,315.00 No Bid N/A ($21,433.00) ($6,545.00) Inc. The following comments are submitted in explanation of the bid items provided in the proposals: Base Bid The specifications require that the system to be installed under this Base Bid meet detailed technical requirements so as to provide the following operational functions: a. monitoring of the status of all electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, and security systems at each wellhouse b. monitoring of the status of the water levels and security systems at each water tower C. the capability to monitor the status of up to 20 additional monitoring stations at various locations within the system (for example to allow monitoring of system pressures at critical points within the distribution system, to allow monitoring of future wells or water towers, etc.). ..� S0� M au � .. March 7, 1986 Page 2 d. automated telephone notification of system malfunction to four locations (first standby operator, second standby operator,, Police Department, other selected location) e. automated or manual control of the operation of all production facilities from a central operating station f. The proposed system utilizes a microprocessor to continuously analyze system demand. The system software is designed to assure utilization of the entire system's production and storage facilities on an optimal level at all times. In addition, this program is designed to effect electrical cost savings, by way of selective operation of pumps during off -peak power usage (lower electrical rate periods) during periods of low or normal water usage demands. g. The radio communications system specified provides the media which transmits the supervisory control function and the data acquisition function (i.e. SCADA) between the Central Control Station and the remote facility site. While the telemetry system normally interfaces with the Central Processing Unit (CPU) in the automated mode, the specified system allows "manual" control of the telemetry system in the event of C.P.U. failure. h. The C.P.U. also collects and stores information regarding system status, production, and security alarms. This information can be recalled at any time, and the system is designed to print out 'standard reports required by regulatory agencies or for the City's management purposes. The specifications for this project require that the telemetry system and the C.P.U. to be furnished shall be "as manufactured by Aquatrol, or equal ". The reason for specifying an "Aquatrol, or equal" system is that there are many components of a system which would be extremely difficult to define in precise detail. By specifying "Aquatrol, or equal" the specifications establish an overall level of quality. Aquatrol is not a "Cadillac" system. Rather, I would describe it as equipment which is designed for an industrial application. In approving the use of this specification I was assured by OSM that at least two other manufacturers (Consolidated and Dynamic Systems) are, in their opinion, equal to Aquatrol in quality. Accordingly, I felt confident that the specifications provided for competitive bidding by equipment manufacturers as well as by the contractors who would install the system. Alternate No. 1 Bid This alternate bid opportunity was provided strictly for the purpose of allowing the bidders to submit bids on the basis of using an alternate brand of equipment which met the same specifications as the Base Bid. March 7, 198$ Page 3 This alternate was not intended to provide a bidder the opportunity to submit a bid for equipment which substantially deviated from the specifications. Alternate No. 2 Bid The Base Bid specifications required the use of a 900 MHz radio, referring to a frequency range set aside for data transmission. These radios have more expensive circuitry and higher installation costs compared to other radios. However, because it is impossible to obtain a license to operate on the other regular frequencies, this radio was included because a number of companies can supply this type of radio. Alternate No. 2 provided the bidder an opportunity to submit bids on a new side band (ACSB) radio referring to a radio which operates at a lower frequency of 5 KHz. This is a new frequency approved by the FCC in May, 1985. The reason for not specifying this type of radio within the Base Bid is that there are a very limited number of manufacturers who are supplying equipment at this frequency. However, the City's radio consultant, Ward Montgomery, has advised us that, in his opinion, the ACSB radio is equal in quality and performance to the 900 MHz radio. Accordingly, the ACSB radio was designated as an alternate in order to assure the most competitive bidding process. Alternate No 3 Bid The Base Bid includes spare radios. One for the control panel and one for use at the remote sites." Alternate No. 3 provides the City with the opportunity to purchase the initial system without purchasing these spare radios. The intent here is simply to give the City the opportunity to accept the deduct offered if the cost for the spare radios is determined to be excessive. ANALYSIS OF BIDS RECEIVED Since receipt of these bids we have had several meetings with OSM, with the low bidder (Collins Electric) and with representatives from Edison Controls (equipment supplier for the low bidder). Attached hereto is a February 28, 1986 report from OSM in which they submit their analysis and recommendations. After considerable review, discussion and analysis it is my opinion that: 1. the intent of the specifications as expressed by OSM in their February 28, 1986 letter acurately describes the system which, in my opinion, would best serve the needs of the City. It also acurately reflects the type of system that was discussed between OSM and the City staff during the period in which plans and specifications were developed. March 7, 1986 Page 4 2. My detailed analysis of the specifications indicates that the detailed generic portions of the specifications only partially describe the specific features and performance standards desired. Unfortunately, some of the most important feature and performance standards desired (as detailed in OSM's letter) are not covered by the generic portion of the specifications. Rather, they are covered by reference to a manufacturer's name; that is: a. "... the telemetry system shall be Aquatrol W -1300 or equal." b. the processing system shall be Aquatrol Model 8016 or equal. C. "... the CPU shall be provided ... with a 16 bit processor . Intell 86- 310 -3A or equal." Because of this heavy reliance on the reference to the manufacturer's name product the question of compliance to the specifications becomes more subjective than if the specific feature or performance standard had been generically detailed. Accordingly, while I agree with OSM's conclusion that the system offered by Edison Controls is not equivalent to the system specified, and that the City could legally reject the low bid on the basis of non- conformance with the specifications and award the bid to the second low bidder (who does meet the specifications). It is also obvious that this action might be challenged because of a subjective judgement used. RECOMMENDATION Because of the problems noted above, I recommend that all bids be rejected and that OSM be directed to amend the generic portions of the specifications to define the specific features and performance standards desired (essentially as described in their February 28, 1986 letter), and that the Council authorize advertisement for bids on the system on the basis of the revised specifications. A resolution for this purpose is attached for consideration by the City Council. Respectfully, submitted, - Sy T�fia Director of Public Works Attachments: OSM 2/28/86 letter SK: jn ORR •SCHELEN • MAYERON ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors February 28, 1986 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Attn: Mr. Sy Knapp Director of Public Works Re: Review of Bids for SCADA System OSM Commission No. 3664 Dear Mr. Knapp: In a letter dated February 19, 1986, we recommended that the contract for the subject project be awarded to Killmer Electric Co., Inc. in the amount of , $179,180.00. The Killmer bid was based on furnishing a SCADA system as manufactured by Aquatrol- Corporation. This recommendation was despite the fact that a lower bid had been received from Collins Electric in the "amount of $138,484.00 utilizing equipment manufactured by Edison Controls, Inc. It was, and still is, our conclusion that the bid based upon Edison Controls is not in compliance with the intent, or the letter, of the specifications written for the project. Our previous 'letter outlined four major points in which the system proposed by Collins using Edison equipment was not in compliance with the specifications. Following the submittal of our letter, we were asked to attend a meeting on February 26, 1986 at Brooklyn Center City Hall to review with the City staff, Collins, and Edison Controls, the proposal that Edison had submitted through Collins Electric for the subject project. During the course of this meeting, Edison Controls indicated that they would revise their proposal to rectify two of the areas where their original proposal was not in compliance with the specifications. Specifically, they indicated that they could and would provide the 5 digit displays for elevated tower level indication as specified in lieu of the 3 digit displays they had proposed originally, and they agreed to provide a high resolution, 19" color monitor display as specified, rather than the 13 standard commercial color monitor they had originally proposed. These two changes in their proposal satisfied two of the areas in which we found them not in compliance with the specifications. Based on Edison's verbal revision of their proposal at the February 26th meeting, we therefore can retract our objections to those items. However, after our lengthy and quite detailed technical discussion of the telemetry system and the central processor unit at the February 26th meeting, we cannot change our recommendation with regard to the other two items. These two points have to do with the telemetry system, and the central processing system. 2021 East Hennepin Avenue • Suite 238 . Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 • 6121 331- 8660 Page Two Mr. Sy Knapp February 28, 1986 During the design process, we held many meetings with the Brooklyn Center staff that would be operating this system. The purpose of these meetings was to determine what the specific needs of Brooklyn Center were with regard to a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition ( SCADA) system, and to advise and jointly determine with the City staff what type of SCADA system, of those currently available in the marketplace, would best meet the City's needs for reliability, continuity of service, vendor support and - maintenance, and flexibility. During this process, we visited many of the area municipalities that had already installed SCADA systems and discussed the relative merits of various approaches that could be taken to solving the specific needs of Brooklyn Center. These numerous meetings, in depth discussions, and review of other systems, led to the plans and specificatinos which we prepared to meet those needs. Upon determining the type of system that would best meet Brooklyn Center's needs, we sought and received cost estimates from many vendors for _their - systems, and wrote a specification to describe the generic level of quality, technical approach, and degree of reliability of the systems to be bid for the project. The results of those efforts were our bidding plans and specifications, and a construction estimate of $200,000.00. The specification written went into detail concerning generic equipment to be supplied and required the Contractor to comply with "all of the above details. A manufac- turer's name was used at the end of the detailed specification to indicate the level of quality of equipment to be supplied which inherently included many internal items too numerous to spell out in the specifications. This method of using a manufacturer as a general reference to indicate type, nature, perform- ance and quality of equipment to be bid is standard in the industry. It certainly does not mean it's a closed specification, which would defeat the purpose of the competitive bidding process. It does insure that those people bidding are all proposing on the same type and quality of system so one bidder doesn't have an unfair advantage over another by bidding a different system. Early -on in our meetings with the staff of Brooklyn Center, we identified two possible approaches to the SCADA and telemetry system. One approach is for a custom designed micro - computer based system that could be custom programmed to meet any of Brooklyn Center's particular requirements. The other approach was .to use a line of standard products that could be put together with the required modules to meet Brooklyn Center's specific requirements. There are numerous products available in the marketplace that could generically be called process control computers. There are a great many of these products available which require that a custom program be written for a specific appli- cation. With the custom program, these computers can be applied to a broad range of industries and processes. There are also a number of companies that utilize these general purpose process control computers to create custom control systems. Although the computers are somewhat standardized, they are in all cases custom programmed for a specific application. The product you purchase in such a situation is a combination of a board level computer product, and a custom program that makes that board level computer product do a specific control function. In the purchase of such a system, the value added by the control company to the board level products is primarily the program they Page Three Mr. Sy Knapp February, 1986 produce for that application. Our experience has been that such systems, while perhaps being more flexible, also end up being more complex and generally take Longer to be fully completed and debugged, and become more difficult to make slight modifications to after the system has been installed, than do the standard products. The other approach is to design a modular system that may utilize micro -pro -- cessors, but that have evolved over time into a standard product which is not reprogrammed for each installation within a particular industry or process. In this type of product, all of the programming has been completed by the designer and stabilized and then used over and over again for each of that product that is sold regardless of the specifics of the installation. Examples of this type product would be the telephone system we have in our office in which each telephone instrument on each desk contains a micro- processor with its own program; a microwave oven; an electronic typewriter; and a video arcade game. While each of these products contains a micro - processor, the specific program that makes it do its specific function was carefully developed by a programmer on a development computer system, debugged, and optimized for that specific function only. Once that program was perfected and finalized, it was put into a custom designed chip called a mask programmed ROM. That chip was then mass-pro- duced, and put into every single product of the particular model. While each of these products is in a sense a computer, the program that makes it do its intended function has been standardized. In reviewing these two options with the City staff, it was decided that for Brooklyn Center it would be most appropriate to purchase a system based on a standard telemetry system product that is micro- processor based, but whose stored program would not be custom for the City of Brooklyn Center. All of the manual control modes of the system, and the telemetry function would be per- formed by this standard product line. In this way, we felt that we would receive a product that had been proven in the field, installed many times, and would be more reliable for the basic requirements of the system. To add flexibility to the system without sacrificing reliability, it was decided to add a second central processing unit (CPU), which could be programmed either by the vendor or by the user, to do some of the more sophisticated automatic control and data gathering functions. The requirement of the specification was that this system should operate alongside of the basic_, telemetry system, such that any problems encountered in the custom program for this, CPU would not in any way affect the r e l i a b i l i t y of the basic manual telemetry and water control system. This was a very carefully conceived, conscious decision, mutually agreed upon by the City and OSM in order to get the reliability and safety of a proven system combined with the extendablility, programmability and flexibility of a custom system. Numerous vendors have developed standard "Cast in Concrete" telemetry control systems comparable to the specific Aquatrol W -1300 System named in the specifications. The specific wording was Aquatrol. W -1300 or equal. One of these systems, designed, manufactured and supported by a substantial manufacturer, is what the specification asked for and what was intended. Page Four Mr. Sy Knapp February 28, 1986 Our initial analysis of the system manufactured by Edison, and our at- length discussion with Edison following our initial review, both clearly show that the proposed Edison system is in the first category and not the second category. The product offered by Edison Controls is a process control computer manufac- tured by National Semi- Conductor, and specifically programmed by Edison for the functions asked for by both the telemetry and the automatic controls. The process control computer offered by Edison becomes a radio 'telemetry computer system by virtue of the program that they would develop upon award of the contract and would put into Programmable Read Only Memory (PROM) on the National Semi- Conductor board specifically for Brooklyn Center. There are many control houses that can build this type of telemetry computer system. We believe Edison is one of, if not the best, of this type of control house in this area. We have used Edison Control process control computers on other projects. They have developed many sub - routines, and even a process control programming , language that they use in the development of their systems. The fact remains, however, that what they are proposing is not what was asked for in the specifications. It is our professional judgment that using a system such as is proposed by Edison for the City of Brooklyn Center provides a considerably higher risk to the City of receiving a program with problems in it that may not appear initially, of reliance on skilled programmers to make even slight modifications to the system, a greater potential for delays in completion of the project, and a higher probability of slower response should there be a requirement to enhance or modify the system in the future. We are not saying Edison Controls couldn't build a system to achieve the specified functions. We are, however, saying that the approach offered by Edison is not that which was specified, and is one which provides a higher degree of risk to the City of Brooklyn Center. The second part of the overall SCADA system is what we specified to be the central processing unit. For the standard telemetry system product to interface with the specified central processing unit, it is necessary that the telemetry product have a standard means of interfacing with the CPU. We required that the central processing unit be an industrial grade micro- computer utilizing a multi- tasking operating system. There are numerous commercial grade micro -com- puters with similar capabilities to the industrial grade computer that was specified that are considerably less expensive. However, the industrial grade computer was specified because it will be required to operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and it is desired that it have a 20 year operating life. We think this is an application where an industrial grade computer is warranted. While Edison did offer a CPU separate from their process control computer, the one they have offered is a commercial grade micro- computer. The operating system Edison has proposed for it is not a multi- tasking operating system. The multi- tasking operating system can be defined as one which allows two separate tasks or processes to operate simultaneously, and to do so such that one process or task 'cannot be programmed to interfere with the other process or task. This computer and this application will be called upon to be doing two Page Five Mr. Sy Knapp February 28, 1986 things simultaneously. One is to be reading tank levels and flows in the system and to control pumps in 'real time, and to simultaneously be doing such things as preparing management reports relative to total system flows or monthly amounts of water pumped that are not directly related to control of the system. We think it is very important that the first task related to the control of the system be protected from possible operator errors, programming mistakes, or other functions that might occur in the reporting task. A multi- tasking operating system effectively protects each task such that failure of some other task will not affect it. Thus, a programming error in a report generator could not prevent the control task from functioning. The Zenith 158 CPU running the MS -DOS operating system proposed by Collins /Edison is not a multi - tasking system. The Intel 310 using the RMX operating system specified is. This capability makes it considerably more expensive than the Zenith 158 system proposed by Collins /Edison. There are industrial grade computers available that are equal to the Intel 310. The Zenith 158 running MS -DOS is not, in our professional judgment, equal. At our meeting February 26, Edison was asked if they had ever installed a two processor system similar to the one they proposed for Brooklyn Center. The response was that they are currentily designing their first such system which is to be delivered to Fulton, Missouri. The contractor we recommended, Killmer Electric, with the control system they included in their proposal, Aquatrol, has manufactured and installed many such systems in this area. The specifications prepared by OSM state that... "manufacturers and /or proprie- tary names are not limiting but do indicate the desirable quality, size, appearance and performance." For the telemetry system, a "stand- alone" system was specified as Aquatrol W -1300 or equal. The Aquatrol W -1300 telemetry system is a microprocessor based system utilizing a mask programmed ROM. In excess of 1000 such units using the same program ROM's have been installed over the past five years. The digital displays, as well as pump control and status modules all interface with this system. They will continue to operate despite the failure of the interfaced Intel 86/310 -3A (or equal) Centrol Processing Unit. The Centrol Processing Unit may also be programmed to provide setpoints that vary under program control, along with printed reports, graphic displays, and alarms. The ability to allow control from the CPU or from the manual pump control modules is a pre- programmed function of the W -1300 system, and other comparable systems from other manufacturers. The proposed Edison system will require that Edison develop a program for its National Semi - Conductor IMP -16C computer to achieve comparable "stand - alone" capability along with the capability of having the IMP -16C pass control to the proposed Zenith 158 micro- computer. From our meeting with Edison, we understand that Edison plans to achieve this in a subtly different way. Their indicated plan is to add random access memory to the IMP -16C into which additional program code and data could be down- loaded from the Zenith micro - computer. V L. Page Six Mr. Sy Knapp February 28, 1986 This is fundamentally different in concept from the system specified, and requires putting "more eggs in one basket" than was intended by the specifica- tion. It also requires that specific software be written to accomplish the minimal "fallback" telemetry function required. We do not consider the Edison proposal to be in compliance with the specifications. Throughout this bidding review process, we've kept an open mind about our analy- sis and comparison of bids and let the facts speak for themselves. As we stated previously and expounded upon in detail throughout this letter, we do not con - sider the Collins /Edison proposal to be in compliance with the system designed_ and specified and stand with the recommendation in our February 19, 1986 letter to award the job to Killmer Electric Co., Inc. Very truly yours, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. James P. Norton, P.E. Project Manager JPN:nlb g6 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR TWO (2) 72 -INCH LAWN MOWERS WHEREAS, written quotations were accepted for the purchase of Two (2) 72 -inch Rotary Lawn Mowers. WHEREAS, the quotations received were as follows: BIDDER QUOTATION Kortuems Sales, Service & Rental $14,955.50 Scharber & Sons $15,478.00 Kaye Corp. $15,600.00 Kromer Co. $16,900.00 MTI Dist. Co. $17,056.00 Terra Care Inc. $20,000.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the quotation for Two (2) 72 -inch Rotary Lawn Mowers from Kortuems Sales, Service & Rental in the amount of $14,955.50 is hereby accepted and the City Manager is hereby authorized to contract for the purchase of the Rotary Lawn Mowers in the amount of $14,955.50 from Kortuems Sales, Service & Rental. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: - and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 C r r TELEPHONE 561 -5440 ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE FIRE 911 TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: H.R. Spurrier, City Engineer DATE March 10, 1986 RE: Diseased Shade Tree Removal Program Project No. 1986 -04 Contract 1986 -F Pursuant to my memo dated March 7, 1986 regarding the above - referenced project, we conducted a thorough review of the qualifications of the apparent low bidder, Arps Tree Service of Cedar, Minnesota. All of the references said that the bidder, Arps Tree Service, had the skills and abilities to perform the work specified in the contract but two references, the City of Minnetonka and the City of Golden Valley, both stated that the contractor had equipment breakdown that affected completion time on tree removal. Before we considered rejecting the apparent low bid, a meeting was schedule with Gary Arp, owner of Arps Tree Service; Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works; and Bo Spurrier, City Engineer. When Mr. Arp was presented with the results of the review of his qualifications he advised us that the problem had been corrected with the purchase of two forty cubic yard haul trucks. We advised Mr. Arp that the City expected to collect liquidated damages if the tree removal contractor failed to meet specified performance guidelines, without regard to the reason for delay. Except for equipment, all of the references were satisfied with Mr.. Arps, skill and ability to perform the work specified in the contract. I am satisfied that Mr. Arp meets the qualifications specified in the contract. Arps Tree Service has taken steps to eliminate the principle source of complaints. I am satisfied that Arps Tree Service is the lowest responsible bidder for the 1986 Diseased Shade Tree Removal Program, Project No. 1986 -04, Contract 1986 -F. .. '7ht .Soxatici�Cg 71l au �� ,• March 10, 1986 Page 2 It is, therefore, my recommendation that the attached resolution accepting the bid and approving the contract for Diseased Shade Tree Removal, Project No. 1986 -04, Contract 1986 -F, be adopted. The resolution awards the contract for the Diseased Shade Tree Removal Program to Arps Tree Service of Cedar, Minnesota and establishes the cost of Improvement Project No. 1986 -04 at $63,770. Res e tfully mitted, 1 R u r Cit ngi er cc: File 1986 -F HRS : jn Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FOR DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT NO. 1986 -04 (CONTRACT 1986 -F) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project No. 1986 -04, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 6th day of March, 1986. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Arps Tree Service $ 57.,980.00 Design Tree Service 58,216.25 Gorecki & Company 64,400.00 Ceres Tree Company 64,495.00 Mr. Green 74,650.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Arps Tree Service of Cedar, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $57,980.00 with Arps Tree Service of Cedar, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1986 -04 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except' that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated cost of Improvement Project No. 1986 -04 is hereby amended according o the following schedule: g g As Approved As Bid Contract $ 55,000.00 $ 57,980.00 Engineering 4,950.00 5,210.00 Administration 550.00 580.00 $ 60,500.00 $ 63,770.00 RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passe? and adopted, go-, CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF =J rB OOK YN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 Il l� TELEPHONE 561 - 5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE- FIRE 911 TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: H.R. Spurrier, City Engineer DATE: March 7, 1986 RE: Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project No. 1986 -04 Contract 1986 -F The City received bids for the 1986 Diseased Shade Tree Removal program on March 6, 1986. We are conducting a thorough review of the bidder's qualifications, for the purpose of determining. whether these firms possess the skills and abilities to perform the work specified in the Contract. We will prepare a written evaluation of those bidders. If the evaluation can be completed by March 10, 1986, we will then recommend adoption of a Resolution Accepting Bid and Approving Contract. If we are unable to complete the written evaluation by March 10, 1986 we would respectfully request that City Council defer action until the evaluation can be completed. AiltyEn, (leer submitted, Approved for submittal, r Sy Kn p Di rector of Public Works HRS: jn "74 -` me„ Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND APPROVING CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF H.V.A.C. IMPROVEMENTS AT WEST FIRE STATION /LIQUOR STORE NO. 2 (PROJECT NO. 1985 -25) WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 85 -140, adopted on August 12, 1985 plans for the installation of H.V.A.C. improvements at the West Fire Station /Liquor Store No. 2 have been prepared by Oftedal, Locke and Broadston, Consulting Engineers; and WHEREAS, the following quotations have been received for the furnishing and installation of a new system complying to these plans. Contractor Bid Amount Hovde Plumbing and Heating, Inc. $14,610.00 Atkins Mechanical Inc 15,830.00 Burner Service and Combustion Controls 24,579.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposal for Hovde Plumbing & Heating, Inc. in the amount of $14,610.00 is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into contract wth said firm in that amount. 2. The costs for Project No. 1985 -25 are estimated as follows: Contract Cost $14,610.00 Engineering Cost 3.400.00 Total $18,010.00 - 3. The costs for said project are to be paid from the Government Buildings Division of the1986 General Fund budget. Date Maxon ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption, of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1985 -G (XERXES AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -09) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1985 -G signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Alber Construction, Inc. of Plymouth, Minnesota has .satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: XERXES AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -09 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: As Approved Final Amount Original Contract $259,246.40 $240,995.48 2. The value of work performed is less than the original contract amount by $18,250.92 due to a general over- estimation of planned quantities. 3 It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $246,995.48. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its .adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING OFF -SITE GAMBLING LICENSES WHEREAS, on January 13, 1986 the Brooklyn Center City Council approved a Policy related to off -site gambling licenses for calendar year 1986. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: The City Manager, or his designee, on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center shall object to issuance of any off -site gambling licenses which involve pull tabs, paddle wheels and tip boards for calendar year 1986. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for 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. 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 FEBRUARY 27, 1986 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:314 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Carl Sandstrom, Lowell Ainas and Mike Nelson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier, and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioners Wallerstedt and Bernards were unable to attend this evening's meeting and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1986 Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the February 13, 1986 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht,. Commissioners Malecki and Sandstrom. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Ainas and Nelson. The motion passed. APPLI CATION NOS. 85038 AND 85039 (Robert Schell) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for site and building plan and variance approval to expand the dental clinic at 412 66th Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application Nos. 85038 and 85039 attached). The Secretary also reviewed the site plan and the greenstrip adjacent to 66th Avenue North. He stated that the setback off 66th Avenue North would be approximately 15 feet. The Secretary stated that he had inquired of the City Engineer as to the finality of the drawing from the Highway Department for the highway improvements at 66th Avenue North and Highway 252. He stated that the City Engineer has indicated that the plan for roadway improvements is basically final. The Secretary then reviewed with the Planning Commission the various options as to action on the applications before the Commission. He stated that the Commission could grant a variance and approve the proposed plan with the understanding that the Highway Department would be conveying excess right -of -way to a private party in the future. The Secretary also stated that the Commission could make a finding that excess right -of -way would exist based on the Highway Department plans and that, under this assumption, a normal setback would be required rather than the 50 ft . setback required from major thoroughfare right -of -way. The Secretary explained that it is the City's policy to allow the expansion of nonconforming structures if the expansion meets required setbacks. He stated that the Planning Commission could require an agreement similar to the agreement with the Evergreen Park Apartments project where an interim variance was granted for the period of construction on the condition that an agreement be concluded with the Highway Department for reconveyance to the apartment development after construction. He stated that the apartment owners had purchased the underlying rights for reconveyance as a part of that condition. He stated that the land that ` would be vacated by the Highway Department in this case should be combined with a 2 -27 -86 -1- Y 1 neighboring lot, either the Schell Clinic or the vacant C2 zoned property to the north. He concluded by recommending that the Commission require the 15 ft. greenstrip from the new 66th Avenue North right -of -way line. Commissioner Ainas asked what liability the City might have if it approved the variance and the Highway Department kept the "land to the east of the clinic;. The Secretary responded that the requirement for a 50 ft. setback could be waived based on a finding that the land to the east of the clinic is excess right. -of -way. In response to a question from Chairman Lucht, the Secretary explained that the :land to the north was vacant and zoned C2. Chairman Lucht stated that he wanted to avoid attaching a useless leg of property to that site in the future simply to meet an area requirement. He likened that situation to the apartments behind Arthur Treacher's along Beard Avenue North. The City Engineer stated that Mn /DOT was very reluctant to indicate that they would return land in the future because of past situations where they have been short changed. He stated that the parcel which would be left over after the highway construction could be useful for storm water detention for either the clinic or the C2 zoned property to the north that is yet undeveloped. He stated that this potential use does give the property some value. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Dr. Schell responded in the negative. Chairman Lucht asked the doctor what desire he might have for the property that would be vacated by the Highway Department. Dr. Schell responded that he would put in a bid for the property, but that he didn't really need the land for his own development. He stated that he wished to have a motion from the Planning Commission so that he could resolve his dealings with the State and know whether he could expand to meet contractual arrangements that he had entered into. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the variance could be recommended based on Section 35 -111 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary answered that an option would be to make a finding that excess right -of -way exists and that a 10 ft. sideyard setback could be allowed He stated that the excess area essentially would become a separate parcel no matter who owned it. In answer to a question from Chairman Lucht, the Secretary explained that the 15 ft. greenstrip could be provided on the site without creating a problem with the City's parking requirements. The Secretary then reviewed some standard conditions of approval and added that the plan should be modified to indicate the required greenstrip and that the variance would be obviated by a finding that excess right -of -way exists in this area. Commissioner Ainas stated that if Dr. Schell was willing to take the risk of perhaps suffering damages after the highway construction, he did not feel the City, should stand in the way, given the layout of the plans proposed by the Highway Department. He recommended that the Commission approve the application subject to certain conditions and make a finding that there was surplus right -of -way to the east of the clinic site. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85039 (Robert Schell) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Nelson to deny Application No 85039, a request for a variance from setback requirements and greenstrip - requirements, on the basis of a finding that excess right -of -way will exist to the east of the clinic site mitigating the effect of traffic, noise, dust and fumes, and on the basis that there is no hardship in providing the required 15 ft. greenstrip along 66th Avenue North. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki,� Sandstrom, Ainas and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 2 -27 -96 -2- I E There followed a discussion of the conditions of approval for the site and building plan application. Regarding the requirement for a 15' greenstrip, Dr. Schell asked if he could modify the plans after the highway construction were completed when the exact improvements along 66th Avenue North would be known. The Secretary stated that the plans would have to be modified before issuance of building permits. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85038 (Robert Schell) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom recommend approval of Application No. 85038, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitt ed ri r o to the issuance of permits P p rm s to assure the completion of p approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building addition 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, including the additional greenstrip to be provided adjacent to 66th Avenue North. 7. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 8. The plans shall be modified prior to the issuance of permits to indicate a 15 ft. greenstrip adjacent to 66th Avenue North. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Ainas and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 86007 (City of Brooklyn Center) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to resubdivide the land surrounding the Earle Brown Farm site into four parcels. The Secretary eviewed the contents of the staff report Y p (See Planning ommission Information Sheet for Application g No. 86007 attached). The Secretary also discussed the radin plan for the at e g g p plat. H stated that it was likely hat two ponds would be required to r Y p provide storm water retention an q P d purification. He stated that hat the p onds would serve both an aesthetic and a 2 -27 -86 -3- functional purpose. The Secretary also stated that the plat may eventually include the tract of land which contains `Earle Brown Drive to the east of the plat. He stated that there would be a vacation of 10 ft. of right -of -way along the west side of Earle Brown Drive. There was also a discussion of the necessary cross access easements throughout the plat. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 8600 7) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Nelson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMIVENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86007 (City of Brooklyn Center) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend approval of Application No. 86007, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.' 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The following easements_ shall be indicated on the preliminary plat prior to final plat approval: a) A utility easement for sanitary and storm sewer through Lot 4. b) Stormwater retention areas for ponding of runoff. c) Easements for cross access to lots within the plat. 4. The plan for grading, water retention and water quality for the entire plat shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to final plat approval. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Ainas and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 8:37 p.m. and resumed at 8 :56 p.m. It was noted that the other Commissioners also left the meeting during the recess. APPLICATION NO. 86009 (Dr. John Lescault Following the recess, the Secreary introduced the last item of business, an appeal by Dr. John Lescault from the City's determination in 1984 that the chiropractic office in the residence at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard is a special home occupation rather than a permitted home occupation. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86009 attached). The Secretary also explained that a lawsuit brought by Dr. 2 -27 -86 -4- Ili f Lescault against the City was before the District Court and that it had been continued while Dr. Lescault exhausts his administrative remedies. The Secretary concluded his remarks by recommending that the Planning Commission table the application and direct staff to prepare a resolution regarding disposition of the matter. Mr. Kurt Erickson of the City Attorney's office added that Dr. Lescault would be paying the college for sending an intern to work with him in the home occupation. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. David Cod (offices at 160 Hanover Building, t Y� ng, S Paul) an attorney representing Dr. Lescault, stated that his client contends that the administrative action to reclassify the chiropractic office as a special home occupation was arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious. He explained that the lawsuit Y brought b Dr. Lescault g against the City had to do with the expansion which was denied and also the reclassification of the home occupation to a special use. He explained that the appeal before the Planning Commission only had to do with the reclassification of the home occupation to a special use. Mr. Cody stated that he also sat on the Planning Commission in another community. He stated that he was not present to talk about lawsuits, but wanted the Planning Commission to interpret the City Ordinances in light of the facts. Mr. Cody explained that Dr. Lescault moved into Brooklyn Center in 1975 and carried on his chiropractic business for 9 years with the knowledge of the City, but with no intervention from the City. He asked what happened in 1984 to make the operation a special use. He stated that between 1975 and 1984, the land around the Lescault residence had become more commercialized. He stated that the ordinance had been changed in 1982, but that it was basically a housecleaning ordinance amendment. He stated that the only change that had occurred was that Dr. Lescault requested a permit to expand his home occupation as well as his dwelling. He stated that the City staff asked the Planning Commission whether to reclassify the home occupation to a special use and allow an appeal or whether to simply review a special use permit application. Mr. Cody stated that the staff letter of June 26, 19824 was the reclassification of the home occupation to a special use. He stated that the City had no evidence at that time that the home occupation was a special use. He stated that the Planning Commission should consider the evidence available on June 26, 1984, not later testimony. Mr. Cody pointed out that Dr. Lescault is a licensed professional and that the City Ordinance classifies a professional office as a permitted home occupation. He explained that the ordinance does not provide any basis for distinguishing between one type of professional office and another. He, therefore, stated that there was no basis for reclassifying a professional office to be a special home occupation. He also stated that there was no definition in the ordinance of secondary and incidental. Mr. Cody stated that staff evaluated the expansion proposed by Dr. Lescault and saw no way of controlling and denying the expansion except by classifying the home occupation as a special use. He stated that there was no rational basis for the reclassification and that it should be reversed. The Planner then sought to clarify certain facts surrounding the reclassification of the chiropractic office to a special home occupation. He stated that the appeal 2 -27 -86 -5- 3 option that was discussed with the Planning Commission on the June 14, 1984 meeting was the option for the staff to simply deny the building permit proposed by Dr. Lescault for the expansion on the grounds that the expansion would make the home occupation more than secondary and incidental to the residential use of the premises. Dr. Lescault could then appeal that action. The appeal discussed in the June 26, 1984 letter to Dr. Lescault , the Planner explained, was the option for Dr. Lescault to appeal the determination that his chiropractic office was, in effect, a special use. The Planner also stated that staff did not rely on the reclassification of the home occupation as a special use as a means of stopping the expansion. He stated that the staff always had the right to deny the building permit for the expansion on the basis that it would go beyond the ordinance limits of secondary and incidental use of the premises for a home occupation. He stated that that option was not exercised that the expansion was considered under a special use permit application instead. Mr. Cody disagreed with the Planner's interpretation of the minutes of the June 14, 1984 Planning Commission meeting. There followed a discussion as to what was contained in the minutes and the appeals that were possible to Dr. Lescault. Chairman Lucht concluded that the Planning Commission and the applicant have a disagreement as to what the minutes of the June 14, 1984 Planning Commission meeting actually say. Mr. Kurt Erickson of the City Attorney's office pointed out that the matter had been referred to the Planning Commission by the District Court in order to exhaust all administrative remedies. He urged the Commission to consider not only the facts that were known prior to June 26, 1984, but all facts that have come to light since that time as the best way of exhausting all administrative remedies. Mr. Erickson also stated that the access to Dr. Lescault's property was from 62nd Avenue North which is a residential street. Mr. Cody stated that his client was appealing the determination of the June 26, 1984 staff letter in which the chiropractic office was considered to be a "special home occupation because of its land use impacts. He stated that there is no basis in the ordinance for distinguishing between a permitted and a special home occupation on the basis of traffic and, therefore, the reclassification had no foundation in the City ordinance. He pointed out that Dr. Lescault had operated as a permitted home occupation for approximately 10 years without any intervention from the City. Mr. Cody also explained that the nonresident intern working in the home occupation was basically there for an educational experience. He stated that to consider such a person as a nonresident employee would be the same as considering someone who cut the grass in the yard to be a nonresident employee in the home occupation. The Planner again attempted to clarify the appeals that were discussed by the Planning Commission in June of 1984 and the appeal brought by the applicant. He also pointed out that Dr. Lescault actually has more rights afforded to him under the special use classification than if he were limited to the classification of a permitted home occupation. Mr. Erickson asked how that was the case. The Planner pointed out that special home occupations are allowed to have `a nonresident employee and equipment not normally found in the home. He added that permitted home occupations are not allowed to have either. The Secretary asked the applicant whether he wanted to live under the regulations in force in 1975 governing permitted home occupations and operate without an employee or x -ray equipment. He stated that both these aspects of his home occupation were 2 -27 -86 -6- 1 prohibited for permitted home occupations in 1975 just as they are today. Mr. Cody responded that Dr. Lescault simply wants the rights that he enjoyed from 1975 to 1984. `The Secretary answered that he had not been aware of the equipment or of the nonresident employees working in the home occupation and that he considered these to be zoning violations which could not continue once they came to light. Chairman Lucht discussed the special use status with the applicant and his attorney. He pointed out that equipment not normally found in the home requires a special use permit. Mr. Cody stated that that equipment had been in the home 10 years prior to the reclassification. Chairman Lucht also pointed out that an outside employee requires a special use permit. Mr. Cody stated that another chiropractor comes to the house to treat patients when the Lescaults are out of town and that that chiropractor is paid directly by the patients. Chairman Lucht stated that Dr. Lescault was obviously trading services of value with the other chiropractor and was receiving some benefit from the fact that that chiropractor did come in and take over patients that might be lost if they were not treated while he was gone. Dr. Lescault explained that his malpractice insurance requires that he provide continuing care to patients. Chairman Lucht pointed out that the special use classification of the home occupation would allow another chiropractor to come onto the premises to provide that continuing care. The Secretary asked whether patients could go to the other doctor's office. Mr. Cody responded that that was not practical, that it was important to serve the patients within the geographic area that they are accustomed to. The Secretary stated that, for another doctor to come onto the premises to treat patients when Dr. Lescault is away constitutes a nonresident employee. Mr. Cody argued that the home occupation had been allowed as a permitted use for 10 years. The Secretary stated that it was a zoning violation as long as it exceeded the parameters of a permitted home occupation in the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether x -ray equipment should not be assumed in a chiropractic office. The Secretary stated that he did not know whether that was an appropriate assumption. The Secretary stated that he felt Dr. Lescault could have been classified as a special use in 1975, but was not. He stated that Dr. Lescault essentially got away with a zoning violation for a number of years and that it was appropriate for him to seek a special use permit for the things that he was already doing. Dr. Lescault pointed out that he had gotten a permit for the electrical service needed for the x -ray equipment and that it was inspected by the City. He also stated that his operation is checked by the State every year. Commissioner Malecki stated that the Planning Commission was essentially being asked to allow the continuation of a zoning violation rather than comprehend the home occupation as a special use. She stated that she could not believe the applicant was serious about this request. Mr. Cody asked whether the meeting was being taped. Chairman Lucht responded in the negative. Commissioner Ainas speculated that a betting operation could have 20 phones installed by Northwestern Bell and partitions installed and inspected by the City and might operate without anyone understanding the purpose of these improvements. He stated, however, that when the operation was discovered by the Chief of Police, it would certainly be stopped whatever prior permits were granted. He stated that he saw no justification in reversing the decision of 1984 in classifying Dr. Lescault's chiropractic office as a special use. 2 -27 -86 -7- Following further protestations by Mr. Cody on the nature of the business and its prior status and the reclassification action, Chairman Lucht stated simply that the Commission has a disagreement with the appellant on facts and interpretation of facts. He added, however, that the Planning Commission did not want to be entirely negative toward Dr. Lescault. He stated that Dr. Lescault has improved his property and that he is a credit to the community. He concluded, however, that past precedent and City ordinances limit the discretion of the Planning Commission in classifying home occupations. He stated that he felt it was clearly a special home occupation. Commissioner Sandstrom asked what difference it would make if the home occupation were allowed under the proper ordinances. Chairman Lucht stated that that was already being done and asked for the reason for the appeal. Mr. Cody suggested that the Commission read the conditions of the special use permit and mentioned hours of operation as one reason for the appeal. Mr. Kurt Erickson, the City's attorney in this case, pointed out that the conditions of approval came primarily from, information contained in Dr. Lescault's letter of application. He stated that Mr. Cody seemed to argue that the conditions are too restrictive, but, he said, they come from the very applications submitted by Dr. Lescault. Mr. Erickson went on to address the matter of emergency treatment. He stated that he did not feel it was the City's intent to bar Dr. Lescault from treating patients on an emergency basis at times other than the normal operating hours limited in the special use permit. Planning Commission members concurred and the Secretary pointed out that the hours limitation in the special use permit pertained only to normal office hours. Mr. Cody then ceased to argue the appeal and called for the question to be voted on. The Secretary pointed out that if the City upheld the appeal, Dr. Lescault would be much more restricted than he is as a special use. He pointed out that Dr. Lescault could not have an outside employee and could not have equipment not normally found in the home without a special use permit either under the ordinance in effect in 1975 or 1984. He stated that Dr. Lescault could seek an amendment of the conditions of approval if he felt they were too restrictive. Commissioner Malecki asked whether a person can cease being a special use home occupation if he or she wants to. The Secretary answered in the affirmative, provided they live within the restrictions for permitted home occupations. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 86009 (Dr. John Lescault) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to table Application No. 86009 and direct staff to prepare a formal resolution recommending denial of the application and setting forth the Commission's reasoning. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Ainas and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of upcoming business items, there was a motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:09 p.m. Chairman 2 -27 -86 -8- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application Nos. 85038, 85039 Applicant: Robert E. Schell Location: 412 - 66th Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan /Variance These two applications were submitted in December of.1985 seeking approval for an expansion of the dental clinic at 412 - 66th Avenue North. The clinic is made a nonconforming structure by MnDOT's acquisition of the former Sinclair station at the northwest corner of 66th Avenue North and West River Road, and by the widening of 66th Avenue North to the north. The required setbacks from the newly established right -of -way lines (50' from the new Highway 252 and 35' from 66th) make the entire building nonconforming as to setback. Both applications were tabled at the Com- mission's December 17, 1985 meeting with. direction that further information be sought from MnDOT as to the eventual location of the Highway 252 right -of -way line (see minutes attached). The Commission indicated on December 17th that it could not recommend approval of the variance and site and building plan as submitted. City staff contacted the District 5 office of MnDOT on January 23, 1986 (after the minutes of the December 17th meeting were approved) and requested further definite information on the eventual location of the right -of -way boundaries. On February 4, 1986, staff received a letter from Gregory Felt of the MnDOT District 5 office. Mr. Felt transmitted a map of the area showing the Highway Department's planned roadway layout. On it, Mr. Felt indicated a "possible new right -of -way line." The letter (attached) indicates that the'line shown on the map is "an approximate location. An exact location will not be determined until after construction of T.H. 252 has been completed. The map transmitted does not give any dimensions to indicate the precise location of the "possible right -of -way line." It scales about 50' from the east lot line of the clinic property for the north portion of the lot, but tapers to zero at the southeast corner of the lot. The possible right -of -way line, as scaled, would still leave a large portion of the existing building within required setbacks. The proposed addition to the north side of the building would probably meet set- back requirements. Our response to the information provided by MnDOT is that it is too approximate, in that it gives no specific dimensions to locate the right -of -way line, and that it is too tentative. There is no commitment in the letter that this approximate line will, in fact, be the future right -of -way line. Based on the uncertainty of the information at this time, we must recommend denial of both the site and building plan and variance applications. After the right -of -way lines for Highway 252 and for 66th Avenue North have definitely been established, we would suggest that the applicant resubmit his plans with any necessary variance requests. 2 -27 -86 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86007 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive Request: Preliminary Plat This application by the City is for preliminary plat approval to resubdivide into four parcels the area of land containing and surrounding the Earle Brown Farm. The - land in question is zoned I -1 and is bounded on the south /southwest by Summit Drive and on the west, north and east /southeast by Earle Brown Drive. Most of this land was recently subdivided for conveyance purposes into nine tracts of a Registered Land Survey (R.L.S.) under Application No. 85041. The proposed subdivision would be a plat known as Brooklyn Farm. Lot 1 is the site of the Earle Brown Farm. - Lots 2 and 3 are parcels on the west side of the plat and will be developed in a two -phase office complex by Ryan Construction Company. Lot 4 is the southeasterly parcel containing the old Summit Bank building. This lot is presently being planned for development with a high -rise elderly housing complex. The lot areas are as follows: Lot Area Proposed Use Lot 1 6.5 acres Mixed Uses Lot 2 6.2 acres High -rise Office Lot 3 5.9 acres High -rise Office Lot 4 7.1 acres High -rise Residential The proposed plat shows an existing utility easement across the southeastern tip of Lot 3 and roughly the middle of Lot 4, running from Summit Drive across to Earle Brown Drive. The development of the property with high -rise residential buildings closely associated with the Farm complex will require the relocation of these utilities southward. A recommended condition of approval is that the new utility easement be shown on the preliminary plat prior to final plat approval (easements are not shown on final plats). Another important planning issue for this entire plat is impact of the interim regulations of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Agency. These regulations require that both the quality of stormwater runoff and its rate of flow be controlled. To meet the regulations will require the development of a ponding system for water retention and skimming devices to insure an acceptable level of water quality. This areawide grading and drainage plan must be approved by the Shingle Creek Water- shed District. Such approval should be obtained prior to final plat approval. Also so necessary before final plat approval will be the execution of necessary ease - ments for stormwater retention areas throughout the plat. Such retention will primarily be provided by a holding pond within the Ryan office development. However, a secondary pond may be necessary within the residential development on Lot 4. Altogether, the plat appears to be in order and approval ,is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 2 -27 -86 -1- Application No. 86007 continued 3. The following easements shall be indicated on the preliminary plat prior to final plat approval 0 a) A utility easement for sanitary and storm sewer through Lot 4. b) Stormwater retention areas for ponding of runoff. 4. The plan for grading, water retention and water quality for the entire plat shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to final plat approval. 2 -27 -86 -2- Y DUP NT COLFAX 0� xrn ' Z m m k m m D p x xk m;u '� COLFAX v �` i rmn BRYANT )< ALDRICH CAMDEN \� CAMDEN DR. N . N ..�-�` l CAMDE AVE te , - t 5TH ST. N 4 • C •. _ DR Z WEST RIVER ROAD • ••••••••••••••••••••••• • ••• 0000 • •••••0••••00 A E BO R 0 LL AS • R TI L RI IN wl Lo WI LLOW LA. - a ~�-- A co n Q •` _ -� co 0 f / / o$ IRNAM ISLAND` OF BROOKLYN PARK) s p� a '^ ) 0 f. !r!� < < m - R1 m m i � r.. J 9 Ll Tt 1 Imo; O' I �AO � KIN I 1 ° - i Ew WW 16 uHs* z 5�� $� � � �- iEXI<1'� CdlJG, Nlpi.•Iz .:�r.l i 5 W4W FIX /432y / y9 lo o A+f OrrY I I✓t, EL. 101; ° � 1 B -- -- Q '� -- _— - � - - - - -- - _too - �_ -- - 41 W Own wv t1fR1MG -G 5L, * Icd-dp" ___ d oe ni v ..l.a....i� ((Ir j { : {t # F ,I,,, Ifil �...A.A.A � .LL i : I .. , is i ,1!i M1 is �. !i:,::!!: !: i.;•: ! :.. ,..•I . .: .:'::.,1.: • .;> ,,.:..:# :° � :,:;�: aa: � R l yt i# il: i� # t! y ! ; .b• iii. �.. { ..4. a t300G1 8£•aAd, P. N _ ) # { I : #••+ its # !i' # i i it l 7�Og� / # #( t+a0? 83'i :tom 0,4 ��00 ill I!ii ,I,i I ,I.. +�# is (E•i i y ! # ,� ��' � #1 ; #i i. I, # � f f' � '•:! � � # � � � ; Ij I I IA 1 �� N • ��.,� , iEll� li Ili �) I Ilt # llil ,• it +g�, EIEI lli:llli' '{ # , °: u Lei // � � ,b1 e� �� €I•I,�# � � � !i� I': } ll! s itt {;:;,:h' :�:il � I': { #�li j!II!! ;# tl`I� , /�'� �..� V m.i..:: ,..!..! ., ,., .,. ,.r.. . , ... ..... r• ,�. ..p., , f !... .. p.{.. {..:..p i 4! .L. r.hr.l� .!. }..a. }aa• € F.r. {..r.R�.y.a.. . Lf v I a , !! !4l Imo. m 4 � � # � I �� (C!I �� :lI' ; �+9£e If: !# !iill ��!!� �•! 1 z °� � l # I # {� •� ' +,I It 1 # ; #! t {! � �i ,t .E�I'#`�� sl�i�j # #� # t�i�� E..:j....''....!.: 'i_L.:. •r. _:..l .:..i.. ..:.L. RR_ +4-+ 1, !•� !!•� {'•"' !� ' ! I r.,..! 1••�., .< :�r.!_:.E.:. _! -Fr•r l' .i•+ H il l ! ! ij l I (Ei OT I i ►11 � ,. #�� 'I, f 111 � : #,, �� , I X11 I f {( - Gc a #l'#I ! i • —� 'lll:jl I II i ULOGI It! egg E') y :•• i l ! { I � I { t { #`� i'::::.:1! li #!� {� f ! f jl ` a tv ,.... i r ., E 4 c /# - r- _ � ..... f, ... , 7 --- �.'�••� � � � # i i � I! �. I. � 'V ' , I 1 1. }IJ1V11 f I i l =1 •�' � U ti � /+ 'm'r.. I I {!�i l ii� # ' ! {I!'# ! I��t�� #' !: ! Ali !! #1 u M/ 060 bZ96 9738 ON3 # L �... . 9 n ! '9 i E ! ! • . ., .E 'J � � bb 1N30 � � t iili #11 i ' Ilf i�t,: : i#I i _ t M3dns ' i # �r'`�..`.` L-..1 W f �► J ;. i i I Gt � �'� !il :•IIII I I•ij lilt {li � l !•.L. __ !ii !:i•li, � ! (;� � i+ ,1 #��, ! ` u ! f L I V I , , .r II N0�0219H1Hn.� ' .. f A E.E s MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DECEMBER 17, 1985 REGULAR SESSION CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom, Mike Nelson, Wallace Bernards and Ann Wallerstedt. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 21, 1985 Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to approve the minutes of the November 21, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Ainas. The motion passed, APPLICATION NOS. 85038 AND 85039 (Robert Schell) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for site and building plan approval to expand the dental clinic at 412 66th Avenue North. The Secretary also introduced a variance application to allow expansion of a nonconforming building within required setback area. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 85038 and 85039). The Secretary also noted one possible location of a future Highway 252 right -of -way line along the east side of the property in question. The Secretary stated that there are other parcels along Highway 252 in a similar circumstance. He stated that' in this case the nonconformity of the existing building and the addition was too great to allow an expansion. He added that a relocation of the building could possibly be accomplished on the property. He concluded•by saying the property had suffered damages as a result of the highway taking of the neighboring property which made the applicant's building nonconforming as to setback and that there was a need for further negotiation between Dr. Schell and MN /DOT to reduce the right -of -way taking to the minimum necessary and thereby reduce the nonconformity as much as possible. Commissioner Nelson asked what the setback would be if this possible right -of -way line were, in fact, established by MN /DOT. The Secretary stated that it is conceivable that the right -of -way line could be 50' away from the proposed addition and that the addition could, therefore, be allowed. He pointed out that conforming additions to nonconforming buildings had been allowed in the past, as in the case of Lynbrook Bowl. Commissioner Nelson asked when the applicant would know what the Highway Department's right -of -way line would ultimately be. The Secretary stated that that would require further negotiation. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Dr. 'Robert Schell, owner of the clinic, stated that he somewhat he agreed with the staff report. 12 -17 -85 -1- y He stated that he basically wanted to know where he stood relative to the City so that he can take that P osition back to the State. He stated that he did want to add on to his building because of additional business that he had contracted with the Share Medical Plan. He showed the Commission a layout of the intersection of the proposed Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North and stated that it was the most recent plan developed by the Highway Department. He pointed out that the Superamerica station across 66th will be closer to Highway 252 than the clinic. He also pointed out that the State would be taking 20' from the front of his property along 66th Avenue North. Dr. Schell explained that the State would not be using the west side of the service station property to the east and that a row of trees would continue to exist in this location. He also added that the rooms in the proposed addition would not be for treatment. Chairman Lucht asked Dr. Schell whether he had talked to the State regarding acquisition of the underlying rights to the neighboring property. Dr. Schell responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the State could give Dr. Schell an option to buy the remnant parcel of land. Dr. Schell agreed. However, he stated that his present problem is that the State owns the land and it is, therefore, considered right -of -way. He also pointed out that he did not need the property and that he had no use for it. Chairman Lucht pointed out that the property by itself would not be buildable. Dr. Schell stated that he did not want to relocate his building because of an artificial right -of -way line. He stated that it would be an expense for the general public to relocate the clinic. He stated that he did not expect action on the application at this meeting, but wanted to let the Commission know his situation. Chairman Lucht stated that the Planning Commission had to be careful about ranti variances w t o f th a g ng since it would se precedent or other cases. There followed a general discussion of the situation. The Secretary again stated that the highway taking creates damages for the applicant. He stated that 30 years ago the Highway Department would not be required to compensate for such damages as creating a nonconforming status for a particular building. He pointed out, however, that MN /DOT's rules have changed and that it must now pay for such damages when they are clearly documented. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85039) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Nelson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. There followed a discussion as to the proper procedure to follow. The Secretary stated that the Planning Commission could table both applications and express the opinion that the application, in its present form, would be recommended for denial. This, then, could be conveyed to the State, he said, and they would have to respond. Chairman Lucht wondered whether tabling would be a strong enough message. Commissioner Wallerstedt noted that this situation had been compared to the case of the Evergreen Park Apartments. She asked whether this was the same situation and whether tabling was employed at that time. The Secretary stated that in that situation the applicant had insisted on an action by the Planning Commission. He stated, however, that MN /DOT will not revise their position until it is shown that damages are clearly documented. 12 -17 -85 -2- ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 85039 (Robert Schell Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to table Application No. 85039 with direction to the applicant that the application in its present form would be recommended for denial and that further negotiation should be pursued with MST /DOT. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Ainas, Nelson and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 85038 (Robert Schell) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to table Application No. 85038 on the grounds that Application No. 85039 is not yet resolved. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 85040 (Brian Zubert) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 152 room all suite hotel on the vacant parcel of land immediately east of Earle Brown Bowl, south of Freeway Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85040 attached). The Secretary added that staff had put templets on the site plan and concluded that semi trailers would have a very difficult time gaining access to this site and, therefore, no trailer parking was required. The City Engineer commented as to available sewer capacity. He noted that his memo, dated December 16, 1985 contains two estimates of the projected flow of the hotel. He stated that these estimates vary, depending on the method of calculation. He stated that he felt the truth lay somewhere in between these two estimates and that it should live within the maximum established by the City of 185 gallons per minute coming off the office park and hotel development. The City Engineer also pointed out that the sewer connection would have to be to the sanitary sewer lines within the private road rather than Freeway Boulevard and that this would allow the City to control the flow to the City main. The Secretary added that liquor cannot be given away under the City's liquor ordinance and that the establishment does not qualify for a liquor license either. He noted that the applicant had expressed plans to give away drinks to hotel patrons. The Secretary concluded by stating that the City had received a letter expressing support for the proposed hotel from Roberts Properties which owns some industrial buildings in the industrial park nearby. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Bob Fields, representing the applicant, stated that he would answer any questions of the Commission. Chairman Lucht asked whether there were any other Comfort Inns in the general area. Mr. Fields stated that Comfort Inns was a subsidiary of Quality Inns and that there are others along the I -94 freeway in North Dakota. Mr. Charlie Radloff, the architect for the project, stated that he had no objection to the conditions of approval listed in the report. In response to a question from the Secretary, Mr. Fields stated that liquor would not be a part of the operation in Brooklyn Center. He stated that Comfort Inn wants to beef up other amenities offered in the hotel and perhaps pursue the possibility of limited liquor service in the future. 12 -17 -85 -3- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85038 Applicant: Robert E. Schell Location 412 66th Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct an approximate 20' x 26' addition to the north end of the dental clinic at 412 66th Avenue North. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the east by newly established Highway 252 right -of -way (formerly the location of Ralph's Sinclair station); on the south by 66th Avenue North (to be widened); and on the west and north by vacant C2 zoned land. Dental clinics are classified as a permitted use in the C2 zoning district. The proposed addition would be to the rear (north side) of the building. Access would continue to be off 66th Avenue North (no access off Highway 252). No addi- tional parking is proposed, inasmuchas there are currently 23 parking spaces on the site and only 19 are required for the building with the addition at a rate of one space per 150 sq. ft. of gross floor area (the proposal calls for 2,761 sq. ft. of building area, total). The plans call for some additional landscaping in the area just west and north of the proposed addition. New plantings would include: one Manay Juniper, 10 Alpine Currents, one Norway Maple, two Isanti Dogwoods, and four Red Vanicek Weigela. No changes are proposed in paved areas of the site. Exterior treatment of the addi - tion would be cedar siding to match the existing building. The biggest change to the site actually comes from outside it: namely the acquisition • of land for highway right -of -way to the east and south. The east property line of the clinic site has become the westerly right -of -way line of State Highway 252. The required setback from such a major thoroughfare is 50'. The existing setback is 10' and the proposed addition would continue along that setback line. The entire clinic structure has become nonconforming as to setback because of the right- of-way taking and the proposed addition would expand that nonconforming situation. The applicant has, accordingly, applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow this expansion. (See Application No. 85039.) Since staff recommended denial of that variance application, we cannot recommend approval of the site and building plan application at this time. Earl Howe of MNDOT has sent the City a letter informing us that some excess right -of -way will be available for reconveyance after construction of the highway. The addition, therefore, may ultimately become conforming. However, Mr. Howe has stated that the precise amount of land to become available is not known at this time. Until a definite commitment is made on the land to be made available, staff believe it would be very unwise to act favorably on the proposed expansion. We would recommend discussion with the applicant on the possibility of an agreed upon, indefinite tabling until a commitment is made by MNDOT on available excess right -of -way. 12 -17 -85 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85039 Applicant: Robert E. Schell Location: ` 412 66th Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests approval of a variance from Section 35 -400 and indirectly from Section 35 -111 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to add onto the dental clinic at 412 66th Avenue North. The property in question is zoned C2 and is the subject of Application No. 85038. The existing building now lies entirely within the set - back area off the newly established westerly right -of -way lines of State Highway - ro proposed addition 252. The p p to the north side of the building d also l i e with- in this setback area. The north right -of -way line of 66th Avenue North will also be shifted northward approximately 20' making the front yard setback substandard. The new addition would, therefore, be nonconforming as to setback and would con- stitute an expansion of a building that is entirely nonconforming as to setback. The applicant has submitted a letter in which he explains the need for the addition to the building and the circumstances surrounding the taking of his and adjacent land for highway purposes. Mr. Schell states that 66th Avenue North will be "eight feet nearer the front (south) entrance to the clinic." The new highway, he states will be no nearer to the side of the clinic than the gas station formerly was. He states there will still be a "thicket of woods" and "a wide reen space" 9 p to the east before one reaches the highway. He states that this represents excess land for right -of -way purchased by the State. Mr. Schell also notes that the land to the north and (west) is vacant, largely wooded, and zoned commercial. He notes that the nearest residence is more than a block away and there is a Superamerica and a Pet Hospital south of 66th Avenue North. He states that no surrounding properties would be adversely affected by the proposed addition. Mr. Schell concludes his letter by pointing out that the nonconforming setback results through no fault of his own and contending that the right -of -way alignment and setback requirement create a unique problem for the clinic. He thus concludes his case that the Standards for a Variance are met. The Standards for a Variance are set forth in Section 35 -240 (attached for review). With respect to - the setback - requirements of Section- 35400, i t may be that the ordi- nance standards are met. The applicant does appear to suffer pp pp a hardship in that an expansion that would otherwise be allowed within the site is prohibited in this case because of changing relative location. The entire existing building is made nonconforming by the moving of the highway right -of -way line which now places the entire building within required setback area. The circumstances are fairly unique. Roadway widening or realignment does not affect many parcels in the C2 zoning district. The hardship certainly has not been created by the applicant, but by the highway taking. Adverse impact on other property or improvements in the neigh- borhood may be difficult to judge at this time. The building addition itself would seem to cause no harm to anyone on adjacent property. The issue raised by the City's ordinance requirements is whether a building set back 10' from the right -of- way ine of Y a mayor highway 1s safe and healthy for those who frequent the building itself and the general public who travel that intersection. Our judgment is that the situation for the clinic is made bad by the highway taking to the east and south and that the proposed addition will only compound the damages to the general Public welfare. 12 -17 -85 -1- Y Application No. 85039 continued The real basis on which this application must be judged is the provisions of Section 35 -111 (attached) pertaining to the legal status of nonconforming uses. The clinic is considered a nonconforming structure because it doesnot conform to ordinance setback requirements and it is subject to the limitations imposed on nonconforming uses in Section 35 -111. The clinic is a nonconforming use of land in that it is a building located where only parking and greenstrip are allowed by ordinance. Under Section 35 -111, nonconforming uses of land may not "be enlarged or increased or occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by such use at the time of the adoption of this ordinance" (ie. at the time the use becomes legally nonconforming, in this case when the highway department acquired the former service station to the east for right -of -way purposes). In the past, buildings with relatively minor setback deficiencies have been allowed to expand, provided the new expansion meets current setback requirements. In this case, the entire existing building is located within the required setback and no conforming expansion of the clinic structure is physically possible. It is, therefore, staff's recommendation that the requested variance application be denied and the applicant referred back to the MNDOT for compensation for the full damages caused by the highway taking, including the damage of becoming a nonconforming use of land. 12-17-85 -2- i ■■ AP P., BROWN MW qD ®.� VN 0 • p .... - -ms � . // n , LJ < I 20 \ \ \\ , o LE i- ''� 6.s Acre / I f 7.1 AC-r(35 � - - -J zo I -\O - 140 I I , tt � o ' � -. � 1. � -___ I I I -l` 65U ` gdb.7/ / � 1 � \ ' .G✓ �* 0 a - -- 50 r ; _ a f• ac° l� - _= _.e -•-� _4ra 19_ - - - _ 3 --_ / L_ mj 62 Ac CASTING ELEVATION N0. TOP CASTING INVERT �L . I / If 44.27 34.25 44.13 40.23 \ \ \ 3 43.89. 40.48 6 45.86 44.19 45.72 36.22 4o /00 6 44.85 36.94 _r 44.45 38.65 ..�..:- 44.35 37.57 {� 9 45.47 38.87 10 45.47 37.69 45.74 39.34 r,40 I 12 47.07 38.82 13 45.12 41.32 14 45.07 40.97 44 15 46.57 40.15 16 1 47.63 39.3 Z3A..7 _- / gs•] gyp ' b 17 47.02 38.14 - - �. 18 45.66 40.06 - X63.19 ao I9 45.57 50 t'99 I I 20 46.40 36.81 �-•• - .._. ._ ' -- (fin_ B .. - F 10,A PROCLAMATIO DE CLARING AP RIL 6 12, 1986 AS PEACEMN<ER W EEK WHEREAS, the Peacemaker Center has been established to promote peaceful relationships between individuals, within families, within them- selves, and between the individual and God; and WHEREAS, the Peacemaker Center encompasses the Brooklyn Center Mediation Project as a vehicle to resolve disputes; and WHEREAS, the Peacemaker Center encompasses a counselinq service providing quality professional counseling to all those in need of that service; and WHEREAS, the Peacemaker Center provides an opportunity to resolve domestic abuse situations through "Parents Anonymous "; and 4MEREAS, the Peacemaker Center is a vital service in the community and a positive Christian influence and an outreach ministry of the religious community; and WHEREAS, the goals objectives, and programs of the Peacemaker Center should be the goals and objectives of the entire community and should be recognized and emphasized. NU4, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CE1`UER, State of rlinnesota do hereby designate April 6 through April 12, 1986 as Peacemaker Week and encourage all citizens to strive for peaceful relationships and to support and participate in the Peacemaker Center. Date Mayor Seal Attest Clerk - PROCLAMATION DECLARIN MARCH 16 - 1986 AS CAMP FIRE BIRTH WEE WHEREAS, Camp Fire, Inc., the national youth organization, will be cele- brating its 76th birthday on March 17, 1986; and WHEREAS, the Minneapolis Council of Camp Fire in the State of Minnesota offers our young people the opportunity of informal educational programs which combine group activities with the development of individual talents, as well as offering flexible programming focused on encouraging life skills education for young people to age twenty -one, and WHEREAS, as a community organization, Camp Fire is concerned with preserv- ing the environment, adapting to social change, the application of democratic standards and stimulating and guiding young people, and WHEREAS, in Camp Fire, recognition of accomplishments is combined with the encouragement to use developing skills to serve others in the community, and WHEREAS, Camp Fire is commended for the opportunities its programs offer to young people in the City of Brooklyn Center and throughout the nation and for the many services these young people perform for their communities as Camp Fire members. NOW, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State of Minnesota do hereby proclaim the week of March 16 through March 22, 1986 to be Camp Fire Birthday Week in the City of Brooklyn Center. Date - Mayor Seal Attest Clerk CITY OF BRCCKLYN CENTER 0 Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of 1986 at p .m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Sign Ordinance regarding Rummage Sale Signs and Certain Real Estate Signs. 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 arrangments. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 34 AND 35 REGARDING RUMMAGE SALE SIGNS AND CERTAIN REAL ESTATE SIGNS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapters 34 and 35 of the City Ordinances are hereby amended in the following manner: Section 34 -110 and Section 35 -900. DEFINITIONS Rummage Sale - The infrequent temporary display and sale, by an occupant on his or her premises, of personal property, including general household rummage, used.clotF,ing and appliances, provided the exchange or sale of merchandise is conducted within the residence or accessory structure; the number of sales does not exceed four (4) per year; the duration of the sale does not exceed three (3) consecutive days; any related signery shall [be limited to the premises and to other residential property provided that property owner's permission has been obtained to display such signery, shall] conform with the sign ordinance provisions [for home occupations and shall be removed at the termination of said sale]; and the conduct of the sale does not encroach upon the peace, health, safety, or welfare of the citizens of Brooklyn Center. Section 34 - 130. PROHIBITED SIGNS. 7. Banners, pennants, streamers, balloons, [and] stringers or similar attention attracting devices, unless approved in conjunction with an Administrative Permit as provided in Section 35-800 or unless authorized by Section 34 -140, Subdivision 2m of the City Ordinances. 11. Billboards, except as provided in Section 34 -140, Subdivision 2c, 2f, 2h, 2i, 2k, 21(1); or billboards which may be approved in conjunction with an Administrative Permit as provided in Section 35- 800 of the City Ordinances; and certain rummage sale billboards as provided in Section [34- 110] 34- 140, Subdivision 2m of the City Ordinances. Section 34 -140. 2. Permitted Signs Not Requiring a Permit. 1. Real Estate signs as follows: 1 . Temporary freestanding or wall signs for the purpose of selling or leasing individual lots or entire buildings provided that such signs shall [be less than ten (10)] not exceed six (6) square feet in area for residential property and thirty -two. (32�square feet ORDINANCE NO. for other property and that there shall be only one such freestanding or wall sign permitted for each property. The sign must be removed within ten (10) days following the lease or sale. Temporary freestanding off -site 'r estate signs announcing p y g real e ate g g an "open house" or similar activity for the purpose of showing or displaying a home for sale are permitted provided: a. The off -site sign is located on privately - owned residential property and there is no objection to the display of the sign on the part of that property owner; b. The off -site sign is displayed only during the time of the "open house" or showing; c. The size of the off -site shall not exceed [2.51 three (3) square feet in area. M. Rummage Sale Signs as follows: 1. A temporary on -site sign not exceeding six (6) square feet in area, identifying the location of and /or information relating to a rummage sale. Banners, pennants, streamers, balloons, stringers or similar attention attracting devices may also be displayed on the property where the sale is being conducted. The sign and other devices may be displayed for the duration of the sale only, and must be removed at its termination. 2. Temporary off -site signs not exceeding three (3) square feet in area, indicating the location and /or time of a rummage sale may be located on other residen property (not commercial, industrial or public property pr ovided that property owner's permission has been obtained to display such signery. These signs may displayed for the duration of the sale only, and must be removed at its termination. 3. Rummage sale signs must conform in all other respects with the provisions of this ordinance. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) 1 Licenses to be approved by the City Council on March 10, 1986 CIGARETTE LICENSE / A & J Enterprises 6843 Washington Ave. S. LaBelles 5925 Earle Brown Dr. Minnesota Vikings Food Service, Inc. 5200 W. 74th St. State Farm 5930 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Pipeseller Brookdale Center•, ity lerk FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Baskin Robbins Brookdale Center Bosa International 3219 N. 1st Ave. Bosa Donuts 1912 57th Ave. N. Brook Park Baptist 4801 63rd Ave. N. Brookdale Assembly of God 6030 Xerxes Ave. N. Brookdale Christian Center 6030 Xerxes Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Athletic Boosters 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Baptist Church 5840 Humboldt Ave. N. Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. Canteen Corporation of MN 6300 Penn Ave. S. Medtronics k 6700 Shingle Cr. Pkwy CEAP 7231 Brooklyn Blvd. Country Club Market 5715 Morgan Ave. N. Davanni's r 937 Summit Drive Earle Brown 1 o n Elementar Y School 59 00 Humboldt Ave. N. Evergreen Park School 7020 Dupont Ave. N. Garden City School 3501 65th Ave. N. Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. 0 Chuck Muer's 2101 Freeway Blvd. Northbrook Alliance Church 6240 Aldrich Ave. N. Northwest Residence 4408 69th Ave. N. Orchard Lane School 6201 Noble Ave. N. J. C. Penney Brookdale Center Price Candies Brookdale Center Sears, Roebuck & Co. Brookdale Center Willow Lane School 7020 Perry Ave. N. Sanitarian GARBAGE AND REFUSE HAULERS LICENSE Block Sanitation 6741 79th Ave. N. Sanitarian ani arian� ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Brooklyn Harmonettes 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. :" &4 itarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Construction Mechanical Services 1301 Sylvan St. �. ii d Official 0 NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE & J Enterprises 6843 Washington Ave. S. Bob Ryan Olds 6700 Brooklyn Blvd. Earle Brown Farm Apartments 1701 69th Ave. N. Minnesota Vikings Food Service 5200 W. 74th St. State Farm 5930 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Riviera Tanning 6040 Earle Brown Dr. 11— �� 4- Sanitarian PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE A & J Enterprises 6843 Washington Ave. S. LaBe lies 5925 Earle Brown Dr. Bob Ryan Olds 6700 Brooklyn Blvd. Schmitt Music 3400 Freeway Blvd. Minnesota Vikings Food Service 5200 W. 74th St. State Farm 5930 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Twin City Vending 1065 E. Highway 36 First Western Bank 6200 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Sanitarian „aG BEY` SIGN HANGERS LICENSE Nordquist Sign Company 312 W. Lake St.�, Buildi4 UtTicial SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING LICENSE Fanny Farmer Candies Brookdale Center `) �� C�t/►��- Sanitarian GENERAL APPROVAL:, L�, ;� Darlene K. Weeks, City Clerk