Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 02-24 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER February 24, 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 Council member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. 6. Approval of Minutes *a. January 27, 1986 - Regular Session *b. February 10, 1986 - Regular Session 7. 1985 Crime Prevention Report - Bill Fignar 8. Final Plat: *a. Panayotoff Addition -This is a subdivision of property located at 4701 63rd Avenue North into two parcels 9. Performance Bond Release: a. , Earle Brown Estates - John DeVries 10. Resolutions: a. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Installation of a Water Utility Control System (Project No. 1985 -19 Contract 1986 -D) b. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Construction of Centerbrock Golf Course (Project No. 1985 -23, Contract No. 1986 -C) c. Approving Amendment to Contract with Brauer and Associates, Ltd. for the Design and Construction Administration of the Centerbrook Golf Course (Project No. 1985 -23) d. Approving Agreement with Braun Engineering Testing, Inc. for Construction Observation and Testing Services Relating to the Centerbrook Golf Course (Project 1985- -23) e. Approving Limited Use Permit from MNDOT for Use of Properties at Centerbrook Golf Course * f. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Contract 1986 -E, Project No. 1985 -28 (Reconditioning of Water Tower No. 3 - Located South of T.H. 100, Westerly of Lions Park) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- February 24, 1986 g. Establishing Project, Accepting City Engineer's Report and Approving Plans and Specifications for Project No. 1985 -27, Contract 1986 -G (Geometric Improvements and Resurfacing of Shingle Creek Parkway from C.S.A.H. 10 to Interstate Highway 94 -694) *h. Accepting Bid for Delivery of One (1) 33,000 GVW Cab and Chassis - -This is an approved item from the 1986 Street Maintenance Budget. *i. Accepting Bid for Delivery of One (1) Four Wheel Utility Vehicle -This is an approved item from the 1986 Parks Maintenance Budget. *j. Relating to Commercial Development Revenue Bonds (Brockdale Three Limited Partnership Project); Authorizing the Execution of a First Supplemental Indenture of Trust and Certain Other Documents -This resolution refers to Phase I of the Ryan office building adjacent to the Earle Brown Farm buildings. 11. Planning Commission Items: (7:30 p.m.) a. 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. This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its February 13, 1986 meeting. b. Planning Commission Application No. 86006 submitted by Phillip Johnson /Wes Reavely requesting site and building plan and special use permit approval to remodel the old Arthur Treacher's restaurant at 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard to a repair garage. This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its February 13, 1986 meeting. 12. Ordinances a. An Ordinance Vacating Part of an Easement in Lot 6, Block 2, Northbrook Center Addition -This ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening. 13. Discussion Items: a. Report on Size of Real Estate Signs *14. Licenses 15. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JANUARY 27, 1986 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Counci7members Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Administrative Aid Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Pastor Bruce Erikson of Brooklyn United Methodist Church. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the Open Forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. ' CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the Consent Agenda. The City Manager stated that items 7a and 8a would be removed from this week's agenda and placed on the next meeting agenda because they did not have enough information for the meeting tonight. Councilmember Hawes requested that items 8f and 13 be removed and Councilmember Lhotka requested that item 8e be removed from the Consent Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 30, 1985 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of December 30, 1985 as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 86 -13 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. 1986 -02, CONTRACT 1986 -B (POLICE DEPARTMENT REMODELING - PHASE II) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously: RESOLUTION NO. 86 -14 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 1 -27 -86 -1- c RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING REVISED BID OPENING DATE 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 Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -15 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS 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 Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -16 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AUTHORIZING AD B 0 AND VERTISEMENT FOR IDS FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) FOUR -WHEEL UTILITY VEHICLE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Establishing Assessment Rates for Street Reconstruction Projects in 1986. Councilmember Theis noted that he felt the $1,200 assessment rate a conservative figure and that he feels an 8% increase is a good step. Councilmember Lhotka asked if we can justify $1,300 why can't the City justify $1,600 for assessment rates. The City Manager stated it is hard to pinpoint at what point the cost will be tested in the courts. Councilmember Lhotka then asked why when a new street is constructed we can assess 100% but we cannot assess for each repair. The Director of Public Works stated that it is possible to do an annual repair assessment but that this would not stand up in court. He also noted that it would be very costly to handle the assessment this way. Councilmember Hawes questioned whether you could assess the value of a street according to the value of the house. The City Attorney stated that Minnesota Statutes will not allow the City to assess according to the market value of the home. Councilmember Scott stated that before the reconstruction on Lyndale Avenue North there were several properties for sale. The same properties have had appraisals done after the improvements to Lyndale and the appraisals have been exactly the same as before the improvements. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -17 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ASSESSMENT RATES FOR STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS DURING 1986 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed. Councilmember Lhotka voted against the motion. 1 -27 -86 -2- i Councilmember Theis asked about the possibility of bonding for these type of improvements. The City Manager stated that the staff will put together a written report and forward it on to the Council. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 86001 SUBMITTED BY UHDE /NELSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE INTO TWO LOTS THE PARCEL OF LAND WHICH IS THE SITE OF THE 7100 CORPORATE PLAZA OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AT 7100 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD The City Manager noted this item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its January 16, 1986 meeting. The Director of Planning `& Inspection reviewed the Planning Commission minutes from the January 16, 1986 meeting, stating the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the application. He noted that the property in question had been replatted in the spring of 1985 into one parcel. He stated that the applicant proposes to divide the parcel into an east and a west lot. He noted that the second lot (or the east lot) would become landlocked and would require an easement agreement. There was some discussion as to the method in which an easement agreement could be taken off the title on the piece of property. The City Attorney stated that a covenant could be written which would require both parties to agree to the removal of the easement agreement. Councilmember Lhotka questioned whether the City would have to be consulted as to the removal of the easement. The City, Attorney stated that if the City wants to prevent the removal of the easement without the City Council's consent it should be put into a covenant agreement. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the City should consider this because without the easement the east lot would be landlocked. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application No. 86001. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. The applicant, Dave Nelson, stated that he doubted that the easement would ever be taken off. Councilmember Lhotka asked the applicant if he would have a problem with the language suggested for the covenant agreement. The applicant replied that he saw no problem with the language. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Application No. 86001 submitted by Uhde /Nelson. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve Application No. 86001 subject to the following conditions and to include the change in language for condition No. 3: 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. An easement agreement to provide access to Lot 2 across Lot 1 of the proposed plat shall be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the plat at the County. Said agreement shall be an encumbrance against the property and shall not be removed from the property unless authorized by the City Council. 1 -27 -86 -3- 4. A utility easement shall be indicated on the preliminary plat for all common utilities prior to release of the final plat for filing. 5• Site and building plans for the second phase of the office complex shall be revised to provide for a minimum 10' sideyard setback along the west property line (other setback requirements assumed to be met). The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving and Authorizing Execution of Subdivision Agreement for Dee Welty Addition. He noted that this property was included in a resolution for tax forfeited land at the last Council meeting. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -18 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR DEE WELTY ADDITION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Four (4) Four -Door Police Patrol Sedans. Councilmember Hawes asked why Brookdale Ford's proposal was not accepted. The City Manager explained that the proposal submitted by Brookdale Ford was for rear -wheel drive vehicles and that the specifications called for front -wheel drive vehicles. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -19 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR FOUR (4) FOUR -DOOR POLICE PATROL SEDANS 'The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed. Councilmember Lhotka voted against the motion. The City Manager presented a Resolution Amending the 1986 General Fund Budget. He explained that this resolution would approve the purchase of a display booth like the one that was used for the All- America Cities display in Cincinnati. He also noted that the display booth would get its most heavy use in the next 6 to 12 months, but that staff felt that it would be a useful item in the years to come. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -20 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1986 GENERAL FUND BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. 1 -27 -86 -4- Councilmember Lhotka asked how the display booth would have been used in the past. The City Manager explained that the display booth could easily have been used at open houses at the community center, at the Kaleidoscope event which is held every other year and at the different trade fairs at Brookdale Center. Mayor Nyquist noted that he had an item to place before the Council that had not been on the agenda. He noted that the Housing Commission is lacking a chairman at this time and that he has received a recommendation for that position. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to appoint Ken Felger as the Chairman for the Housing Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager explained that there were two other items that had not been on the agenda that should be discussed this evening. He stated the first was a resolution from the City Attorney confirming Ordinance No. 84--06 and authorizing conveyance He noted that this resolution was before the Council at the request of the City Attorney to facilitate the conveyance of the stated property. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -21 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ORDINANCE 84-06 AND AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager stated that the second item before the Council this evening came g g from the State Gambling Council. The Gambling Council had contacted the City asking whether the City Council wished to waive the 30-day waiting period for the Lions Club gambling license. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to waive the 30-day waiting period for the Lions Club gambling license. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCES The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapters 34 and 35 Regarding Rummage Sale Signs. He stated this item was first read on December 30, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on January 9, 1986 and January 16 p 1986, and is offered this evening for a second reading. He added this item requires a 4/5 vote by the City Council. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapters 34 and 35 Regarding Rummage Sale Signs. Mayor Nyquist recognized Carol Kieven, 5835 Zenith Avenue North, who stated she was pleased with the Council's response to the first reading and very happy with their vote and that she is fully satisfied with the amendment. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapters 34 and 35 Regarding Rummage Sale Signs. The motion passed unanimously. 1 -27 -86 -5- There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to amend Chapters 34 and 35 Regarding Rummage Sale Signs. Councilmember Lhotka asked what the allowed size of the on -site sign is. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that the allowed size is 2 1/2 square feet. Councilmember Theis asked the reason for the differentiation of sizes between on site signs and off -site signs. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the staff is trying for uniformity throughout the sign ordinance. He noted that there are limitations for where off -site signs can be placed; that they cannot resemble stop signs or other government installed signs; and that the ordinance does not allow for attention attractors such as balloons. Councilmember Theis asked Ms. Kleven to address the 2 112 square foot size on off- site signs. Ms. Kleven stated that she feels a 2 1/2 square foot sign is too small and is a hazard for drivers. Councilmember Hawes asked what the size for political signs is. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that they can be 16 square feet. The Director of Planning & Inspection asked if the City can tolerate a 10 square foot sign for six to twelve months for the sale of property, can it tolerate a 10 square foot sign for one or two days during a garage sale. Councilmember Lhotka noted that currently the ordinance allows for a 2 1/2 square foot real estate sign and that occasionally there are signs which exceed this limit. He also noted that there is no way the City can assure that the 10 square foot limit will not be exceeded for rummage sale signs. There was a motion b Councilmember Theis and seconded b Councilmember Lhotka t Y y o table the motion. Voting in favor: Councilmembers Theis and Lhotka. Voting against: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott and Hawes. The motion failed. The Mayor asked for a roll call vote on the first motion amending the ordinance. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott and Hawes. Voting against: Councilmembers Lhotka and Theis. The motion failed. The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Vacating An Easement in Lot 2, Block 2, Thomas Construction Company 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. He noted this item was first read on December 30, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on January 9, 1986 and January 16, 1986, and is offered this evening for a second reading. He noted this item requires a 4/5 vote by the Council. The Director of Public Works reviewed a transparency showing the location of the easement. He noted that the staff recommends approval of this item. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Vacating an Easement in Lot 2, Block 2, Thomas Construction Company 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Vacating an Easement in Lot 2, Block 2, Thomas Construction Company 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The motion passed unanimously. 1 -27 -86 -6- ORDINANCE 86 -01 emlFber Bill Hawes introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN EASEMENT IN LOT 2 BLOCK 2, THOMAS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 2ND ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 Regarding Wall Signs for Enclosed Shopping Malls. He stated this item was first read on December 30, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on January 9, 1986 and January 16, 1986 and is offered this evening for a second reading. He noted this item requires a 4/5 vote by the Council. Councilmember Lhotka asked if this amendment is more restrictive than the past ordinance. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that it was more restrictive and that it restricted the size of the sign to 10% of the wall area. He noted that this only affects enclosed shopping areas such as Brookdale and Westbrook Mall. Councilmember Lhotka asked if the staff is happy with this ordinance amendment. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that this amendment is fine because it addresses the problem with Arby's sign. He stated that right now the City is issuing administrative ng v land use ermits for the sign and that this cannot o on p g g forever. Councilmember Lhotka asked how large the sign is that is up at Arby's now. The City Manager stated that it is 15 square feet. He also noted that no one has exercised the current ordinance allowance of 30% of the wall area. Councilmember Hawes asked if this would affect Brookdale Square. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that it would not because Brookdale Square is not an enclosed mall. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 Regarding Wall Signs for Enclosed Shopping Malls, and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 Regarding Wall Signs for Enclosed Shopping Malls. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 86 -02 Member Rich Theis introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 REGARDING WALL SIGNS FOR ENCLOSED SHOPPING MALLS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at 8:55 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1 -27 -86 -7- YEAR 2000 REPORT The City Manager reviewed M&C No. 86 -01 regarding the Year 2000 Report and stated that he plans to present preliminary reviews by the preset dates. The City Manager went on to review the specific dates and projects. Councilmember Theis asked if this schedule could be arranged in due date order. The City Manager replied that he would have that done. PAYMENT OF ONE SEWER BACKUP CLAIM The City Manager referred the Council to the information prepared by the Director of Finance regarding the sewer backup claim. Councilmember Hawes stated that he is not in favor of this procedure and asked if a majority vote is required. The City Manager stated that three out of five must vote in favor of the claim. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to pay the one sewer backup claim. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott and Theis. Voting against: Councilmembers Hawes and Lhotka. The motion passed. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND EARLE BROWN DAYS, INC. The Director of Finance stated that there is no written confirmation of insurance at this time but that it has been promised. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the agreement between the City and Earle Brown Days, Inc. contingent upon the written confirmation of insurance. The motion passed unanimously. UMBRELLA INSURANCE QUOTATION The City Manager referred the Council to the information prepared by the Director of Finance. He stated that staff feels the premiums are too high for the amount of coverage which the City would receive. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to concur with the staff's recommendation to reject the Umbrella Insurance quotation. The motion passed unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE FOR SHOWBIZ PIZZA The City Manager referred the Council to a memorandum prepared by the Police Department with regard to an On -Sale Nonintoxicating Liquor License for ShowBiz Pizza. Councilmember Scott asked whether the outstanding warrant noted in the police report has been satisfied, and the City Manager responded affirmatively. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the on -sale nonintoxicating liquor license for ShowBiz Pizza. The motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the following list of licenses: CATERING FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE Green Mill Restaurant 5540 Brooklyn Blvd. 1 -27 -86 -8- CIGARETTE LICENSE Delaney Vending 1999 Palace Ave. Green Mill 5540 Brooklyn Blvd: Jimmy Jingle 1304 E. Lake St. Palmer Lake Plaza 6860 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Snyder Brothers Drug Brookdale Center ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Boy Scout Troop #299 8100 Georgia Court MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Swenson Heating 6700 West Broadway NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Bill's Vending Service 7317 West Broadway Brooklyn Center Getty 6245 Brooklyn Blvd. Bro- Midwest Vending 8850 Wentworth Ave. S. Christy's Auto 5300 Dupont Ave. N. Country Club Market 5715 Morgan Ave. N. Dale Tile Co. 4825 France Ave. N. D.L. Service Co. 2516 83rd Ave. N. Lowell's Auto 6211 Brooklyn Blvd. Evergreen Park Elementary 7020 Dupont Ave. N. Iten Leasing 4301 68th Ave. N. Jimmy Jingle Y g E. . 1304 Lake St. Palmer Lake Plaza 6860 Shingle Cr. Pkwy- N.S.P. 4501 68th Ave. N. Precision, Inc. 3415 48th Ave. N. Red Owl Stores /Country Store 3600 63rd Ave N. Theisen Vending 3804 Nicollet Ave. Thrifty Scot 6445 James Circle Bill West Union 76 2000 57th Ave. N. Twin City Vending 1065 E. Highway 36 Earle Brown Farm Ind. 6100 Summit Drive First Western Bank 6200 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Group Health 6845 Lee Ave. N. Sears Brookdale Center Woodside Enterprises ri ses P 1188 9 5 th 6 Ave. N. Brooklyn Center City Hall Y Y 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Jimmy Jingle 1304 E. Lake Str. Palmer Lake Plaza 6860 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Twin City Vending 1065 E. Highway 36 Earle Brown Farm Ind. 6100 Summit Dr. Sears Brookdale Center RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Mr. & Mrs. wski 5001 Ewing Ave. N. Michael & Jane Danielson 4216 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Bertil E. Anderson 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #336 SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING LICENSE Fanny Farmer Candies Brookdale Center 1 -27 -86 -9- o Ideal Drug Store 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. M & S Drug Emporium 5900 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Norden Inc. Brookdale Center The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Hawes asked the staff to check into a possible ordinance violation at the northeast corner of 50th and Ewing. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 1 -27 -86 -10- L bb 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 10, 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 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Housing Coordinator Brad Hoffman, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Administrative Aid Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Celia Scott. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the Open Forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular_ agenda items. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Hawes requested that item 7b be removed from the Consent Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 13, 1986 REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of January 13, 1986 as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 86 -22 Member B111 Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoptions RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF TWO (2) 72 -INCH MOWERS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION N0: 86 -23 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING REVISED BID OPENING DATE FOR PROJECT NO. 1985 -28, CONTRACT 1986 -E (WATER TOWER NO. 3 RECONDITIONING) 2 -10 -86 -1- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the following list of licenses: CATERING FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE Bridgeman's 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. CIGARETTE LICENSE K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE 75th Birthday Party Celebration 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Orchard Lane PTA 6201 Noble Ave. N. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE American Vending Co. P.O. Box 380 Sears Automotive Brookdale Center Bond Tool and Die Co. 6840 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Cass Screw Co. 4748 France Ave. N. Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Road Best Buy Company 5717 Xerxes Ave. N. Brookdale Car Wash 5500 Brooklyn Blvd. Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth 6121 Brooklyn Blvd. Brookdale Urgent Care 6000 Earle Brown Dr. Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. Budgetel Inn 6415 James Circle Cass Screw Co. 4748 France Ave. N. Chuck's Q. 1505 69th Ave. N. City Garage 6844 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Dennes market 6912 Brooklyn Blvd. Donaldson's Brookdale Center Earle Brown School 5900 Humboldt Ave. N. Ganto's Brookdale Center Garden City School 3501 65th Ave. N. Greater Mpls. Girl Scout Council 5601 Brooklyn Blvd. Herman's Brookdale Center Humboldt Square Cleaners 6824 Humboldt Ave. N. Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. Johnson Controls 1801 67th Ave. N. K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr. Kar -win Auto 6846 Humboldt Ave. N. Maranatha Nursing Home 5401 69th Ave. N. Mentor Corporation 2700 Freeway Blvd. Orchard Lane School 6201 Noble Ave. N. Polo Investments 6120 Earle Brown Dr. Red Owl Country Store 6300 Brooklyn Blvd. Saber Dental Studio 6800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Salavation Army 2300 Freeway Blvd. 6500 Building 6500 Brooklyn Blvd. Skelly Service 63rd & Brooklyn Blvd. 2 -10 -86 -2- i 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- 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). 0 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 g is 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 meta 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). There was a lengthy discussion as to the problems connected with w g working with a large contractor and the g possibility f keeping p Y A g a second contractor as a backup. he Director ector of p Public Works noted that in the specifications last year the City retained the option to claim the contractor in default and obtain a second contractor. Councilmember Theis asked whether this condition had been in the specifications two years ago. The City Manager noted that this condition had just been added in 1985• 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 ould have one or two other Y e 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 N0. 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- that there had been a typographical error on the resolution and that he would like to • have the resolution continued_ until later in the meeting. Mayor Nyquist stated that the Resolution Accepting Work Performed under Contract - 1985- C(Liquor Store #1 Remodeling Project No. 1985 -03) would be continued until after the Planning Commission items. The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Proposal from Rouse Mechanical for Reduction of Noise in Council Chambers, Quiet Room and Audio Room. Councilmember Scott noted that the Council Chambers has never been quite this noisy. The City Manager noted that over the years staff has found that some parts of the circulation system have never worked properly. He added that when this problem was corrected it did get somewhat noisier in the Council Chambers and surrounding areas. Mayor Nyquist asked if the first stage is guaranteed. The City Manager stated there is no guarantee that the first stage will totally eliminate the problem, but that both City staff and Rouse Mechanical feel we should find out if the first stage works before continuing on with the second stage. A lengthy discussion then ensued regarding the circulation system and the proposed addition from Rouse Mechanical. The Director of Public Works noted that even if stage one did not eliminate the problem, the work would not be thrown away because it would be needed for stage two. Councilmember Hawes noted that if stage one does not work he would hope that the City would try to do something to enhance our current speaker system. The City Manager stated that staff is planning to try new microphones. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -26 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FROM ROUSE MECHANICAL FOR REDUCTION OF NOISE IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, QUIET ROOM AND AUDIO ROOM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 86002 SUBMITTED BY DAN BAKER REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE INTO TWO LOTS THE _ PARCEL OF LAND AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NOBLE AVENUE NORTH AND 63RD AVENUE NORTH The City Manager noted this item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its January 30, 1986 meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection referred the Mayor and City Council to pages one and two of the January 30, 1986 Planning ommission g minutes and the attached informational sheet with those minutes regarding this application. He proceeded to review the application and noted; that the lots would exceed the minimum requirements for residential lots. He noted the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 86002 subject to three conditions which can be found on page two of the January 30, -1986 minutes. After reviewing the conditions, the Director of Planning & Inspection stated that a public hearing is scheduled, notices have been sent, and a representative of the applicant is present at this evening's meeting. Councilmember Lhotka asked if the building shown on the map is the existing one. The Director of Planning & Inspection responded affirmatively and stated that . actually there is enough area for the' land to be subdivided into three lots and that in the future lot one may be divided into two lots. 2 -10 -86 -5- Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 86002 submitted by Dan Baker requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel of land at the southwest corner of Noble Avenue North and 63rd Avenue North. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there is anyone present in the audience who wished to speak at the public hearing. A representative of the applicant came forward and the Mayor asked if there were any further questions. There being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 86002 submitted by Dan Baker. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Planning Commission Application No. 86002 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 preliminary plat shall be revised to indicate a 5' side drainage and utility easement along the west side of the plat. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 86003 SUBMITTED BY NORMANDALE TENNIS CLUBS, INC. REQUESTING SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT AN OFF -SITE PARKING LOT WEST OF DALE TILE FOR THE TENNIS CLUB ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LAKEBREEZE AVENUE NORTH The City Manager noted this item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its January 30, 1986 meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection referred the Council to pages two through four of the January 30, 1986 Planning Commission minutes and the attached informational sheet on Application No. 86003 attached with those minutes. He proceeded to review the application and noted that the applicant will be providing more parking spaces than required by ordinance. He further noted the Planning Commission's concern for safe crossing from the off -site lot to the club, and stated that the Planning Commission recommended that the Administrative Traffic Committee review this area for the pedestrian crossing. The City Manager stated that the Administrative Traffic Committee had met and discussed this problem. He noted that the committee would like the applicant to encourage handicapped parking in the main lot and employee parking in the off -site lot. He also added that the committee had discussed some type of street lighting to clearly mark the crossing. Mayor Nyquist asked if the City Manager meant some type of flashing yellow lights. The City Manager stated that the committee recommended lighting standards similar to those in the off -site parking lot. A lengthy discussion then ensued relative to the off -site parking lot and other forseeable problems in the future. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that a public hearing is scheduled, notices have been sent, and a representative of the applicant is present at this evening's meeting. 2 -10 -86 -6- Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 86003 submitted by Normandale Tennis Clubs, Inc. requesting site plan and special use permit approval to construct an off -site parking lot west of Idle Tile for the tennis club on the south side of Lakebreeze Avenue North. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak' and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 86003 submitted by Normandale Tennis Clubs, Inc. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve Planning Commission Application No. 86003 subject to the following conditions: 1. Grading, drainage, utility, and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits for the lower level of the multipurpose building. 2. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 3• An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 4. B612 curb and utter shall g be provided around all parking and driving areas. 5. Special use permit approval is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. 6. The applicant shall revise the plans, prior to the issuance, of building permits, to indicate concrete delineators at the north end of the interior rows of parking. 7. A 25' site triangle shall be preserved at the intersection of the proposed Grimes Avenue North and Lakebreeze Avenue North intersections in accordance with City ordinance. 8. The plans shall be revised to provide a separate access for City utility vehicles servicing lift station #6 said access to be appropriately signed and paid for by the City. 9. The pedestrian crossing between the proposed off -site lot and the tennis club shall be reviewed by the Administrative Traffic Advisory Commission for the possible need for a cross -walk, warning signs, etc. prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 2 -10 -86 -7- L 10. The applicant shall provide additional light standards, on both sides of Lakebreeze Avenue if necessary, in the location designated for pedestrian crossing. - 11. Employee parking for the racquett and swim club shall be limited to the off -site parking lot. 12. The applicant shall encumber the off -site parking property for the sole purpose of providing parking for the racquett and swim club site. Said encumbrance shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and filed as a deed restriction with the title to the property. 13. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of building permits. The motion passed unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF A GAMBLING LICENSE FOR DUOOS BROTHERS AMERICAN LEGION POST #630 The City Manager referred the Council to the memorandum prepared by the Chief of Police regarding the gambling license for Duoos Brothers American Legion Post #630. Councilmember Lhotka asked specifically what this license would cover. The City Manager stated that it would be the same type of license as last year and that last year's license covered bingo and raffles. He noted that the bingo portion would be on -site and that raffles would be sold off-site. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the gambling license for Duoos Brothers American Legion Post #630. Mayor Nyquist asked if there had been any problems with the Legion's liquor license. The City Manager stated that there have been no problems reported on their liquor license. The motion passed unanimously. i The City Manager stated that he would check with the Chief of Police to find out exactly what is covered under this gambling license. He noted that if the license covers the same type of events as the 1985 license this motion and vote would stand as is. He added that if there are any changes, this motion and vote can be considered void. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager stated that the Director of Public Works now had the correct figures for a Resolution Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1985 -C (Liquor Store No. 1 Remodeling Project No. 1985 -03)• RESOLUTION NO. 86 -27 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1985 -C (LIQUOR STORE NO. 1 REMODELING PROJECT NO. 1985 -03) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded member p g g y by m m Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. 2 -10 -86 -8- ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. City Clerk Mayor i 2 -10 -86 -9- CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B YROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 -C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: H.R. Spurrier, City Engineer DATE: February 20, 1986 RE: Final Plat - Panayotoff Addition Mr. Dan Baker, developer of the above referenced plat, has petitioned the City Council to approve the final plat of Panayotoff Addition. The land is located Southwest of the intersection of 63rd Avenue North and Noble Avenue North. Conditions placed on the Preliminary Plat by City Council at its February 10, 1986 meeting are as follows: 1. Final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The Preliminary Plat shall be revised to indicate a five foot side drainage and utility easement along the West side of the plat. - Conditions 1, 2, and 3 have been met. Accordingly, we recommend approval of the final plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Receipt of a title opinion from the City Attorney certifying to confirm the appropriate parties responsible for signing the plat. 2. The applicant shall enter into a standard "Utility Hookup Agreement prior to approval of the final plat. k ctfully submitted, Approved for submittal, er Sy Kn PP er Director of Public Works HRS: jn PLATPANT I !KG Sdater Naw Az& n L I�� — iIJ I North Lint o f EY Z. _ , r F , I Se 00 5E • 5 E$ . Sec. 3a m N0 , I j' s WEST- -- ►JE Corry S to' 63RD m AVENUE E z- ses 4 - SEY�, %P —� NORTH sty +,o., 3 ;. ,-,, R Zl u +ilt +y E Dac�nc I 9t Eaumtn+ � = I Io la O Z t t -- �0 C�_ 14 w 40 Q 41 v tn Ld N LOT r '^ W to- G Z o a 0 ` W W c %9 � Q \ U J , %u -7 w CO Q Q. o N Q' -T j' Q w > Io N o v L LA — �r��------ -___ 1 y t DROi ^n 9< Ecst— '� W Lo co -J w O LOT 2 ° O ao Z � G0 to Lx �V J' Io �: North l'�nt I �J [1_ of FE SEY4 SE4. cri .. I C. L7� MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM. Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspectroq DATE: February 20, 1986 SUBJECT: Performance Guarantee The following performance guarantee is recommended for release: 1. Earle Brown Farm Estates 5th Addition Xerxes Place North Planning Commission Application No. 83024 Amount of Guarantee: $35,000 Bond Obligor: DeVries Builders This guarantee has been held to insure completion of all remaining improvements in the Earle Brown Farm Estates development. The last remaining trees were planted and the common parking areas striped last fall. All other improvements have been completed according o the approved ' g pp d plan. The Homeowners' has voted not to have the originally planned for playlot installed. Additional improvements which were not part of the original approved plan include a row of Honeysuckle plantings along the berm on Freeway Boulevard and a split rail fence located along the west side of the project. Concern has been raised that the existing landscap- ing does not provide adequate screening of the development from the single- family homes in the area of Xerxes /Thurber Road. The developer has agreed to provide 10 additional Honeysuckle shrubs along the tops of the berms in this area to provide some additional screening. It should also be noted that the developer has not yet provided the Engineering Department with the "as built" utility ties for the 4th and 5th Additions. He has, however,indicated that he will provide this information to the City. It is recommended that the Council authorize total release of the bond for this project subject to the submittal by the developer of the as -built utility informa- tion to the Engineering Department and a $300 cash deposit to insure completion of the agreed upon shrubbery in the Xerxes /Thurber Road area of the development. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF A WATER UTILITY CONTROL SYSTEM (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 the Alternate No. 1 bids submitted by Collins Electric Construction Company and by Killmer Electric Company, Inc. .do not meet the plans and specifications for this project because the equipment proposed to be furnished by Edison Controls substantially differs from the specified equipment; and the Director of Public Works has further advised the City Council that the lowest responsible bidder meeting the plans and specifications is the Killmer Electric Company, Inc., with a Base Bid of $199,400.00; and he further recommends accepting the $20,220.00 deduct offered by Killmer Electric Company, Inc. for "Alternate No. 2 ", but does not recommend acceptance of the deduct offered for "Alternate No. 3 ": NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The bid of Collins Electric Construction Company and the Alternate No. 1 bid of Killmer Electric Company, Inc. are hereby rejected on the basis of substantial non - compliance with the approved project plans and specifications. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $179,800.00 with Killmer Electric Company, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1985 -19 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk, providing for completion of the project as specified by the Base Bid, less the deduct offered for Alternate No. 2. RESOLUTION N0. 3. 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 complying with the approved plans and specifications, shall be retained until a contract has been signed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated cost of Improvement Project No. 1985 -19 is hereby amended according to the following schedule As Approved As Bid Contract $ 200,000 $ 179,800 Engineering Consultant 26,800 26,800 TOTAL $ 226,800 $ 206,600 2. The accounting for Project No. 1985 -19 shall be done in the Public Utility Fund. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY :BR OF OOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 C ENTER TELEPHONE 561 -5440 ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: February 20, 1986 RE: Consideration of Bids For Installation of Water Utility Control System Contract 1986 -D History On June 6, 1985 I submitted a report to you in which I recommended that the City proceed to design and install a SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) system for the purpose of providing automated control of the City's water supply system. In that report I noted that: 1. "The City presently utilizes 8 wells to meet its water supply needs. Of these wells, 7 are located in the City's Northeast neighborhood, and l well (Well No. 2) is located more centrally in the City at 63rd Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard. Only 2 of the 8 wells are operated in an automatic mode based upon system pressure. The other 6 wells are capable of "hand on" and "hand off" operation only." 2. "The City also presently utilizes 1/2 million gallon, l million gallon, and 1 -1/2 million gallon elevated towers for the purpose of water storage. Both the 1/2 million gallon and 1 million gallon towers have altitude valves which have been inoperable for at least 15 years. These storage tanks are monitored only by on -site recording equipment. No automatic controls exist for these facilities." 3. "In the 1984 "Report on Water Works Improvements ", Black and Veatch (the City's Consulting Engineer) recommended the following: "To efficiently operate the water system, some method of monitoring and automatically controlling water production and storage on a continuous, 24 hour per day basis should be employed. The system selected should optimize ground water usage and equipment utilization, and should provide data for analyzing system performance and for determining future system requirements." "This can best be accomplished by a control system that centralizes all control and monitoring functions at one location. With such a system, well pumps can be directed to automatically maintain selected elevated tank levels, thus assuring proper distribution system pressure. In addition, well field production can be staged in preset, adjustable increments to provide production to match consumption." February 20, 1986 Page 2 "Systems are available which will meet these requirements and are generally quite similar. Such systems, which are referred to as supervisory control and data acquisition systems (SCADA), consist of a master station and remote terminal units. The remote terminal units are located at sites where a requirement for acquiring data or performing a control exists. The master station communicates with the remote terminal units to request data or to command a control action. The master station can initiate control commands automatically in response to system conditions or commands may be initiated manually by an operator. Most SCADA systems use a digitally encoded message to transmit data and commands, however, the medium employed as the communications channel does vary with manufacturers." (The report continues to recommend consideration of various types of communication media including direct wire, microwave radio, CATV, leased telephone lines and radio.) 4. "To date the City has been able to operate effectively without a central control system due in large part to the knowledge and dedication of the Public Utility staff, and to the existence of a very adequate supply system. However, at least three factors point to the need to sophisticate our system, i.e.: 1. our currents stem demands are closer to system capacity; Y Y P Y; 2. higher power costs dictate the need for greater efficiency; and 3. Bob Zimbrick, our Public utilities Supervisor, will be retiring in December, 1985. On this basis, I recommended that the City employ Orr- Schelen- Mayeron and Associates, Inc. (OSM) for the purpose of developing plans and specifications for the installation of this system. Subsequently, on June 10, 1985 the City Council approved this recommendation and authorized execution of an agreement with OSM with a fee of $26,800.00. In accordance with the authorization, OSM did develop plans and specifications for this project, with frequent review and comments from this office. On December 30, 1985 the complete plans and specifications were presented to the Council and were approved by the Council, along with a request that a cost /benefit analysis be conducted. Cost /Benefit Analysis Attached hereto is a report dated January 23, 1986, prepared by OSM, in which OSM details the following: 1. reduced cost for electricity a $11,590.00 per year 2. elimination of "Power Factor Penalties" _ $2,184.00 per year 3. optimization of system operation 4. centralized control and monitoring. February 20, 1986 Page 3 It is obvious that the system cannot be justified solely on the basis of a cost/benefit analysis of direct costs; i.e.: Estimated Project Cost $206,600 ----------------- - - - - -- - -- _ ----- - - - - -- = 15 year payback period Direct Cost Savings Per Year $13,774 Contract Cost = $179,180 Engineering Fees _ 26,800 Total Cost $206,600 ** Reduced cost for electricity — $ 11,590 per year Reduced power factor penalties = $ 2.184 per year Total $ 13,774 per year However, the other factors noted are equally important to the direct cost /benefit analysis. In addition to OSM's comments, I wish to add the following discussion relating to the performance and dependability of the system: Performance In December, 1985, the City lost 26 years of experience with the retirement of Utility Supervisor Bob Zimbrick. During that 26 years the majority of the City's water system was constructed. And, during that 26 years, Bob developed a "feel" for the system and did what was humanly possible to optimize system performance. Even with Bob's experience there were occasions when reserve storage became dangerously low. Our water supply system is now near capacity. It is unfair and unwise to expect anyone to operate this hydraulically complex system without the benefit of technological assistance when the system demand is at capacity. During periods of peak demands, correct decisions must be made in water production management. Under production can deplete all of the reserve storage which is needed for fire fighting purposes; and over- production may result in wasteful overflow. The proposed SCADA system optimizes production and protects reserves in storage. Without a SCADA system, Public Utility operators must check the system and manually turn pumps on and off twice during off -duty hours if the system is to be operated with reasonable efficiency during approximately 40 peak - demand days. The cost for this service is estimated as follows: 40 days x 4 hours /day x $24.00/hour (overtime pay rate x 1.4) = $3,840 /year In addition, there are a minimum of 60 additional days per year when the system needs to be checked at least once during off -duty hours. The cost for this service is estimated as follows: 60 days x 2 hours /day x $24.00/hour = $2,880 /year Note The City has not paid for this amount of overtime for this purpose in past years. However, this service was provided primarily by Mr. Zimbrick who assumed this as part of his duties despite the fact that he was exempt from overtime pay. February 20 1986 Page 4 If the above costs are added to the direct cost savings, the cost /benefit analysis now shows: Total Cost = $ 206,600 - - -- - - - - - - -- 10 year payback period Total Savings = $20,494* per year * Dire = Direct cost savings — $13,774 per Y ear Peak-day = P a salary savings y y a ings $ 3,840 per year Additional salary savings = $ 2.880 per year Total = $20,494 per year And, with a SCADA system installed, the Public Utilities Supervisor can devote more time to other management function. Another factor which is difficult to quantify in terms of cost savings is the fact that, with the above described level of manual supervision during the off -duty hours, the maximum overall efficiency of the water supply system which can be obtained during the critical peak demand periods is approximately 80 to 85%. With a SCADA system this efficiency will be at a level above 95 %. Dependability Most importantly, the proposed SCADA system will add a new dimension of dependability. Under existing conditions, pumps are operated by physically driving to the wellhouse, entering the pumping station and manually turning the pump on or off. This is roughly the equivalent of operating the Street Maintenance Division without benefit of a radio system! The proposed SCADA system will provide two levels of automated control, i.e.: the primary system is a fully- automated system, while the back -up system allows manual control of the entire system from the centralized control center. The third level of control would allow manual control at each remote site. In the automatic mode, a central processor acts for the Utility Supervisor by sending radio signals to the pumphouses the same way the Utility Supervisor now sends maintenance workers to the pumphouses. However, those decisions are made on the basis of the processor's complete knowledge of the minute -by- minute status of all system elements, instead of on the basis of limited knowledge. Utilities with water SCADA systems have found automatic controls more dependable. The controls are more dependable because of the redundancy discussed above. In addition, the central processor in the SCADA system becomes an extension of the Supervisor. It can reach out and control any one or any combination of the seven producing wells. The system operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The system can monitor and manage the water production and distribution systems. The system doesn't have to drive across town and back to operate. It takes no vacation and it doesn't sleep at night. It is a tested and proven system. The specified electronics_ have logged years of reliable service in other SCADA systems. February 20, 1986 Page 5 Analysis of Bids Received Following is a summary of bids received on January 30, 1986: 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. 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 additional monitoring stations at various locations within the system (for example - to allow monitoring of system pressures at critical points within the distribution system, etc.) 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 design to assure utilization of the entire system's production and storage facilities on an optimal level at all times. In addition, this program is design to effect the electrical cost savings described above, 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. February 20, 1986 Page 6 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 is normally operated by the microprocessor in the automated mode, the specified system allows manual control from the , Central Control Station in the event of microprocessor failure. h. The microprocessor 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 control system 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 the 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. 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. February 20, 1986 Page 7 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. Bids Received for the Base Bid As shown in the tabulation, two companies submitted bids which complied to the specifications for the Base Bid. Both of these bidders ( Killmer Electric Company and A & K Construction, Inc.) propose to install Aquatrol equipment meeting the specifications in full. Bids Received for Alternate No 1 Two companies (Collins Electric and Killmer Electric) submitted bids for the use of Edison Controls in lieu of the type of equipment specified. As noted in the attached letter from OSM dated February 19, 1986, the Edison Controls fail to comply to the specifications in four major areas which are described on a technical basis in OSM's letter. From an operational viewpoint, the disadvantages of the Edison system are as follows: 1. Only automated control is provided at the central site. If the central microprocessor malfunctions there is no redundant system which allows the operator to operate the system from the central control station. 2. The software program provided by the Edison system can only be reprogrammed by Edison, whereas, the program specified can be reprogrammed, when necessary, by City staff or other vendors. 3. The Edison system also utilizes microprocessors instead of mechanical telemetry systems at each of the remote sites. This, again, makes it more difficult for City personnel to operate the system manually and /or to effect repairs. February 20, 1986 Page 8 4. With the Edison system, if the central microprocessor is out of operation then the entire alarm system is also out of operation. With the specified system the alarm system will function with or without the microprocessor. Experience with the alarm and telemetry systems of the type required by the specifications indicate that they have a very high degree of reliability. 5. OSM's letter also indicates that reference checks with other cities who have used systems installed by Edison Controls have reported less than satisfactory experience with the equipment and less than satisfactory service performance. The proposal form on which the bids were submitted specifically include the following language; "...the City of Brooklyn Center reserves the right to consider the previous performance of both the contractor and the manufacturer relating to the furnishing and installing of equipment and the parts and service records to the City of Brooklyn Center as related to other City owned equipment." "Award of contract by the City of Brooklyn Center will be based on but not necessarily limited to the factors of price, delivery, data, parts and service, as well as analysis and comparison of specifications and performance." "The City of Brooklyn Center reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids whatever is to the benefit of the City." It is my opinion that the Edison Controls system, for which bids were submitted under Alternate No. 1, do not meet the specifications and that the Edison system would not provide the level of performance which is required to assure proper and adequate control of the Brooklyn Center water supply system. Accordingly, I recommend that these alternate bids be disqualified. Bids Received for Alternate No. 2 Based on opinion of Ward Montgomery that the ACSB radio system will provide an equal level of performance to the 900 MHz system specified in the Base Bid, and the consideration that Killmer Electric Company is offering a $20,220 deduct for this alternate, I recommend that this alternate deduct be accepted. Bids Received for Alternate No. 3 Evaluation of the bid by Killmer Electric Company for Alternate No. 3 shows that the $6,175 deduct offered represents a price which is lower than the City could obtain by buying these two spare radios separately. Accordingly, I recommend that this alternate deduct not be accepted. February 20, 1986 Page 9 Summary and Recommendations It is my opinion that the City still needs to proceed with the installation of the Water Utility Control System, that the plans and specifications which OSM developed in consultation with the City staff describe the quality of''system which is needed in order to properly operate the City's water supply system with efficiency, dependability, and a high level of performance. The lowest bid meeting the specifications is that of Killmer Electric Company, Inc. I recommend that a contract be awarded to Killmer Electric Company, Inc. on the basis of the Base Bid less the deduct offered in Alternate No. , 2 resulting in a net total contract of $179,800. A resolution for this purpose is submitted for consideration by the City Council. Respectf lly submitted, Sy Kn Director of Public Works Attachments: OSM 1/23/86 letter OSM 2/19/86 letter SK: jn ORR•SCHELEN • MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors January 23, 1986 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Y Attn: Mr. Sy Knapp Director of Public Works Re: Cost /Benefit Analysis Brooklyn Center SCADA System OSM Commission No. 3664 Dear Sy: Attached is the Cost /Benefit Analysis for the SCADA System. While the apparent annual savings appears to have a ton payback period, the unknown savings b 9 PP 9 P Y P � 9 Y installing this system may be significant. This is further addressed in the narrative. If additional information is required regarding this matter, please let me know. Very truly yours, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & AS OCIATES, INC. James P. Norton, P. Project Manager JPN:nlb Enclosure 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Suite 238 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 • 6121331- 8660 COST /BENEFIT ANALYSIS BROOKLYN CENTER SCADA SYSTEM BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA JANUARY , 1986 The purpose of this project is to: 1. Economize system operation; 2. Optimize system performance utilizing existing equipment; and 3. Provide centralized system monitoring and control The first two items result in direct financial gain. 1. Economizing System Operation Economizing system operation will result in reduction of the monthly pump station electric billings while maintaining required water production. The monthly electric bill is calculated as follows: Billing = (KWH x Energy Rate) + (Peak KW Demand Adjusted for PF below .90 x Demand Rate) KWH = Kilowatt hours = Energy used with respect to time Peak KW = Kilowatt = Peak energy required PF = Power Factor= Electrical efficiency The energy rate (cost per KWH) is fixed; therefore, the energy cost is essen- tially proportional to gallons of water produced by the well pump. The peak KW demand rate is also fixed; however, this charge is for the peak energy (KW) requirement of the pump station during the billing period. The peak demand charge is for energy generation and facilities the power company must supply to meet peak energy requirements. Demand charge is based on the peak KW demand requirement, not on amount of energy used (KWH), and must be apportioned to the gallons of water produced when figuring cost of production. Therefore, it costs more per gallon to produce 2 million gallons then to produce 20 million gallons of water during any billing period. The peak KW demand is adjusted for billing purposes by the power factor the pump station operates at. Simply stated, the power factor is how efficiently power supplied by the power company is used. The amount the peak demand is adjusted due to power factor results in higher demand billing. This penalty will be eliminated by the addition of power factor correction capacitors at the sites with low power factor, -1- i The proposed SCADA system will automatically control the well pumps in an opera- tor selected sequence to maintain water level in the elevated tanks. For most of a year, one or two well pumps will produce enough water to meet system requirements. The control scheme to be used by the SCADA system will operate only the pumps required to meet system requirements during an electric billing period. This will result in individual pump stations being used more during a billing period, thereby producing more water during a billing period. As stated before, the more water produced, the lower the cost of production during a billing period. Power factor correction capacitors will be added to the locations indicated in table. The cost of power factor correction capacitor addition is estimated to be $6,000.00. The following table shows the current cost of production, estimated yearly savings (calculated from previous pumping records using a conservative 6.5¢ per 1000 gallons as the goal for production) and average yearly penalty paid for low power factor. Est. Annual Savings Average PF Location $ /1000 Gal. $ @ 6.501000 Gal. $ Penalty /Yr. Well 3 .0711 $ 1,250.00 $ 624.00 Well 4* .1466 390.00 -0- Well 5 .0751 2,400.00 540.00 Well 6 .0634 -0- -0- Well 7 .0714 1,900.00 360.00 Well 8 .0793 3,700.00 660.00 Well 9 .1193 1, 950.00 -0- 11,590.00 $2,184. *Seasonal Use Only The target of 6.5¢/1000 gallons electric cost includes savings from power factor correction. 2. Optimizing System Operation The proposed SCADA system will optimize use of existing system storage and production capacity. Presently, the water system is manually monitored and controlled seven days a week. For most of the year, this provides satisfactory results other than requiring operator or worker time to do this. This time will be available for other tasks in the future (after the SCADA System is installed). The present mode of operation relys on an operator experienced with system behavior and on response to system changes with response based on periodic checks of system pressure. On peak pumping days, the system demand requires chose to full production capacity. -2- On past occasions, demand has exceeded production capacity and storage has dropped to levels below that required to fight a major fire. The proposed SCADA system will continuously monitor, control and alarm the water system. Since the system will be continuously monitored and controlled, storage reserves will be full at the beginning of heavy demand periods with the well pumps coming on line to satisfy system demand as required. It is anticipated that this method of control will allow present demand to be safely met without adding a new pumping station before it's actually needed. A new pumping station will cost approximately $250,000.00. 3. Centralized Monitoring & Control Some of the advantages of centralized SCADA system have already been touched on: re- allocation of manpower, faster response and closer control of the system, lower monthly electric bills, and elimination of capital expense for additional production facility. In addition to these items, all important items (tank levels, pump status, storage reserve, station intrusion, etc.) of the system will be continuously monitored and alarmed. This will provide early response to, for example, a low storage reserve situation or a water main break. Either of these two conditions left unattended have liability implications that carry an unknown dollar value. I -3- ORR •SCHELEN • MAYERON ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers 1 � � jY Land Surveyors February 19, 1986 0 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Attn: Mr. Sy Knapp Director of Public Works Re: Bid Proposals for Water Utility SCADA System City Improvement Project 1985 -19 OSM Commission No. 3664 Dear Mr. Knapp: Bids were received for the SCADA system Thursday, January 30, 1986 at 11 :00 A.M. Three bids were received. They ranged from a low of $138,484 to a high of $234,315. A copy of the Bid Tabulation is attached. Our estimate for .this project was $200,000. The Bid Proposal Form required bidders to name their proposed SCADA equipment manufacturer. The low bidder, Collins Electric, used Edison Controls, Inc. as the SCADA system equipment supplier. The second low bidder, Killmer Electric, used Aquatrol, Inc. as the SCADA system equipment supplier. Since the bid opening, we have met with the apparent low bidder, Collins Elec tric/Edison Controls. We requested additional information on the Edison System in order to review their proposal. Our concern was that because of their ex tremely low bid, they possibly had not included everything specified in their bid proposal. After meeting with them to review their proposal and after subsequent telephone calls for clarification, this appears to be the case. In four specific areas, they were non- responsive to the specifications. Those areas are as fol- lows (1) Telemetry System A stand alone autonomous telemetry system was speci- fied. They offered a telemetry system that is part of and relies on the central control system for operation. (2) Central Control System Configuration The central control system speci- fied allows manual control of the well pumps and monitoring of elevated Is tank levels and pump status from the Main Control Panel. This control is independent of the central automatic control processing system. 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Suite 238 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 • 612 1 331- 8660 J I Page Two City of Brooklyn Center February 19, 1986 The system offered by Edison Controls consolidates manual and automatic control through the central control processing system. This defeats the hierarchy of control reliability of the specified central control system configuration. (3) Color CRT Monitor A 19 -inch color CRT with 48 lines of vertical reso lution was specified. They offered a 13 -inch color CRT with 25 lines of vertical resolution. (4) Control Set Points and Displays The control system specified bases all level displays and set points on sea level elevation. :This feature allows instant tank level comparison and system performance analysis. The specified system requires the use of 5 digit (xxxx.x feet) set points and display. The Edison system provides only 3 digit (0 -100 %) 'display and control. The SCADA system specified was the culmination of our many meetings with you and your staff to provide the SCADA system best suited for Brooklyn Center. For the above reasons and less than satisfactory references by other communities that have purchased Edison Controls equipment, we feel the Collins Electrical Constr. Co. bid is not responsive,and recommend that the project be awarded to Killmer Electrical Co., Inc., 7901 Brooklyn Boulevard, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55445. The project award amount is $199,400, $179,180 if the alternate deduct is taken for the use of ACSB radios in lieu of 900 MHz. Our review of Killmer Electric's bid did not reveal any exceptions, and in dis cussions with them, they stated they will meet all aspects of the specifications. Should you have any questions, we will be happy to discuss this matter with you at your convenience. Sincerely, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ames P. Norton, P.E. Project Manager FEB 1� l^tECI� J PN : ml j M & C No. 86 -04 February 19, 1986 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER SUBJECT. Final Centerbrook Golf Course Feasibility Report.. To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: Approximately a month ago we informed the City Council, due to a number of factors, the original cost estimates of the Centerbrook Golf Course would be substantially low. The original estimates placed the golf course at approximately $1.1 million and our current estimates, which are confirmed by actual bids on the course development work, are now at $1.7 million. The increase in costs are due largely to two major factors: The first being the fact that the original estimates were based on the construction experience in Central Park behind City Hall. We believed that experience could be transferred to the Lions Park site. Armed with this experience we chose not to expend substantial monies on soil borings for our preliminary estimates. When final specifications were to be drawn and we completed our final soil tests and the soil engineers reviewed the data, the result was that the soils in the Lions Park area were substantially more difficult construct ionwi se to work with than those behind City Hall. The soil tests indicated more peat in terms of depth in the Lions Park area than behind City Hall, and there were also a lack of veins of good soils through the area. We made the assumption there would be bad peat areas, but in Lions Park the whole area was bad soil. In Central Park there were mounds and veins of good soil which facilitated and helped our construction process. The Lions Park soil situation requires a phasing of soil movement and settlement. This extends the project over two ears and requires J Y qu the soil to be handled twice instead of the one time handling as proposed in the original estimate. The second factor which increased cost over our original estimate is that the contractors are not as "hungry" as they were approximately two to three years ago when we did a lot of our work in Central Park. While this is not an unimportant factor, the major portion of the cost overrun is related to the soils problem and the way we have to handle them. In my opinion the City has two basic options available for consideration: 1. Build the golf course and increase the loan amount from the capital improvement fund to $1,100, 000 and require the golf course to pay off the loan over 24 years. 2. Not build the golf course and leave the Little League in its present location. Level off the fill areas and develop the open space area of the remaining Lions Park in a similar manner as the Palmer Lake Basin development. The estimated cost of this option is approximately $240,000 (this estimate includes $100,000 of to -date project costs and $140,000 of development and restoration costs). There obviously are multiple options and alternates under both suggested options above, but they all seem to revolve around the basic elements of these two. Under Option 1, where a golf course would be built, there are considerable monetary advantages due to the fact that the golf course could pay back the costs of its development and ongoing maintenance. p g g Under Option 2 there would be no opportunity for a monetary payback of any kind and maintenance would be a direct tax burden. M&C NO. 86 -04 -2_ February 19, 1986 It is my recommendation that the City Council proceed with construction of the golf course option as I believe in the long run it is both financially feasible and will give the community an additional recreation resource. In our original cost estimates we projected the expenses of the golf course increasing and compounding annually at 6 %. We increased fees on the golf course at a rate of 2 -112% per year (5% every other year) ; we allowed for an appropriation or grant to the golf course of $600,000 and a loan of $500,000 at 5% interest rate. Under the new projections on the attached schedule we still project expenses increasing at 6% and the interest rate on the loan at 5 %, and a grant of $600, 000. On this schedule we propose a loan Of $1.1 million to the golf course, and we increase the green fees at a rate of 5% annually rather than 2 -1/2 %. This projection is less conservative than the previous projection, but we still believe that with the expenses projecting at 6% increase and the rate of green fees rising at 5 %, we still have a 1% deficit of expenses to green fee rate increases over the 24 years of this repayment schedule. We believe that this is a reasonable projection of costs and revenue. We have also modified the number of golf rounds per year only very slightly from our orginal projections. The changes from the original golf rounds per year projections were as follows: reduced 1988 rounds by 10,000 and added 500 rounds to 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 which results in a net reduction of rounds over the original projection. I believe that building the golf course is the most feasible option for the City. Over the 24 year projected amortization schedule the amount of the loan and interest payments back to the capital improvements fund from the golf course come to $2,285,720. Eventually the capital improvement fund will be paid back more than the total cost of the improvement. While other options offer quality recreation elements they will not over time pay for their maintenance and operation --much less their development costs; the golf course will. Respectfully s bmitted, Gerald G. Splinter City Manager enc. • (CCMGCIE) BROOKLYN CENTER MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE Exhibit B PROJECTIONS AS OF FEBRUARY 7, 1986 PROJECTED INCOME AND EXPENSE BY YEAR Annual Cumulative Income Over Income Over Year Rounds Income Expense Expense Expense 1988 15,000 73,500 112,270 38,770 - 38,770 1989 27,000 139,050 119,006 20, -18 1990 29,000 156,600 126,147 30,453 11,727 1991 30,000 171,000 133,715 37,285 49 9 , 1992 32,000 190,400 141, 48,662 97,674 5 Years -------------------------------------------------- - - -- - ___-- - - - - -- 1993 34,000 214,200 150,243 63,957 161,631 1994 34,500 229,563 159,257 70,306 231,937 1995 35,000 243,250 168,813 74,437 306,374 1996 36,000 262,800 178,941 83,859 390,233 1997 36 500 2 04 79, 3 189 678 89 365 4 , 8 � , 79,59 10 Y ears -------------...-----------------_-___-__---------_---__--__-_-_-_-_-_--__-------- 1998 37,000 296,000 201,058 94,942 574,540 1999 37,500 315,000 213,122 101,878 676,418 2000 38,000 334,400 225,909 108,491 784,908 2001 8 3 ,500 354,200 239,464 114,736 899,645 2002 39,000 376,350 253,832 122,518 1,022,163 15 Years ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 39,500 398,950 269,062 129,888 1,152,051 2004 40,000 424,000 285,205 138,795 1,290,846 2005 40,000 444,000 302, 141,682 1,432,528 2006 40,000 466,000 320,457 145,543 1,578,072 2007 40,000 488,000 339,684 148,316 1 20 Years -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2008 40,000 512,000 360,065 151,935 1,878,323 2009 40,000 536,000 381,669 154,331 2,032,654 2010 40,000 562,000 404,569 157,431 2090,084 '2011 40,000 590,000 428,843 161,157 2,351,241 2012 40,000 616,000 454,574 161,426 2,512,667 25 Years TOTALS 898,500 $ 8,672,306 $ 6,159,639 $ 2,512,667 $ 2,512,667 Assumptions: (1) Green fee revenue (income) increases by approximately 5% per annum. (2) Expense increases 6% per annum. 0 (CCMGCLN) BROOKLYN CENTER MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE PROJECTIONS AS OF FEBRUARY 19, 1986 LOAN AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE REVISED PER FEBRUARY 7, 1986 REVISED INCOME PROJECTIONS -------- (ASSUMING THATLOANyWILLBE PAID AS FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE) Total Project Cost: $ 1 Less Direct Grant: 600,000 y Loan Amount $1,100,000 Annual Interest Rate: 5% Term: (Years) 24 Beginning Ending Principal Annual Annual Interest Principal Unpaid Principal Year Balance Interest Payment Paid Paid Interest Balance / 1,100,000 $ 55 000 ~~^ 1 _ ^_~~ � $ _________ 0 $ _________ O $_________O $ ~___ , 000 $~ 10 2 1,155,000 57,750 0 0 0 57,750 1 3 1,212,750 60 11,000 11,000 0 49,638 1,262,388 4 1,262 63019 37 37,000 0 26 ,119 1,288 5 1,288 „507 64,425 48,000 48,000 0 16,425 19304 6 1,304,932 65 63,000 63,000 0 2,247 1,307,179 7 1,307,179 65,359 70,000 65,359 4,641 0 1 8 1,302,538 65 74 65,127 8,873 --0 1,293,665 9 1,293,665 64,683 83,000 64,683 18 0 1,2759348 10 1,275,348 63,767 89 63,767 25,233 0 1,250,115 11 1,250,115 62,506 94,000 62 31,494 -0 1,218 199y 12 1,218,621 60,931 101 60,931 40,069 0 19178,552 13 1,178,552 58,928 108,000 58,928 49,072 -0 1,129,480 14 1,129 56 111 56 57,526 0 1,071,954 15 1,071,954 53,598 122,000 53,598 68,402 -0 1,003,551 16 1,003 50,178 129,000 50,178 78,822 --0 924,729 17 924,729 46,236 138,000 46,236 91,764 0 832,965 18 832f965 41,648 141,000 41,648 99,352 0 733,614 19 733,614 36,681 145,000 36,681 108,319 --0 625 20 625,294 31,265 148,000 31,265 116,735 -0 508,559 21 508,559 25,428 151 25,428 125,572 0 382,987 22 382,987 19,149 154,000 19,149 134,851 0 248,136 23 248,136 12,407 157,000 12,407 144,593 --0 103,543 2011 24 103,543 5,177 108,720 5,177 103,543 0 0 ~ ...._ $ 1 , 18 5,7 20 $ 2,285,720 $978,542 $1,307,178 j>g d Minnesota a Department of Transportation -� District 5 2055 No. Lilac Drive 4 ''OF TaP� Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612)593 -8403 January 9, 1986 Mr. Sylvester Knapp Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, M[V 55430 RE: C.S. 2755 (T.H. 100) In Brooklyn Center Dear Sy: As we discussed by phone yesterday, I will reccmnend a temporary permit to construct for the City's proposed golf course on the excess right of way we own along T.H. 100 that the City has indicated an interest in. By copy of this letter, Earl Howe, District Right of Way Engineer, will contact you for any needed information and will make arrange- ments for the permit. Sincez , %t W. M. Crawford, P.E. District Engineer An Equal Opportunity Employer IO Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE (PROJECT NO. 1985 -23, CONTRACT 1986 -C) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1985 -23, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 4th day of February, 1986. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Shafer Contracting Co., Inc. $ 973,975.25 Richard Knutson, Inca 1,064,455.00 C.S. McCrossan, Inc. 1,082,511.00 Park Construction Company 1,117,445.00 Lametti & Sons, Inc. 1,257,520.00 Minn -Kota Excavating, Inc. 1,499,381.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Shafer Contracting Company, Inc. of Shafer, 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 $973,975.25 with Shafer Contracting Company, Inc. of Shafer, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No 1985 -23 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. 3. The estimated cost of Improvement Project No. 1985-23 is hereby summarized in the following schedule: a. Contract 1986 -C (as per low bid from Shafer Contractin g Company, Com an , Inc.) $973,975 b. Building construction contract for construction of clubhouse, Little League buildings, dugouts, etc. (as per 2/18/86 estimate from Brauer & Assoc.) 299,000 c. Work by C.S. McCrossan (equipment rental and placement of erosion control fencing as per Resolutions 85 -213 and 85 -250) 26,165 RESOLUTION NO. d. Brauer & Associates Consulting fees: Design Fees 52,320 Bidding Administration Fees 3,800 Construction Observation 34.900 91,020 e. Braun Engineering Fees (Soil Engineering, Testing and Monitoring) Site Soil Investigation & Report 9,745 Settlement Monitoring 1,700 Sonic Testing of Piling 9,800 Material Testing for Greens 500 Material Testing for Building & Pavement 800 22,545 f. Barr Engineering Fees (Hydraulic Analyses) 5,100 g. City Engineering Fees (Estimate) 23,839 h. Administration Fees (Estimate) 11,919 i. Contingency (Estimate) 108,356 Total $1,561,919 4. Accounting for Project No. 1985 -23 shall be in Division 48 of the Capital Project Fund. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. BID SUMMARY CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE BROOKLYN CENTER, MN February 4, 1986 SHAFER KNUTSON McCROSSAN PARK LAMETTI MINN -KOTA DIVISION I - REMOVALS $ 23,600.00 $ 35,526.00 $ 35,700.00 $ 24,660.00 $ 27,100.00 $ 52,000.00 DIVISION II - EARTHWORK - SCHEDULE 'A' 85,000.00 205,000.00 210,000.00 322,500. 00 350,000. 00 325,000.00 DIVISION II - EARTHWORK - SCHEDULE 'B' 333,694.00 340,010.00 359,446.00 249,370. 00 446,200. 00 523,540.00 DIVISION III - WATER SERVICE 45,000.00 47,400.00 41,200.00 49,090. 00 23,500. 00 47,000.00 DIVISION IV - SANITARY SEWER SERVICE 40,500.00 18,950.00 18,700.00 40,310. 00 14,700. 00 80,000.00 DIVISION V - STORM SEWER 41,660.00 44,640.00 41,820.00 41,954. 00 28,220. 00 50,460.00 DIVISION VI - IRRIGATION 56,000.00 52,600.00 57,860.00 62,437. 00 60,000. 00 56,460.00 DIVISION VII - BRIDGES 47,000.00 63,982.00 40,600.00 31,263. 00 44,500. 00 60,000.00 DIVISION VIII - ASPHALT PAVEMENT 62,445.00 60,875.00 58,850.00 63,340. 00 60,875. 00 64,266.00 DIVISION IX - CONCRETE 16,126.25 16,975.00 18,430.00 18,915. 00 12,125. 00 16,975.00 DIVISION X - FENCING 43,650.00 45,700.00 45,800.00 43,219. 00 43,000. 00 46,500.00 DIVISION XI - SITE FURNISHINGS 21,220.00 8,390.00 11,810.00 8,350. 00 13,000. 00 6,890.00 DIVISION XII — SITE ELECTRICAL 23,130.00 21,407.00 23,580.00 23,131. 00 22,700. 00 23,650.00 DIVISION XIII - SEED & SOD 86,050.00 48,100.00 55,085.00 81,858. 00 52,000. 00 95,000.00 DIVISION XIV - PLANTING 16,300.00 18,000.00 18,000.00 16,148. 00 17,000. 00 18,100.00 DIVISION XV - MAINTENANCE GARAGE 5,600.00 8 15,750.00 15,000. 00 12,000. 00 14,000.00 DIVISION XVI - CONSTR. SURVEYING 27,000.00 28,400.00 29,880.00 25,900. 00 30,000. 00 20,000.00 BASE BID TOTAL $973,975.0 $1,064,455.00 $1,082,511.00 $1,117,445.00 $1 257,520.00 $1,499,381.00 ADD ALTERNATE #1 - PLANTING S28,000.00L 330,500.00 532,100.00 $27,580.00 $35,000.00 $31,000.00 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. APPROVING AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH BRAUER AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION OF THE CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE (PROJECT NO. 1985 -23) WHEREAS, the City Council, on June 24, 1985 adopted Resolution No. 85 -115 wherein the Mayor and City Manager were authorized to enter into contract with Brauer and Associates, Ltd. for the design of Centerbrook Golf Course with an estimated maximum fee for services of $70,670.00; and WHEREAS, substantial changes in the project conditions and requirements have increased the scope of services to be provided by said consultant: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into an amendment to the existing contract with Brauer and Associates, Ltd. wherein the estimated fees for services are amended as follows: Current Additional Estimated Item Original Fees Fees Total Fees Basic Services 48,820 (lump sum) 3,500 (lump sum) 52,320 (lump sum) Bidding Procedures Administration 1,900 (lump sum) 1,900 (lump sum) 3,800 (lump sum) Construction Observation 19.950 (maximum) 14.950 (maximum) 34.900 (maximum) TOTAL $70,670 (maximum) $20,350 (maximum) $91,020 (maximum) 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 ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: February 20, 1986 RE: Amendment to Contract with Brauer & Associates, Ltd. For the Design of Centerbrook Golf Course On June 24, 1985 the City entered into contract with Brauer & Associates, Ltd. for design of the Centerbrook Golf Course. The contract (see attached copy of proposals dated 5/31/85) contemplated the following fee schedule: Item Fee Basic Services $48,820.00 (lump sum) Bidding Procedures Administration 1,900.00 (lump sum) Construction Observation 19.950.00 (maximum) Estimated Total $70,670.00 (maximum) The above schedule of fees was based upon information available at that time. Basic Services Fee Increase Since that time, two factors have resulted in the need for substantial expansion of the consultant's responsibilities under the "Basic Services" portion of their contract, ie.: Watershed Management Commission Required considerably more work to requirement for on -site assure that detention requirements floodwater retention were met. Also - consultant was required to attend several Watershed Management Organization meetings. Severely bad soil conditions This factor also required as demonstrated by soil substantial increase in design borings efforts by the consultant Bidding Procedures Fee Increase The contract for services provides for a $1,900 lump sum fee for administration of each phase of the overall project. „ *74 55 m a u �„ February 4, 1986 Page 2 While the resolution approving the contract anticipated only one lump sum fee, it will be necessary to include two such fees into the total project cost, because the City has opted to split the project into two contracts, ie. the general construction contract, and a separate contract for construction of the clubhouse. Construction Observation Fees Because of the soil conditions encountered, and the complex construction scheduling which is required to assure satisfactory completion of this project, Brauer and Associates will need to nearly double their services in providing construction observation (inspection) of the project. Summary Following is a summary of fees as originally contemplated under Resolution No. 85 -115, the additional fees now contemplated, and the current estimate of total fees: Current Additional Estimated Item Original Fees Fees Total Fees Basic Services 48,820 (lump sum) 3,500* (lump sum) 52,320* (lump sum) Bidding Procedures Administration 1'ono (lump sum) 1,900 (lump sum) 3,800 (lump sum) Construction Observation 19.950 (maximum) 14.950 (maximum) 34.900 (maximum) TOTAL $70,670 (maximum) $20,350 (maximum) $91,020 (maximum) * Note: Mr. George Watson of Brauer & Associates, Ltd. has advised me that their actual charges, based on hourly charges for the basic services provided are approximately $55,800 (i.e. $7,000 above the lump sum fee specified in the original agreement). However, because,of the problems encountered with construction cost overruns, Brauer proposes to charge the City of one -half of their cost overrun. Attached hereto is a proposed contract amendment, submitted to us, dated February 18, 1986. I recommend approval of this contract amendment. A resolution for this purpose is provided for consideration by the City Council. Respectfully submitted, SK: jn } February 18, 1986 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: Contract Amendment to Centerbrook Golf Course & Lions Park, B &A Project #85 -31 To Whom It May Concern This letter will serve as an Amendment to our current Contract dated June 24th, 1985. This Amendment is a result of the existing site soil conditions and flood storage requirements encountered, bringing about the need for the following additional services: A. ADDITIONAL SERVICES 1. Expanded design services and rework of completed construction documents to meet the Cities program requirements, and the watershed districts flood storage requirements. 2. An extension of the construction observation time frame from 12 months to approximately 24 months due to existing soil conditions and the resulting construction scheduling. B. FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1. For the CONSULTANT'S BASIC SERVICES, as described in Paragraph A -1 above, an additional lump sum fee of THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($3,500.00), plus all direct project expenses. 2. For the CONSULTANT'S BASIC SERVICES, as described in Paragraph A -2 above, an additional fee to be deter- mined on the basis of the following hourly rates, plus expenses, to an estimated maximum of FOURTEEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ,($14,950.00). The additional maximum fee will be budgeted to coin - cide .with the contractor's anticipated project completion date. Senior Professionals $60.00 -•� Professionals $50.00 Technicians $25.00 t m 7901 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 ❑ (612) 941 -1660 City of Brooklyn Center -2- February 18, 1986 All other conditions outlined in Paragraphs "C" through "H" of the original contract will apply to these additional ser vices. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the OWNER and the CONSULTANT have made and executed this Agreement, This day of 1986. BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD. Eden Prairi , innesota In p resence of Ge W. Watson 9 Vice resident CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Brooklyn Center, Minnesota In presence of: Mayor City Manager PSF /jt �o Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 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) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposal submitted by Braun Engineering Testing, Inc. to provide for construction observations and testing services for the proposed Centerbrook Golf Course at a total cost not to exceed $12,000 is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Braun Engineering Testing, Inc. for said services. 2. The accounting for Project No. 1985 -23 will be done in the Capital Projects Fund, Division 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. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 C ENTER TELEPHONE 561 -5440 ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Work FROM H.R. Spurrier, City Engineer DATE: February 20, 1986 RE: Centerbrook'Golf Course Project No. 1985 -23, Contract 1986 -C Geotechnical Services Attached is a proposal from Braun Engineering Testing, Inc. for construction observation and testing services for the proposed Centerbrook Golf Course. The proposed work is in addition to the design- related testing which has been complete to date. The City has paid $9,745.00 to date for the design - related soil testing authorized by Resolution 85 -186. The work specified in the attached proposal consists of services provided in five general areas: 1. Reviewing settlement plate data 2. Dynamic analysis and observation of pile driving 3. Testing parking lot and building fill 4. Testing topsoil for greens and tees 5. Overall project coordination and summary report This work is detailed in the attached proposal. Although the estimated testing costs totals approximately $8,300, Braun has recommended that the City budget a substantial contingency because the soils and the behavior of the soils at this site are variable and uncertain. All of the work covered by the proposal is required to guarantee the stability of the golf course improvements. This work should be authorized along with any golf course construction contracts. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City to accept the proposal for construction observations and testing services for the proposed golf course in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, submitted by Braun Engineering Testing, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $12,000. Res k=neer ly submitted, Approved for submittal, .R ier Sy K p Cit Director of Public Works HRS : j n GOLF 7ltarc eay „ �o Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 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) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the reconditioning of Water Tower No. 3, Improvement Project No. 1985 -28, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and the City Engineer, on the 20th day of February, 1986. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Odland Protective Coatings $114,750.00 Ford Tank and Painting Company, Inc. 136,000.00 *Tenyer Coatings, Inc. 189,800.00 *Qualified and incomplete WHEREAS, it appears that Odland Protective Coatings of Minneapolis, 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 $114,750.00 with Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1985 -28 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. 1985 -28 is hereby amended from $129,540 to $142,240 in accordance with the following schedule: As Approved As Bid Contract $115,000 $114,750 Contingency (10 %) 11,470 Engineering Consultant 12,240 12,240 City (2%) 2,300 2,520 Administration (1 %) 1,150 1.260 Total $129,540 $142,240 RESOLUTION NO Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: H.R. Spurrier, City Engineer DATE: February 20, 1986 RE: Project No. 1985 -28 Contract 1986 -E Water Tower No. 3 Reconditioning Attached is a resolution awarding the contract to Odland Protective Coatings, Inc for the reconditioning of Water Tower No. 3.' The low bid has been reviewed by AEC Engineers & Designers (AEC). AEC has recommended Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. be awarded the contract for Water Tower No. 3 Reconditioning, Project No. 1985 -28, Contract 1986 -E. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution awarding the contract to Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. for the reconditioning of Water Tower No. 3, Project No. 1985 -28, Contract 1986 -E. Res e tful submitted, Ap roved for Submittal, .R. pu 'er Sy Knapp City Engi er Director of Public Works HRS: jn ACCB86E.MEM ��� m Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT, ACCEPTING CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT NO 1985 -27 AND 1986 -07 CONTRACT 1986 -G WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared an Engineering Report for the City Council which recommends geometric improvements and resurfacing of Shingle Creek Parkway from CSAH 10 to I94 -694; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared specifications for the proposed work; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has estimated the cost of said Improvement Project No. 1985 -27 to be $413,131; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has estimated to cost of said Improvement Project No. 1986 -07 to be $52,869: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The City Engineering Report is hereby accepted. 2. The following projects are hereby established: SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 1985 -27 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY TURNLANE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 1986 -07 3. The plans and specifications for Contract 1986 -G for said improvement projects prepared by the City Engineer are hereby approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvements under .such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date for receipt of bids, and specify the work to be done, state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. on March 13, 1986, at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers at City Hall by the City Clerk and City Engineer, will then be tabulated and will be considered by the City Council at 7:00 P.M. on March 24, 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. i RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. I CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE r 911 ENGINEERING REPORT GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS AND RESURFACING SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY CSAH 10 TO I94 -694 PROJECT NOS. 1985 -27 AND 1986 -07 INTRODUCTION Shingle Creek Parkway between CSAH'10 and I94 -694 has been scheduled for improvement in 1986. The improvement consists of geometric improvements, curb and gutter repair, crack repair and bituminous overlay. Part of the work is required by an agreement with Ryan Construction for the development of Shingle Creek Center and Shingle Creek Center 2nd Addition. The City proposes to specially assess the work covered by the agreement. Excerpts of that agreement are in Appendix A. A map showing the part of Shingle Creek Parkway to be improved is in Appendix B. BACKGROUND Shingle Creek Parkway between CSAH 10 and I94 -694 was paved under Improvement Project No. 1971 -08. After the original improvement there have been other geometric modifications which included construction of turnlanes and median cuts for development along Shingle Creek Parkway. That construction has produced longitudinal cracking along Shingle Creek Parkway where this work has occurred. Weathering has produced additional longitudinal and transverse cracking which would undermine the pavement structure which is now in good condition. The recent development of the historic Earle Brown Farm and the commercial development between John Martin Drive and Summit Drive along Shingle Creek Parkway require geometric modifications. After these modifications, curb cuts and turnlanes for all developed and undeveloped property along Shingle Creek Parkway between CSAH 10 and 194 -694 will be established. The City proposes landscape improvements in the Earle Brown Tax Increment District. These improvements include the intersections at John Martin Drive'and Summit Drive. The work included in Project No. 1985 -27 consists of the following: 1. Replacement of cracked, settled and deteriorated concrete curb and gutter. 2. Installation and extension of turnlanes at CSAH 10 at the I94 interchange; and geometric improvements to the entrances of Hennepin County's Service Center and Library. Engineering Report 1985 -27 & 1986 -07 Page 2 3. Repair of longitudinal and transverse cracking with geotextile fabric. 4. Bituminous overlay. The work included in Project No. 1986 -07 is turn lane construction for the shopping center under construction in Lot 2, Block 2 Shingle Creek Center and in Shingle Creek Center Second Addition. The developer has submitted a 100 percent petition for the project and has agreed to the amount of special benefit specified herein. A map showing the proposed improvements is in Appendix B. Turn lane construction was work recommended in the Traffic Analysis prepared by Short- Elliott - Hendrickson, Inc. These improvements are intended to serve development which is expected to occur before structural work on Shingle Creek Parkway would be scheduled. The crack repair procedure is the same procedure used,to repair the Northbound lane of Xerxes Avenue in 1985. The repair consists of milling a strip that is 12 to 26 inches wide by 2 inches deep, placing a geotextile fabric, then filling the crack with a bituminous patch mixture. After the crack repair has been opened to traffic for a period of 1 to 2 weeks, the entire pavement section would be overlayed. No modifications are proposed to vertical alignment within the project limits. FUNDING All of the work proposed under Project No. 1985 -27 and Project No. 1986 -07 is eligible for reimbursement from the City's Regular Municipal State Aid Fund Account. The work proposed in Project No. 1986 -07 specially benefits the property in Shingle Creek Center and Shingle Creek Center 2nd Addition. Special assessments are proposed for that part of the work. As stated above, the developer has agreed to the amount of special benefit. The estimated cost of the proposed work is summarized below by project number. A detailed estimate of the work is in Appendix C. PROJECT ESTIMATE Project No. Project No. Total 1985 -27 1986 -07 Contract Cost Construction Cost $343,136 $37,377 $380,513 Contingency (10 %) 32,445 5,606 38,051 SUBTOTAL 375,581 42,983 418,564 Engineering Cost (9%) 33,795 3,868 37,663 Administrative Cost (1 %) 3,755 430 4,185 Legal Cost (1 %) 0 430 430 Capitalized Interest (12 %) 0 5.158 5,158 TOTAL 413,131 52,869 466,000 Engineering Report - 1985 -27 & 1986 -07 Page 3 The balance in the City's Regular Municipal State Aid Fund Account is $1,451,918.40. The City's Five Year Municipal State Aid Capital Improvement Program estimated the overlay work would cost $52,000. That estimate did not include geometric improvements, nor did it include the crack repair with geotextile fabric. The reserves in the Regular Municipal State Aid Fund Account are still sufficient to fund this project and maintain our current Five Year Municipal State Aid Capital Improvement Program (MSACIP). A copy of the five year MSACIP is included in Appendix D. The part of this work that specially benefits development will be funded by the City's Regular State Aid Account. It is recommended that assessment revenue be credited to the City's Local Municipal State Aid Account. The agreement in Appendix A specified that the assessment for the proposed improvements be apportioned on lot area. The table below apportions the estimated assessment. Estimated Property Area Assessment Lot 2, Block 1 Shingle Creek Center Addition 392,920 SF $ 35,504.00 Lot 1, Block 1 Shingle Creek Center 2nd Addition 66,490 SF 6,008.00 Lot 2, Block 1 Shingle Creek Center 2nd Addition 125.681 SF 11.357.00 Total 585,091 SF $ 52,869.00 CONCLUSIONS All of the proposed geometric improvements and resurfacing work on Shingle Creek Parkway proposed under Project No. 1985 -27 and Project No. 1986 -07 is needed now or will be needed before the roadway would be scheduled for structural improvement. All of the proposed work could be funded by the City's Regular Municipal State Aid Fund Account without affecting the balance of the current Five Year Municipal State Aid Capital Improvement Program. Assessment revenue from Project No. 1986 -07 should be credited to the City Local Municipal State Aid Account. Engineering Report 1985 -27 & 1986 -07 Page 4 Project No. 1985 -27, geometric improvements and resurfacing of Shingle Creek Parkway from CSAH 10 to I94 -694, is feasible as proposed and is recommended for construction. Project No. 1986 -07, geometric improvements of Shingle Creek Parkway abutting Shingle Creek Center and Shingle Creek Center 2nd Addition, is feasible as proposed and is recommended for construction. i s Cv =. '_ n esot ' �t�v E.av to J r.i.� �aGl�i �l 1'Ji. ran .�. it La. l Cato aL 24 go Registration No. 13589 A P P E N D I X A SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into the day and year set forth hereinafter, by and between Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation hereinafter called the "Owner ", and the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, a Municipal Corporation in the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called the "City ", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Owner is the Owner of the following described property: Tracts A, B, C, and E, Tract D, except the southeasterly 108 feet thereof Tract F, except that part of the southeasterly 108 feet thereof which lies southwesterly of the following described line to wit: Beginning at the most southerly corner of said Tract F; thence North 44 degrees 07 minutes 59 seconds West along the northwesterly extension of the northeasterly line of Tract J, for a distance of 110 feet and there terminating. All in Registered Land Survey No. 1325, Files of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin. wishes to resubdivide the property as part of a new Plat hereinafter called the "Subdivision "; and " WHEREAS, Section 15 -109 of the Brooklyn Center City Ordinances requires the Owner to enter into agreement with the City to provide for the construction of improvements required to provide - service to the Subdivision, and to provide for a method of payment for such improvements: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: DIVISION l - APPLICATION OF THIS AGREEMENT 1.1 That the rovis' P ions of the agreement shall apply to all portions of the Subdivision. All references to portions or tracts within the Subdivision shall be deemed to apply to all portions or tracts of the Subdivision, unless the context in which such reference is used clearly indicates it applies to only specified portions or tracts. 1.2 The provisions of this agreement shall run with the land and shall bind the Owner, its heirs, executors, and assigns. DIVISION 2 IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE BY THE CITY. WITH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED AGAINST SUBDIVISION 2.1 That the Owner hereby petitions the City to construct those improvements itemized in Exhibit A; and that the City hereby agrees to prepare plans and specifications for the construction of said improvements, to take bids for the construction thereof and to complete construction thereof by July 31, 1986. 2.2 That the City ill construct ruct those improvements itemized in Exhibit A, and will levy special assessments against those tracts of the Subdivision as outlined in said exhibit A, pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 as amended. The Owner acknowledges the benefits received from the improvements as itemized in Exhibit A, and acknowledges responsibility for the payment of these special assessments. 2.3 That the Owner, before any contract for construction of the improvements described in Exhibit A, is awarded shall pay the City CASH in the amount of $10,600.00 which amount represents 20 percent of the estimated total costs of said improvements exclusive of capitalized interest. Such payment shall be applied by the City to the total assessments for the improvements. 2.4 That actual assessments will be based on actual costs incurred by the City (for construction, engineering, legal, administrative, capitalized interest, and contingent costs) and that the balance of said costs remaining after application of the aforementioned cash payment will be levied as special assessments over a 15 year period with equal annual principle payments. Interest shall be charged at the rate established by the City Council at the time of adoption of the assessment roll. DIVISION 3 - UNPAID CURRENT ASSESSMENTS 3.1 That Exhibit B, attached hereto, summarizes the unpaid portions of current special assessments which have been levied against the Subdivision for improvement projects previously completed by the City. That the Owner hereby acknowledges the benefits received from these projects. That these assessments will be apportioned to the various tracts of the Subdivision as summarized in the attached Exhibit C. DIVISION 4 - ADVANCE PAYMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 4.1 That advance payment of all special assessments on the Owner's .property shall be made at the time the Owner sells said property,, unless the City Council approves assumption of the special assessments by the purchaser at the time of sale. 4.2 That upon such sale of said property, the Owner shall pay to the city CASH, in the amount equal to one and one half times (1-1/2 x) the estimated total of all assessments for said property if the assessment roll has not been adopted by the City Council. 4.3 That in the event the payment made in advance of the adoption of the assessment roll is greater than the actual assessment levied, the city will return such excess to the Owner within 30 days after the s a EXHIBIT A ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ADJACENT TO SUBDIVISION Improvements to Shingle Creek Parkway to be accomplished by the City of Brooklyn Center and paid for by the levy of special assessments against the Subdivision include: 1) DESCRIPTION Right Turn Lane Construction: A right turn lane shall be constructed along northbound Shingle Creek Parkway adjacent to the access drive to the Subdivision. The turn lane shall consist of a 67.5 foot taper and 167.5 foot storage lane. Included with the turn lane construction is the construction of the access within the street right of way and the relocation of public sidewalk along Shingle Creek Parkway to accommodate said construction. Refer to Exhibit A -1 depicting the work comprehended under this section of the Subdivision Agreement. 2) COST ESTIMATE Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter 950 L.F. x 3.50 = 2205.00 Remove Bituminous Pavement 320 S.Y. x 3.00 960.00 Remove Concrete Sidewalk 334 S.Y. x 3.00 = 900.00 Sawcut Pavement 950 L.F. x 1.50 = 945.00 Concrete Curb & Gutter (B618) 1000 L.F. X 8.00 _ 5560.00 4 Concrete Sidewalk 3000 S.F. x 3.00 8700.00 Aggregate Base 200 Ton x 8.50 = 850.00 Bituminous Base 160 Ton x 27.00 2322.00 Bituminous Binder 160 Ton x 28.50 3135.00 Bituminous Surfacing 50 Ton x 32.00 1600.00 Utility Adjustments L.S. x5000.00 = 5000.00 Transplant Trees 16 Each x 100.00 = 1600.00 Sod 2000 S.Y. X 2.00 = 3600.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $37377.00 Contingencies 5606.00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $42983.00 Engineering Costs (@ 9% of Construction Cost), 3868.00 Administrative Costs (@ 1% of Construction Cost) 430.00 Legal Costs (@ 1% of Construction Cost) 430.00 Capitalized Interest (@ 12% of Construction Cost) 5158.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $52869.00 3) APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS The estimated assessment for turn lane and access construction shall be apportioned to Lots 1 and 2 based upon parcel area. The resultant estimated assessments are: Parcel Area (Sq. Ft.) Estimated Assessment Lot 1 192,171 $ 17,36500 Lot 2 392,920 35,504..00 TOTAL 585,091 $ 52,869.00 Actual assessments will be based on actual costs incurred by the City in the completion of the improvement. NOTE; Shingle Creek Center 2nd Addition is a replat of Lot 1 above. b' 4. en„o.co Is 4, / r,P Docks 9- TARGETo aa' _105,0002S F �. Ot te ' V f E•<ISTi tQWfR c, A \ , �� Us:!, LAFgELLF_ D y e 3, 11can" O -i Z `` R TAIL h ;, Z_ Ott _ r L X1"1 � :J /. ♦ - •r) r,^.,T p. /•/ D m ice. [t I , ! i i t . ' f r �•'• rf "� °� � \ d Y " f J•A c- v+v fk ee a 7•.' / . ti r Vin+ tls,o.uS � • 0 AJ m Si �' m D 37 S caly '' �• " , +. 1 tG :� .r �r�, { r r 1•. 1 T . Z Z / Z C'Z e� 1' � , +r • x r. -` •' , f m � '�' �S r T ' 1 .i fbir4Mlu u3 augl�C> m M Z W 1 m ! m .. •' 2Z .,(_ jr 0 I 9� S . i �r - • • ton : �' f , . r j.. Msr e„`i •r`� '. •`�.. " L:i�sl ' '.- I�,wr1• � ,C n Ins e�r.w - .Greek pe s,. �� -''Sh 9 -x�, rkwa„ L .T�h. A P P E N D I X B =n�z ��' .p�N i� o -- N /Htdtf■ i'� � ��i �NI■DI � - N ir-� ®_• ®_. -- ■■/�_//■■ _ - � — -- N'� Imo" // __ �. �p - i'Mr� tl/f/_Wf//■ tt/ N■ a r- �I% - -T-- ��� w -- o ttt■tNW■ r 9. - .■ -- -- /a iii_` � w� !� tN, ARARRA trf . � � ` �0�� ��� � i� iim •. tIE1 Ii �i11 �aM N N . i■IIIYHI�II� ' r• s� e.,'1 ME op WE AIR PIP g q �� _ • • • • IN ///Itj►i i. /t /tn■1/inw -- -ZI -111, 11 p -w a 2 21111 r / --r-- a -- itttt /Itlfi�/ I�N//�% / / iNNMN•I r// ■�%f f i b ��� / ` ���'�'�����, �_- - -- — - ... wo/■ar Am •i`a�I+/� /% c��� ' : N -- -w ._�■ —_ -io . . �!-- ■ -f f -- -r IH N - -_ - ■■ -- -- N -- 7 ' --IN -w rr —•� N -- - -.} -. � `c • : • 1�� -r rr rrrr • • W ill. -- -- �N ARRARA mm -rr r i N -- -rr-✓ /.J �.•-- S se t■ N -- -- -- -- N N -- N -r N ■� N ■ -r - -- s■ olow ■■ ■■ ./ - . -� -- r - -- -- ■ - ■■ tt■ ■ •— -- -- as -- - AAAAAAAA ARA _ ��� ► ���� — N--r —aNN -M■ == _ � U 2 == == =ter- A. / i.F I�- s� � — 7 �� /��- N N �� N a a a a -N-■i�- N i ...- .■ -- - -- -- -- -- - -- -- N �. �ei - — -- CAR, -- - _- -- r - - - - a..— ��s� ■� NEAR ♦ • I: • - -- W - �% : �� �r /�iu liry�n/ry11dti':•_:? _- :. ■1■ ..i � i■ All �G ■ It i■t/tttNUtp`Itlf► w �� -� �+ N !t! i■ !� �■ ■- o t ■�- -■ �\ A. AMA � X11 •� / -��/ \ ■! � - -_ -- -- -,- =- °?� _. � r, -' ■� �• Na� ,�.�N■� �i. -- N rr -- NOW ■ A m I . !'! \ ,\•, NOW _ N . � s - 1 ■��q�NH�- /� N O. i- M � _ e �1i �; � � ����IN NON i�■ r ttH M■MIIUM� -- -- N :■__�: �s X11 c - -MAO s ARAM - all Mtt ORIN t1i 4 , .�ii�. -i • i L;3RA7 8 GOV ": CENTER 5A 0 , � 2 Fla T .. tALVAG 1 r4.E �' ['u 2S ;� � ...... i_:...::_..____ _...__. .._ - RESP `j-yV. ' G 2 ; • 40 4 s — s. SPF r x P OF to h _ _. ..., -�,:: - �.:�r._ — -' S ?RUGT NODES 6WAEl i t LNG r, �� N cC (BY OTHERS) a _ D S' 1� , E�• Eµ .� .24+60- 48'RT. nwG (Q 2+ r - .. �„ mi 4J3 -4 �E ASEMENT S� n .: •° I T. C.E1.845d mv.842.IT `-� F.91. 1201.F. 2 "R.C.G. CE.Y 00.50% RELOCATED TREES RYAN O F.91.FRgAM N0.3�0 (3S�y19�21-43-0009) s CONSTR 3 IR) •'Cu _- 60.921e - --, p SN�NC�E UCTjON .. L O NSTRUC AYTON pSO HU r O e C O O F 6 SIDEWALK L.O 7. g _._- __ -- C O R P O R A T I O N T r BC r CF/�TF A IV T ARGET STOR s r�1a� QCK r'SHINGLE CK R -0REEK .CENTER JOHN MARTIN ORA LCP N. 1 /2 See. 2, T.ItS PARKWAY T N.,R2f W. S I%2 Sec.M,T i (9 R.21 W. 8.C8H.84824' SHINGLE: C i TOP OR M YD. �., Lot 1 Block 1 Shingle e Creek Center is proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1 i Shingle Creek Center 2nd Addition j A P P E N D I X C _. - ._ -.. - - _-- -- _.. n9/09 q -- E.:zmb .'F9 . _. � /�;' __ / / _ ., c iYr.� =•�. r . -.. _. .. - - -" - -- - - -- - - - -.� l��__ Ala :rr r __.� / /.^ -- - •� /. ... r r . X01, so! r / �z ^;• _ __ _JC.S._ /.00 r' _ '_,Iny cO /..,,,,,¢. wucr2r2.!oit _`!;afffi�/1/�:Gs P's / -- •C.F __ .._ has lolcZ7 so Al 1121 O$. _.... S /.'__r:aNU __! � : ^ , ✓ �ufcmo/1 F T O c 9_ o33L E0/.__ l3c`raui ¢ ci � G- 13 �� , a sQL_'go¢�mn��'!_o�a —. _-- �__,�._ • �?!QO_ � / 75 -- ` /�_ yes .200 4? 00 :7 a3'✓ �ra_.:�asr_� Coa / =s /,il t:;.u.- —� -- .'T°�?- �.— /,TS. -_ -� � _3.Y /o IS a =. �/Y . 47 - 19 i - 20 3 Z� 9 t�.r / .a/crsar T Z -- �_?19,rnpu5�• / �?r / gc�,g l — - a ; y0 6 -- a [5 / .C 40 ..----— IOQ -_�L zoo _°° -- 3.9 zoo - a.�lo /8 �L�.po�irrg -Cvu J!! /.2- I _ !e02 25 . 75 �3,�_ 7 - 1a�- 1�`C' /T000- 26 = - 7, / 77 28 7- LS— o • O5D6lo % nz b er / .sr�... r- L " ac..r2 a..r� � .l... —3 •'S °° / 00 _p 72 32 J - /&SOQ Z L�E�� - 33 -� 7 S 3 1. 50 /_. - Conti¢Z�s..�Licsr7a_ °� �r< -- 31 _Z al.b0r, _ 35 36 24441 o g 0 3 3a 7�- 33 41 :2 bra r77_L2� co ±icn_. J2 c c L . S.._ _ -1__ x'000 ° O_ ~! ? o - --�- -- -- - - -- --- 13 CO" 7"'Cf6Y -� 2?/QwL_ SLR L. 14r6 O 0 0 43 �¢ /ca /2�a�,P P.• -- -_ -,_ .- ! - L_QQU_°_ / oDD - as it_._. - - -- -- -- - - -- - -- _.- __ 46 - -_. 47 A P P E N D I X D i Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 85 -144 RESOLUTION APPROVING FIVE YEAR MUNICIPAL STATE AID CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, it is estimated the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, will receive Municpal State Aid Street construction funds in the amount of $627,234 per year for the succeeding five years for use in the construction of the City's designated Municipal State Aid Street System; and WHEREAS, the City must make annual payments of $60,000 in 1986 and 1987 reducing the total available a llottment -in each of those year to $567,234. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the city of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the following schedule reflects the projected Municipal State Aid funds available for a five year Capital Improvements Program: Accumulated Funds Year Available 1985 Balance Available $1,208,418.40 $1,208,418.40 1986 Estimated Allotment 567,234 1,775,652.40 Available for Construction 1987 Estimated Allotment 567,234 2,342,886.40 Available for Construction 1988 Estimated Allotment 627,234 2,970,120.40 Available for Construction 1989 Estimated Allotment 627,234 3,597,354.40 Available for Construction 1990 Estimated Allotment 627,234 4,224,588.40 Available for Construction BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following Five Year Municipal State Aid Capital Improvement Program is hereby approved: RESOLUTION NO. 85 -144 Year Location Estimated Cost 1986 T.H. 252 - North City Limits to 66th Avenue (City share) A. 73rd Avenue Approaches and Signal $ 20,000 B. 70th Avenue Approach and Signal 30,000 C. 66th Avenue Approach and Signal 30,000 Shingle Creek Parkway - 194 to C.S.A.H. 10 A. Overlay 52,000 B. Signals at Summit Drive and John Martin Drive 240,000 69th and 70th Avenue Dupont Avenue to Camden Avenue 328,000 Total 1986 Improvements $700,000 1987 France Avenue - 50th Avenue to South City Limits $270,000 50th Avenue - France Avenue to T.H. 100 108,000 51st Avenue at County Road 152 Signal and Approach 188,000 North Lilac Drive @ T.H. 100 and Brooklyn Boulevard 162,000 Total 1987 Improvements $728,000 1988 69th Avenue Lee Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway R/W Acquisition X11640,000 Total 1988 Improvements $1,600,000 1989 69th Avenue - Lee Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway A. Signals at Brooklyn Boulevard and France Avenue $ 240,000 B. Reconstruct Roadway 1,011,000 Total 1989 Improvements $1,251,000 RESOLUTION NO. 85 -144 I ` Year Location . Estimated Cost 1990 Freeway Boulevard - Shingle Creek Parkway to Camden Avenue A. Overlay from Shingle Creek Parkway to Humboldt Avenue $ 54,000 B. Widen from Humboldt Avenue to Camden Avenue 355,000 C. Signal at Shingle Creek Parkway 120,000 Total 1990 Improvements $529,000 5 Year Total Cost - 1985 through 1990 $4,808,000 August 12, 1985 Date May7/ ATTEST: 4perk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. t Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT, ACCEPTING CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT NO. 1985 -27 CONTRACT 1986 -G WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared and Engineering Report for the City Council which recommends geometric improvements and resurfacing of Shingle Creek Parkway from CSAH 10 to I94 -694; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared specifications for the proposed work; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has estimated the cost of said improvement to be $434,400.00: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The City Engineering Report is hereby accepted. 2. The following project is hereby established: GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS AND RESURFACING OF SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY CSAH 10 TO L94 -694 PROJECT NO. 1985 -27 3. The plans and specifications for Contract 1986 -G for said improvement project prepared by the City. Engineer are hereby approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date for receipt of bids, and specify the work to be done, state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. on March 13, 1986, at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers at City Hall by the City Clerk and City Engineer, will then be tabulated and will be considered by the City Council at 7:00 P.M. on March 24, 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. RESOLUTION N0, 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 r TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE -FIRE 911 TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: H.R. Spurrier, City Engineer DATE: February 20, 1986 RE: _ Geometric Improvements and Resurfacing of Shingle Creek Parkway CSAH 10 to I94 -694 Project No. 1985-27, Contract 1986 -G Attached is the Engineering Report and a resolution establishing the project, accepting the City Engineer's Report and approving plans and specifications for Project No. 1985 -27, Contract 1986 -G (geometric improvements and resufacing of Shingle Creek Parkway from CSAH 10 to I94 -694). According to the Engineering Report prepared for the above- referenced project this project is feasible as proposed. It is, therefore, recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution establishing the project, accepting the City Engineer's Report and approving plans and specifications for Project No. 1985 -27, Contract 1986 -G. Respe fully submitted, Approved for submittal, H. izrr, r Sy K PP City Engine Director of Public Works HRS : j n SCPMEM "74 550 NNU CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF I:BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 551 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 ENGINEERING REPORT GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS AND RESURFACING SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY CSAH 10 TO I94 -694 PROJECT NO. 1985 -27 INTRODUCTION Shingle Creek Parkway between CSAH 10 and I94 -694 has been scheduled for improvement in 1986. The improvement consists of geometric improvements, curb and gutter repair, crack repair and bituminous overlay. BACKGROUND Shingle Creek Parkway between CSAH 10 and I94 -694 was paved under Improvement Project No. 1971 -08. After the original improvement there have been other geometric modifications which included construction of turnlanes and median cuts for development along Shingle Creek Parkway. That construction has produced longitudinal cracking along Shingle Creek Parkway where this work has occurred. Weathering has produced additional longitudinal and transverse cracking which would undermine the pavement structure which is now in good condition. The recent development of the historic Earle Brown Farm and the commercial development between John Martin Drive and Summit Drive along Shingle Creek Parkway require geometric modifications. After these modifications, curb cuts and turnlanes for all developed and undeveloped property along Shingle Creek Parkway between CSAH 10 and I94 -694 will be established. The City proposes landscape improvements in the Earle Brown Tax Increment District. These improvements include the intersections at John Martin Drive and Summit Drive. The proposed work consists of the following: 1. Replacement of cracked, settled and deteriorated concrete curb and gutter. 2. Installation and extension of turnlanes at CSAH 10, between John Martin Drive and Summit Drive and at the I94 interchange; and geometric improvements to the entrances of Hennepin County's Service Center and Library. 3. Repair of longitudinal and transverse cracking with geotextile fabric. 4. Bituminous overlay. Engineering Report - 1985 -28 Page 2 Replacement of the defective curb and gutter is routine work performed with bituminous overlays. Turn lane construction was work recommended in the Traffic Analysis prepared by Short- Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc. These improvements are intended to serve development which is expected to occur before structural work on Shingle Creek Parkway would be scheduled. The crack repair procedure is the same procedure used to repair the Northbound lane of Xerxes Avenue in 1985. The repair consists of milling a strip that is 12 to 26 inches wide by 2 inches deep, placing a geotextile fabric, .then filling the crack with a bituminous patch mixture. After the crack repair has been opened to traffic for a period of 1 to 2 weeks, the entire pavement section would be overlayed. The bituminous overlay completes geometric improvements. FUNDING The work proposed under this project is eligible for reimbursement from the City's Regular Municipal State Aid Fund Account. No special assessments are proposed for any part of the work. The estimated cost of the proposed work is summarized below: PROJECT ESTIMATE Construction Cost $359,100 Contingency (10 %) 35.900 SUBTOTAL 395,000 Engineering Cost (9 %) 35,500 Administrative Cost (1%) 3,900 TOTAL $434.400 The balance in the City's Regular Municipal State Aid Fund Account is $1,451,918.40. The City's Five Year Municipal State Aid Capital Improvement Program estimated the overlay work would cost $52,000. That estimate did not include geometric improvements, nor did it include the crack repair with geotextile fabric. The reserves in the Regular Municipal State Aid Fund Account are still sufficient to fund this project and maintain our current Five Year Municipal State Aid Capital Improvement Program (MSACIP). A copy of the five year MSACIP is included in the Appendix. Engineering Report 1985 -28 Page 3 CONCLUSIONS All of the proposed geometric improvements and resurfacing work on Shingle Creek Parkway is needed now or will be needed before the roadway would be scheduled for structural improvement. All of the proposed work could be funded by the City's Regular Municipal State Aid Fund Account without affecting the balance of the current Five Year Municipal State Aid Capital Improvement Program. The geometric improvements and resurfacing of Shingle Creek Parkway from CSAH 10 to I94 -694 is feasible a able as ro osed and is recommended for construction. P P I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by nor or under my direct supervisi n and th I a "T duly Registered Professional Engin r under he State of_Minnesota. Date, gistration No. 136c A P P E N D I X Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -144 RESOLUTION APPROVING FIVE YEAR MUNICIPAL STATE AID CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, it is estimated the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, will receive Municpal State Aid Street construction funds in the amount of $627,234 per year for the succeeding five years for use in the construction of the City's designated Municipal State Aid Street System; and WHEREAS, the City must make annual payments of $60,000 in 1986 and 1987 reducing the total available allottment in each of those year to $567,234. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the city of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the following schedule reflects the projected Municipal State Aid funds available for a five year Capital Improvements Program: Accumulated Funds Year Available 1985 Balance Available $1,208,418.40 $1,208,418.40 1986 Estimated Allotment 567,234 1,775,652.40 Available for Construction 1987 Estimated Allotment 567,234 2,342,886.40 Available for Construction 1988 Estimated Allotment 627,234 2,970,120.40 Available for Construction 1989 Estimated Allotment 627,234 3,597,354.40 Available for Construction 1990 Estimated Allotment 627,234 4,224,588.40 Available for Construction BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following Five Year Municipal State Aid Capital Improvement Program is hereby approved: RESOLUTION NO. 85 -144 Year Location Estimated Cost 1986 T.H. 252 North City Limits to 66th Avenue (City share) A. 73rd Avenue Approaches and Signal $ 20,000 B. 70th Avenue Approach and Signal 30,000 C. 66th Avenue Approach and Signal 30,000 Shingle Creek Parkway - I94 to C.S.A.H. 10 A. Overlay 52,000 B. Signals at Summit Drive and John Martin Drive 240,000 69th and 70th Avenue Dupont Avenue to Camden Avenue 328,000 Total 1986 Improvements $700,000 1987 France Avenue 50th Avenue to South City Limits $270,000 50th Avenue France Avenue to T.H. 100 108,000 51st Avenue at County Road 152 Signal and Approach 188,000 North Lilac Drive @ T.H. 100 and Brooklyn Boulevard 162,000 Total 1987 Improvements $728,000 1988 69th Avenue - Lee Avenue to Shingle Greek Parkway R/W Acquisition $1,600,000 Total 1988 Improvements $1,600,000 1989 69th Avenue - Lee Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway A. Signals at Brooklyn Boulevard and France Avenue $ 240,000 B. Reconstruct Roadway 11011,000 Total 1989 Improvements $1,251,000 RESOLUTION NO. 85 -144 I Year Location . Estimated Cost 1990 Freeway Boulevard - Shingle Creek Parkway to Camden Avenue A. Overlay from Shingle Creek Parkway to Humboldt Avenue $ 54,000 B. Widen from Humboldt Avenue to Camden Avenue 355,000 C. Signal at Shingle Creek Parkway 120,000 Total 1990 Improvements $529,000 5 Year Total Cost 1985 through 1990 $4,808,000 August 12, 1985 Date Maygr ATTEST: erk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1�h Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. I f RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) 33,000 I GVW CAB AND CHASSIS WHEREAS, written quotations were accepted for the purchase of One (1) 33,000 GVW Cab and Chassis. WHEREAS, the quotations received were as follows BIDDER QUOTATION Brookdale Ford $23,679.00 Lakeland Ford 23,712.00 Bill Boyer Ford 23,833.00 Superior Ford 23,858.00 North Star International Trucks 30,970.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the quotation for One (1) 33,000 GVW Cab and Chassis from Brookdale Ford, in the amount of $23,679.00 is hereby accepted and the City Manager is hereby authorized to contract for the purchase of the Cab and Chassis in the amount of $23,679.00 from Brookdale Ford. Date Mayor ATTEST Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i` Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO_ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) FOUR WHEEL UTILITY VEHICLE WHEREAS, written quotations were accepted for the purchase of One (1) Four Wheel Utility Vehicle. WHEREAS, the quotations received were as follows: BIDDER QUOTATION Cushman Motor Company, Inc. $7,821.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the quotation for One (1) Four Wheel Utility Vehicle from Cushman Motor Company, Inc., in the amount of $7,821.00 is hereby accepted and the City Manager is hereby authorized to contract for the purchase of the Utility Vehicle in the amount of $7,821.00 from Cushman Motor Company, Inc. 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. TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: Dick Ploumen, Public Works Superintendent DATE: February 19, 1986 RE: Contract for Purchase of Utility Vehicle On February 13, 1986, we opened bids for a utility vehicle for the Park Department. Two bids were submitted; one from Cushman Motor Company and one from Kromer Company. Cushman Motor Company's bid came in at $7,821, which was within the range provided for in the 1986 budget. Kromer Company submitted bid forms but had no bid as they determined that their unit could not meet the specifications. Jacobson did not receive specifications because they also determined that their unit could not meet specifications. Cushman, Kromer and Jacobson are the only suppliers in our area. Under these circumstances I recommend we accept the bid of Cushman Motor Company. JDs . Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS (BROOKDALE THREE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PROTECT'), AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST AND CERTAIN OTHER DOCUMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center (the "City ") has heretofore issued its Commercial Development Revenue Bonds ( Brookdale Three Limited Partnership Project), dated December 31, 1985, in the aggregate principal amount of $8,900,000 (the "Bonds ") pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated December 1, 1985, between the City and First Trust Company, Inc., as Trustee; and WHEREAS, the City loaned the proceeds of the Bonds to Brookdale Three Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited rtnershi (the "Obligor") Pa P g pursuant to, and for the purposes set forth in, a Mortgage Loan Agreement, dated December 1, 1985, between the City and the Obligor; and WHEREAS, the Bonds initially bore interest at the Initial Rate (as defined in the Indenture), with the , rovision that from and after the P Conversion Date, the Bonds would bear interest at the Fixed Rate, all as determined rmin in accordance with Articles Three and Four of the Indenture . and WHEREAS. February 27, 1986 has been established as the Conversion _ Date, the Fixed Rate for the Bonds has been established from and after the Conversion Date, notice of the Conversion Date has been provided each Holder of the Bonds in accordance with Article Four of the Indenture and, to the extent required, the Bonds have been remarketed by the Remarketing Agent; and WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable to execute a First Supple - mental Indenture of Trust_ to set forth the Fixed Rate, to establish the form of the replacement Bonds to be delivered to the purchasers thereof on the Conversion Date, and certain other matters; and WHEREAS, a draft of a First Supplemental Indenture of Trust (the "First Supplemental Indenture "), to be dated as of February 1, 1986, has been re red which p pa i h authorizes said matters. RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: I. A Conversion Date of February 27, 1986 is hereby authorized and approved. 2. The First Supplemental Indenture is approved and the Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to execute the First Supplemental Indenture on behalf of the City, with such changes and modifications as they and the City Attorney may hereafter approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by their execution of said document. 3. The Mayor and City Manager are further authorized to execute such other documents and certificates as may be required to accomplish the remarketing of the Bonds, subject to review of such documents and certificates by the City Attorney. 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. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 13, 1986 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, Carl Sandstrom, Wallace Bernards and Ann ,Wallerstedt. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioner Nelson had called to say he would be unable to attend and the Planner noted that Commissioner Ainas was coming from Brainerd and, due to the weather conditions, might not make the meeting. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE The Secretary then administered the oath of office to Commissioner Sandstrom for a new two year term to expire December 31, 1987. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 30, 1986 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to approve the minutes of the January 30, 1986 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Sandstrom. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 86005 (Stephen Cook) Noting that the applicant for the first item was not present, Chairman Lucht recommended that the application of Stephen Cook be - considered first. The Secretary then introduced Application No. 86005, a request for a variance from Section 35 - 1 400 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 Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86005 attached) Commissioner Bernards asked whether there were any structures on the lot. The Secretary responded in the negative. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked whether there was a problem with building a home on two lots. The Secretary stated that the property would have to be replatted into a single parcel. The Secretary further explained the location, of other duplexes in the surrounding area along Russell, Queen and Penn Avenues. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Stephen Cook stated that he planned to build a double bungalow and live in one of the units. He stated there have been some concerns expressed regarding crowding by people who live in the neighborhood. He pointed out that he also has a concern for the area since he would live there in the future and has lived in the Brooklyn Center area in the past. 40 Commissioner Malecki asked whether the duplex -would have to meet setback requirements. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He explained that the variance was only for lot area and that no other variances were implied in the application. 2 -13 -86 -1- PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 86005) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Louis Hedlund of 5316 -20 Russell Avenue North pointed out that the lot in question fell below the minimum requirements for a two - family dwelling. He stated that the other lots along Russell and in this neighborhood generally were larger than the minimum requirement for two- family dwellings. He also stated that the single - family lots to the south and east are the same size lots as that proposed for a two - family dwelling in this case. He pointed out that the applicant would be able to put a garage three feet from the side lot line. He stated that he did not want a two - family dwelling on too small a lot. He concluded his comments by stating that he opposed the application and recommended denial. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked Mr. Cook how the duplex would sit on the lot. Mr. Cook responded that he had not decided on a layout because plans were tentative until the variance was approved. He stated that the setbacks for a single- family home would be the same as for a double bungalow. He also stated that a single - family home on a 60' lot (which would not require a variance) would be more crowded than a two- family dwelling on a 90' lot. Mr. Hedlund noted that Mr. Cook had stated that he would occupy one of the units, but pointed out that Mr. Cook could leave at any time and rent out both units. Mr. Robert L. Hansen of 4951 Logan Avenue North, the owner of the vacant lots in question, explained the past history of providing utilities to properties in the area. He stated that the City never reimbursed him for a common sewer line along 53rd Avenue North. He stated that he lost money in providing those utilities and had always wanted to build a double bungalow on the property in question in order to recoup some of the money he had put into utilities. Mrs. Hedlund of 5316 -20 Russell Avenue North pointed out that all of the lots in the neighborhood that are two - family lots are much larger than the lot in question, by about 2, 000 sq . ft. She stated that this lot was about 20' narrower than the other lots in the area that have duplexes. Mr. Ray Blacik of 5324 -28 Russell Avenue North stated that he had owned his duplex since September of 1984. He stated that one of the selling points for his property was the large lots in the area. He stated that he had wanted to get away from the crowding that he experienced in living in St. Paul. He asked how close the duplex could come to a side lot 'line. The Secretary explained that the minimum sideyard setback for dwelling space is 10 whether it is a duplex or a single- family dwelling. He explained further that dwelling space could be allowed to be 5' on one side if it was 15' on the other side. He also pointed out that the two - family dwellings in the area have the right to expand up to the minimum setback requirements. Mr. Blacik stated that he wished to express his protest against the proposed variance. Mrs. Vincent Hall of 5311 Queen Avenue North stated that she preferred one two- family to two singles. Mr. Blacik commented that the applicant could not put two single- family dwellings on the property. There followed a discussion concerning the 30' half lot which was being sold with a 60' lot to make up the lot in question. It was pointed out that the property to the south also has a 30' half lot which, if combined with the 30' lot on the south side of this property, could make up a second single- family lot. 2 -13 -86 -2- Mrs. Ellenwood of 5300 Russell -- Avenue North stated that she has the same size lot as proposed by the applicant for a two - family dwelling and she feels that it is fine for a single - family home. She stated that she opposed the variance. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked what would be the market value of the duplex which Mr. Cook would build. Mr. Cook responded that his duplex would be a smaller version of one that his brother built along Brooklyn Boulevard and that the market value would likely be between $150,000 and $175,000. Mr. Blacik stated that the market value of his double bungalow is $109,000 as valued by the City. Mr. Cook clarified that he was estimating the market value, not the Assessor's value. Mrs. Hedlund asked about the size and layout of the duplex. Mr. Cook stated that that has not really been designed yet because his plans are tenative, subject to approval of the variance. He stated that the property in question was only about 3' short of having the legally required land area. Mrs. Hedlund stated that most of the neighbors surrounding the property are opposed to the variance and urged the Planning Commission to recommend denial. Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone else had anything to say. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Bernards to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that it was not Mr. Cook's fault that the lot in question was slightly smaller than required by City Ordinance. He stated that he did not know what other people in the area would do with the lot if they owned it, but stated that he felt a two - family dwelling in the .area would enhance the neighborhood. Commissioner Wallerstedt noted that the lot in question is 2.34% deficient in land area. She asked at what point a deficiency becomes critical so that the variance would be have to be denied. The Secretary stated that there was no definite level. He stated that the City used to have as part of its ordinance a "70% rule" whereby lots that met the 70% of the minimum requirement were granted variances. He stated that the ordinance has to be looked at as a minimum, not an average. He added, however, that the policy on lot variances has generally been to allow a variance if two of the three standards (area, width and depth) are met and as long as the request appears_ reasonable. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked whether the view would be obstructed possibly or property values detracted from if the two family were built up to the setback. The Secretary stated that he could not say for sure He asked in return whether perhaps the vacant lot devalues adjacent property. " He stated that the Assessor would not likely rule that a two- family dwelling would devalue' neighboring property. Regarding setbacks, he stated that the duplex would not obstruct views more than a single - family home, because both are subject to the same setbacks. Chairman Lucht pointed out that a single - family house on the lot in question could have the same floor area as a two - family dwelling. The Planner stated that one of the concerns regarding the variance was the possibility of building a single- family home on only a 60' lot and that the 30' lot might somehow go delinquent or not be properly maintained. He pointed out that a two - family dwelling on the 90' lot would be consistent with the zoning district and would make full use of the available land. 2 -13 -86 -3- ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86005 (Stephen Cook) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Maleck to o recommend approval of Application No. 86 on the rounds that the Standards for a e Pp 00 S Variance pp 5 V c g are met, and subject to the following condition: 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. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 86004 (Paul Worwa) The Secretary then introduced what had originally been scheduled as the first item of business, an appeal from a determination that Section 35 -2405 of the Zoning Ordinance permits only five children, including children of the resident family, in a family day care operation in the R3 zoning district. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86004 attached). The Secretary also clarified the wall separation between townhouses. He stated that two one -hour walls are required by a property line separation, not by zoning designation. He gave examples of rental townhouse complexes (Marvin Gardens, Victoria Townhouses and Georgetown Townhouses) which do not have two one -hour separations between units. He also reviewed with the Commission the past revision of the ordinance which allowed day care and other permitted home occupations in multiple-family residential districts. He stated that five children was decided on as a limit because of a concern regarding possible congestion in multiple- family districts, particularly apartment zones. The Secretary also referred to the licensing standards used by the State and the County in determining how many children could go into a family day care situation. The Secetary stated that he did not have those standards at hand, but would try to get them for the Commission's review in determining what is an appropriate number of children to be allowed in a townhouse family day care operation. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked if there was a specife recommendation from the staff. The Secretary answered that he did not recommend that the Planning Commission uphold the appeal since it seemed fairly obvious that allowing beyond five children in the R district would be contrary t t hat 3 o ar to he ordinance. He stated Y the Planning Commission may, however, wish to consider a change in the ordinance to allow more children in a day care operation in a townhouse. The Secretary 'then paraphrased the requirements of the State law with respect to zoning. He stated that 12 children in a licensed day care operation must be allowed as a permitted single- family use. He stated that 13 to 16 children in a licensed day care operation in a multiple - family district must be allowed "unless otherwise provided." He stated that the City does otherwise provide through its limitation of five children including children of the family in multiple- family districts. The Secretary explained that he did not feel the law requiring 13 to 16 children in a day care operation as a permitted use in the multiple- family districts referred to operations within a single residential dwelling unit, though it might exist within such a district or within a complex. The Secretary stated that the Commission might want to look at land area as some kind of gauge for the number of children that could be allowed. He pointed out that single- family homes are required to have more land area than townhouses, which, in turn, are required to have more land area than I apartment units. 2 -13 -86 -4- I .a Commissioner Bernards asked what process there was to review the City's ordinance on this question. The Secretary answered that the staff is presently under direction from the City Council to review the home occupation ordinance. He added that the City is also involved in a law suit with .Dr. Lescault regarding some of the provisions of the City's home occupation ordinance. He stated that the staff could draft an ordinance amendment for consideration by the Planning Commission on the question of day care in the R2 and R3 districts, if the Planning Commission so desires. Commissioner Bernards suggested that perhaps the resident children need not be counted. He asked whether the State limited the number of children based on a minimum floor area required. The Secretary responded that it was his understanding that it does. Chairman Lucht reiterated an interest in seeing those standards and stated that the Planning Commission could direct staff to prepare an amendment on the matter. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to say. Mr. Paul Worwa stated that the points in his letter were covered in the report. He stated that he would like to emphasize his desire for some compromise position for the R2 and R3 districts between the single - family allowance and the maximum permited for the R4 through R7 district. He stated that he felt the limitation of five children is too restrictive in the R3 district. He pointed out that his townhouse is larger than the single- family home he used to live in where he could have many more children. Commissioner Malecki again observed the need for a guide line based on square footage. There followed a brief discussion of the State regulations and the City's ordinance limitations. Mr. Worwa stated that the State regulations would allow at least five nonresident children in their townhouse. He stated that he did not know the exact square footage requirements. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked how large their townhouse was. Mr. Worwa responded that it was approximately 1400 sq. ft. Chairman Lucht asked the staff to obtain a copy of the State standards, including square footage requirements, for review by the Planning Commission in consideration of a possible ordinance amendment. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 86004 AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON DAY CARE STANDARDS Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to table Application No. 86004 and to direct staff to provide further information on the State's licensing requirement for family day care for possible revision of the City's ordinance. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The e T Secretary asked whether there was any other direction . to the staff in terms of possibly drafting an ordinance amendment. He asked whether the Commission agreed with the idea of distinguishing the R2 and R3 districts from the R4 through R7 districts. Commissioner Bernards responded in the affirmative and recommended only changing the R2 and R3 district limitations. Chairman Lucht asked Mr. Worwa whether the Homeowners' Association Agreements in any way limited the number of children that would be allowed in a day care operation. Mr. Worwa stated that there was no provision in his association's agreement that he was aware of. Commissioner Wallerstedt stated that she would be interested in standards that would require quality in day care operations. The Secretary answered that the State has preempted the area of regulation having to do with the operation of day care in homes. He stated that the City regulates daycare as a home occupation, that is, from the standpoint of land use. Commissioner Wallerstedt stated that she was 2 -13 -86 -5- aware of the City's limitations, but wished to encourage quality in day care operations. The Secretary agreed and also stressed his support for the limit of five in apartments. He stated that to allow more in an individual apartment unit would be overly disruptive. APPLICATION NO. 86006 (Phillip Johnson /Wes Reavely) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to remodel the old Arthur Treacher's restaurant at 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard to a repair garage. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86006 attached). The Secretary also noted that he had received a - call from Boyer Palmer, the owner of the apartment complex to the east, in which he expressed no opposition to the proposed special use permit. Commissioner Malecki asked whether there would be any outside storage with the operation and how much. The Secretary stated that he was not aware of any outside storage planned, but that if there were any, it would be subject to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and must be screened. In response to a question from Commissioner Sandstrom regarding permitted signery, the Secretary stated that the maximum for the freestanding sign would be approximately g0 sq. ft. and that the wall signs could be up to 30% of the wall area. Commissioner Malecki inquired as to the need for the finger of land between the service station site and the proposed repair garage site. The Secretary showed this area on the map and explained that it was needed by the apartment complex to meet area requirements for the number of units in the complex. He stated that such an arrangement should not be allowed in the future. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Phillip Johnson, the architect for the project, stated that he could answer any questions of the Commission. He explained that the exterior treatment on the west end of the building would be wood framing to compliment the brick exterior around the rest of the building. He stated that there would be a door on the west end of the building. Commissioner Malecki asked if this would be an office area. Mr. Johnson responded in the affirmative. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 86006) 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 Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Malecki expressed a concern that the landscaping on the site be brought up to its original quality. She stated that it was important for the site to look nice since it is in a very visible location on Brooklyn Boulevard. ACTION RECONMNDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86006 (Phillip Johnson /Wes Reavely Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 86006, subject to the following conditions: 2 -13 -86 I -6- 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. Building plans are subject to r and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. New parking delineators shall be surrounded by B612 curb and gutter in accordance with City Ordinance. 7. Site landscaping, including the underground irrigation system, shall be restored to the original Arthur Treacher's site landscape plan prior to release of the performance guarantee or a new landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the completion date in the performance agreement. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:14 p.m. and resumed at 9 :39 P.m. DISCUSSION ITEM (Retail Parking Formula) The Planner then introduced a discussion of the City's retail parking formula and reviewed the existing formula and two alternate formulas which he had devised for discussion purposes. He also reviewed with the Commission a table of required parking spaces under the various formulas for various sizes of buildings. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the staff had considered the`possbility of allowing smaller stalls for compact vehicles. The Planner answered that that had been looked at, but that it had been rejected because it was felt that it would not be adequately enforceable inmost of the parking lots in the City, particularly retail establishments. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that such stalls are used quite frequently in parking ramps where there is a use by the general public. The Secretary pointed out that parking ramps provide concrete physical barriers which prevent larger cars from using such stalls. He explained that it would be more difficult to restrict the use of such stalls in an open parking lot and cited an experiment by Brookdale to put in such stalls in their lot which had failed. The Planner went on to explain that the alternate formulas given to the Commission would mainly affect the parking requirement for smaller retail buildings. He stated that, as the building got larger, the difference between these alternate formulas and the existing formula would narrow to become insignificant. He 2 -13 -86 -7- explained that the existing formula requires more stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. for smaller buildings than for larger buildings. He added that a study by the Urban Land Institute showed just the opposite relationship between building size and parking demand. He also showed the Planning Commission some aerial photographs that had been taken over the Christmas shopping period of Brookdale and some of the surrounding retail establishments. The Secretary pointed out that a parking requirement may be more or less excessive depending on the particular tenant mix of a building. He stated that, as the mix changed, the parking demand might also change. He also explained that parking requirements serve as form of density control to limit the amount of building that can be put on a parcel of land. He also stated that many spaces go unused because they are not very accessible to the building. He noted that proof -of- parking has been allowed in peripheral areas of some major developments where it was felt that the stalls would not be used and the space would be more appropriately kept in green area. Chairman Lucht asked what uses would be affected by the alternate formulas. The Planner explained that it would affect retail developments only, not medical buildings, restaurants, service stations or other uses allowed in the C2 zoning district. The Planner went on to explain that, typically, stores with big ticket items, such as appliances, furniture, stereos, etc., draw less parking demand than stores which deal in smaller items. He stated that it would be unwise to try to tailor the parking ordinance to fit a particular mix of tenants since these tenant mixes change and buildings would actually have less flexibility to change occupancy than if there was a single formula that was adequate for all tenant uses. The Planner discussed more thoroughly the alternate formulas. He pointed out that the second alternate formula would be more in line with what was recommended by the Urban Land Institute study, but would have a very drastic effect in reducing the parking requirement for buildings under 30,000 sq. ft. in floor area. He noted the percentage change listed on the table. He noted that under the ULI study Y, office g g parking requirements should actually be greater than retail requirements, the opp other cities osite of the i parking e stated o City's H PP A � Y � have arkin requirements in the neighborhood of s paces p er 1 00 s . ft . of gross A g q g 5 P P s0 q g floor area. He noted that the first alternate formula would basically be a requirement of 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. He explained that the need for 10 spaces for the first 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area was to deal with the small convenience store operations which have only 2,000 sq. ft. and yet draw very rapid turnover traffic. There was a brief discussion regarding the implications of a reduced parking requirement. The Planner acknowledged that a lower parking requirement would probablly lead to higher density of development, at least on smaller parcels. He stated, however, that higher developement potential probably meant higher profit potential and consequently the possiblity for higher quality. He suggested that perhaps as a tradeoff for reducing the parking requirement the City should enact more detailed landscaping requirements to ensure that some of that quality did actually come about in site designs. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of upcoming business items, there was a motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:32 p.m. 2 -13 -86 -8- ,Chairman Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86004 Applicant: Paul Worwa Location 6801 Fremont Place North Request: Appeal This application is an appeal from a determination by staff that not more than five (5) children may be allowed in a day care operation conducted in a townhouse in the R3 zoning district. The specific property in question is 6801 Fremont Place North, a townhouse in the Hi Crest Square Estates development. That development is zoned R3 and is bounded by 69th Avenue North on the north, by single- family homes on the east, by the Hi Crest Apartments on the south, and by Humboldt Square Shopping Center on the west. Section 35 -312 of the Zoning Ordinance allows permitted home occupations in the R3 zone. Section 35 -405 further limits such home occupations to include day care of "five (5) children, including children of the family occupying a dwelling unit in other residential districts (R2 through R7)." On the basis of these ordinance sections, the Worwas have been denied a day care license for more than 2 nonresident children since they have 3 children of their own. The appellant has submitted a letter (attached) in which Mr. Worwa sets forth his arguments against the City's ordinance limitations. He differentiates townhouses and double bungalows from apartments and points out that his existing townhouse is larger and is adjacent to more open space than his previous detached home in which he could be allowed to provide day care for 10 children. Mr. Worwa also points out that apartment units are separated by a single one hour fire -rated wall, whereas townhouse units are separated by two such walls. Mr. Worwa goes on to discuss the demand for day care in the townhouse development and the difficulties of getting licensed. He concludes by recommending that the ordinance be changed to allow seven or eight children in family-day care in the R2 or R3 distri -cts, but not a-ire than five non - residents. Staff would point out that state law has changed since our current ordinance was adopted and that 12 children may now be served by a day care operation in a single- family zone. It may be that, from a land use perspective, the City should not count resident children toward the five to be allowed since they do not represent addi- tional traffic to or from the premises. We have contacted a number of other cities and there is a wide range among these communities (Minneapolis suburbs) as to how they treat family day care in a townhouse unit. Some prohibit the activity entirely; others treat a townhouse the same as a single - family residence and allow up to 12 chit dren, which is mandated as a permitted single - family use of property under M innesota Statute 462.357. Some communities have not had to deal with the-question at all. Brooklyn Park requires the issuance of a special use permit for the care of more than 2 children in a family dare care operation located in a townhouse. Staff believe that state law does allow municipalities to limit the number of children in a family day care operation in multi - family residential districts to less than 12 or even to prohibit such operations altogether. It is, therefore, purely a policy question as to how many children should be allowed in a family day care operation in the R3 zoning district. One of the chief arguments made by the appellant has to do with the need for a distinction between a townhouse or double bungalow and an apartment unit. Mr. Worwa makes the case that townhouses and double bungalows have superior sound separation and better access to green space than a typical apartment unit. We acknowledge these differences and agree that a further refinement of the ordinance, to distinguish between the R2 and R3 districts on one hand and the R4 -R7 districts on the other, would not be illogical. We do not recommend any change in the R4 -R7 districts. 2'-13 -86 �T Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86005 Applicant: Stephen L. Cook Location: 5312 Russell Avenue. North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a duplex on a lot that is deficient in area. The property in question is zoned R2 and is bounded on the north by a duplex, on the east and south by single - family homes, and on the west by Russell Avenue North. Two - fami dwellings are permitted uses in the R2 zoning district. Specifically, the applicant wishes to build on two parcels of land that are combined for tax purposes and are for sale jointly. One lot is 60.5' wide by 1 33.45' deep. The other half -lot to the south is 30.25' wide by the same depth. The total area of the combined lots is 12,110 sq. ft. The Zoning Ordinance requires that two- family dwellings in the R2 zoning district have a land area of 6,200 sq. ft. per dwelling unit, or 12,400 sq. ft. for the total structure. The deficiency in this case is, therefore, 290 sq. ft. (approximately 2.34 %) A lot area variance is subject to the standards set forth in Section 35 -240 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 15 -112 of the Subdivision Ordinance (see both attached). In general, these standards require that: the circumstances of the property be unique; that the applicant will suffer a hardship if the ordinance is strictly fol o ed because he /she will be denied the reasonable use of their property; that the circumstance was not caused by the applicant or the property owner past or present; and that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the sur- rounding neighborhood. The applicant, Mr. Stephen Cook, has submitted a letter (attached) addressing the variance standards. Mr. Cook points out that the 60' lot is buildable by itself for a single - family dwelling and that, if the variance is denied, he would have no reason to buy the additional 30' wide lot. He states that, to the best of his knowledge, the situation in question is unique and not common in the R2 district. Mr. Cook goes on to say that the situation has not been caused intentionally by anyone by anyone presently or formerly having an interest in the parce l.of land and also that granting the variance would not be detrimental to. . . the neighbor- .hood. The letter does not really reason how the standards are met, but, for the most part, simply asserts that they are met. While the applicant's arguments are understated, we agree with the conclusion. Given the alternatives (two single - family homes with a 30' no -man's land left tax delinquent in between), it would seem unreasonable in this case to deny the variance request. The situation is fairly unique. There are other vacant multiple- lot combinations in the city, but, in most of those cases, both lots are buildable in their own right (eg. two 40' wide lots which, under Section 35 -500 are usually buildable). The situation has not been created by the property owner. The existino R2 zoning and the lot area requirement for a duplex have come about after the proper - ty was subdivided. Finally, there is no real negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. There are four additional duplexes further north on Russell Avenue North and an additional 12 duplexes within a two block radius of the property. It should be noted that the current owner of the property in question (who is also the former owner of 5300 Russell Avenue North, the house to the south) has submitted a letter also requesting that the variance be granted (see attached). 2 -13 -86 -1- i Application No. 86005 continued The general policy on lot variances over the last 10 years or so has been to allow a variance if two of the three lot requirements (area, width and depth) are met. The width requirement for a two - family interior lot is 75'. The minimum depth is 110'. Both these requirements are met in this case. It would, therefore, seem consistent with past policy to approve the variance request. Section 35 -540 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that multiple parcels devoted to a single use must be combined into.a single parcel through platting or registered land survey. Accordingly, staff would recommend that the application be approved subject to the following condition: 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 -13 -86 -2- y . 40 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86006 Applicant: Wes Reavely Location: 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Permit The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to remodel the existing Arthur Treacher's restaurant building at 6100 Brooklyn Boule- vard to a four -bay, automobile repair garage. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded by Burger King on the north, by an 18 unit apartment complex on the east and south, and by Brooklyn Boulevard on the west. An automobile repair garage is classified as a special use in the C2 district and is not permitted to abut R1, R2, or R3 zoned property including abutment at a street line. No such abutment exists in this case. The proposed use is, therefore, comprehended under the C2 zoning of the property. The applicant is the owner of Wes' Amoco to the south who will operate both sites. The parking requirement for the repair garage is 3 stalls for each bay, plus 1 stall per employee, plus at least 2 stalls for service vehicles. This works out, in this case, to 19 spaces. There are 32 spaces currently on the site. Relocation of two parking lot islands to allow adequate space for turning movements into the service bays will reduce the available parking to 27 spaces. The site plan proposes to restore existing landscaping. Plantings which could not be restored would�6ither be replaced or a new planting plan would be proposed. No grading changes are proposed. The exterior of the building would only be altered along the west end by framing over most of the existing windows with wood siding. No expansions are proposed. The interior ceiling is low and probably will not allow for service of any vehicles larger than automobiles. The special use permit aspect of this. application raises the issue of the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area of Brooklyn Boulevard. The Com- prehensive Plan recommends service /office (Cl) uses along both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard between 58th Avenue North` and 62nd Avenue North. Although the repair garage is comprehended under the C2 zoning of the property, the C2 zoning itself is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Either a permitted or special C2 use would, therefore, be inconsistent with the Plan (unless it was a Cl use allowed in the C2 zone). Although the zoning of the property is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it should be pointed out that, legally, the zoning of a property controls use directly and the Plan recommendation only indirectly. Denial of the special use permit on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the Plan would probably not, therefore, be upheld in court. What should happen to fully effectuate the Plan is a rezoning of the property to Cl. If this were accomplished, the repair garage, the existing restaurant or other purely C2 uses would all be nonconforming uses of the property. We do not believe the application can be denied under existing conditions. However, the applicant should be informed of the fact that the proposed repair garage is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that the possibility exists that a future rezoning action consistent with the Plan could make the proposed use of the premises nonconforming. 2 -13 -86 -1- -N Application No. 86006 continued The policy of effectuating the Plan along Brooklvn Boulevard has, to date, been basically reactive. No rezonings of property have been initiated apart from proposed development plan. In one case, a proposed office - condominium development at the southwest quadrant of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard spurred an eventual Compre- hensive Plan amendment to allow office or mid - density residential uses - interchange ably along Brooklyn Boulevard in those locations where either use was recommended. We would recommend strongly a gainst a Plan amendment in this case that would make C2 uses, permitted or special, acceptable between 58th Avenue North and 62nd Avenue . North. Such an amendment would seriously undermine the basic philosophy of the Com- prehensive Plan for Brooklyn Boulevard which calls for the more intense C2 uses to be concentrated at three "nodes ": at Brookdale, at 63rd Avenue North and between the freeway and 70th Avenue North. The remaining areas of the Boulevard are slated for low and mid - density residential or service /office uses. This approach is geared to preventing long strips of commercial development which bring traffic problems and the visual pollution of large parking lots and excessive signery. The proposed use is not really a step backward from this policy since the previous use was also a C2 special use with even more traffic; but it does put fulfillment of the Plan much farther off. Regarding the Standards for Special Permits contained in Section 35 -220 (attached), staff do not see any deficiency with respect to standards (a), (d) and (e). Standard (b) respecting impact on property values is also probably met since the proposed use is unlikely to detract from the adjacent apartment complex any more than the con- venience food restaurant did. As to standard (c) regarding the impact on the normal and orderly development of surrounding property, it should be noted that all sur- rounding property is actually developed. (The finger of land that exists along the south side of the site actually belongs to the apartment complex to the east and is required for density purposes). As the preceding discussion of the Comprehensive Plan makes clear, the proposal does not facilitate the redevelopment of this area in fashion conforming with the Plan. One bright note is that two sites will now be under one ownership which may reduce complications of assembly land for a redevelop- ment proposal. On balance, staff must conclude that the special use permit standards are generally met. Approval of this application should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be sub mitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equip- ment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 2 -13 -86 -2 Application No. 86006 continued 6. New Parking delineators shall be surrounded by B612 curb and gutter in accordance with City Ordinance. 7. Site landscaping, including the underground irrigation system, shall be restored to the original Arthur Treacher's site landscape plan prior to release of the performance guarantee or a new landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the completion date in the performance agreement. 2 -13 -86 -3- Ar 4 11111111 14 MEMO INC-- PC Ell �n®® ®r LAND EIUS : (612)544 -7619 Certif icate of Survey s � _ SURVEYING & LAND PLANNING f .1415 NORTH LILAC DRIVE. GOLDEN VALLEY. MN 55422 STEVE C /33.45 uj. /x v O t 4 �,�� _ korth line of lot 4 ci }� I< _„ 30 3 0 .:_ I c. 28293 © ati � DEsmpno�U ti ✓g i . ZIP /North /2 of lot 4 and o// of tN eRR c� Ln lot 5, block e, ROBERT L. HRIVSEIIJ'S FIRST ADDITION, ? F 9i11,�y Hennepin Gounty, Minnesota . - ..1� �o� ilZ�'� SEAL E I x 30' o Denotes iron rnon omen t WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF, THE LAND ABOVE DESCRIBED AND OF THE LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS, IF ANY, THEREON, AND ALL VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, IF ANY, FROM OR ON SAID LAND. Datod this 97th day of JanyorY A.D. 19 Job No. 208.01 - Book Page bl br Surveyor, Minnesota //8 R_ . , Minnesota Registration No 13293 Sec. T. all MMM Mong INNS Nw �i���i�� wANGSTAD WIN small MEN AM ME MEM Mm MM MW MM MM MO M M Mom m MEN MEN nom:: i�U���i ���i��� � n���► �� . NO 1 � Mm m � mm � .� n o: on MIM mm m Mm MEN IM I. me MONO IN ElMOM mmimm Mm mm M Mu AP MM ii, • AIM I. r . 4 {' �3F�1► -Snq sq' tli�bJ3=1 cal.- �r ;)wbid , O , cl m Wp �- — -- -- -- •� `? t Hag hl J Ht: atulst Q c a av y W sN Y�! t FWD of o f 9tiog 1 O n p '•, anon II � nl! Huai 1s 1c } , 1 a • t, i 1 t . S *NW J ) 11.7 *N t.LS t HO t t . - t . .,�•�Wyzt� t�ht lt�� Hes,vw ng - :1--, wo 7S x, lip lit'tv�d is CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , at P.M. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Vacating Part of the Right of Way of Logan Avenue North along Lot 6, Block 2, Northbrook Center Addition. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE N0. VACATING PART OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF LOGAN AVENUE NORTH ALONG LOT 6. BLOCK 2 NORTHBROOK CENTER ADDITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Any interest, ownership or license to the right of way Logan Avenue North described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 6. Block 2. Northbrook Center Addition. thence North 0 degrees 58 minutes 01 seconds East a distance of 190 feet to the actual Point of beginning, thence deflecting to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes OO seconds a distance of 0.25 feet thence North 0 degrees 58 minutes 0 1 seconds East a distance of 260 feet, thence deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds to a point on the Westerly right of way line of Logan Avenue North. thence Southerly 260 feet along said right of way l ine to the point of beginning, Hennepin County. Minnesota. is hereby vacated. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date s CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of at P.M. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Vacating An Easement in Part of Lot 6, Block 2, Northbrook Center Addition. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE N0. VACATING PART OF AN EASEMENT IN LOT 6, BLOCK 2, NORTHBROOK CENTER ADDITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An interest ownership or license to the property described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 6 Block 2 Northbrook Center Addition, thence North 0 degrees 58 minutes 01 seconds East a distance of 190 feet to the actual point of beginning, thence deflecting to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 0.25 feet thence North 0 degrees 58 minutes 01 seconds East a distance of 260 feet thence deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds to a point on the Westerly right of way line of Logan Avenue North. thence Southerly 260 feet along said right of way line to the point of beginning Hennepin County, Minnesota. is hereby vacated. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF 1 :13ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 1 911 TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: H.R. Spurrier, City Engineer DATE: February 19, 1986 RE: VACATING EASEMENT in.Lot 6, Block 2, Northbrook Center Addition Evest Partners, Ltd., property owner, has requested the vacation of a portion of the easement along Logan Avenue North in Lot 6, Block 2, Northbrook Center Addition. The building within the Northbrook Shopping Center adjacent to Logan Avenue North has an overhang on its East side that encroaches into the public right of way of Logan Avenue North. (See attached copy of the survey of Northbrook Shopping Center.) The owner is requesting vacation of an area 3 inches in depth and approximately 252.45 feet in length along Logan Avenue North. We will hold a public hearing on the vacation and mail notice to Northern States Power, Minnegasco, Storer Cable and Northwestern Bell that the City proposes to vacate the easement. It is my recommendation that the City Council approve the attached Ordinance vacating the utility and drainage easement in Lot 2, Block 2, Northbrook Center Addition. Resp ' ,$ 1 ubmitted, Approved for submittal, r H. S ,u tier Sy app City En`' eer Director of Public Works Attachments: Vicinity Map Survey R.L. Rom Letter HRS : j n ORDVAC.MEM �� ?4 m ,. F A E G R E & B E N S O N GEORGE O: McC LI NTOCK Y" "AS H. KIRMIER 1 J TAYLOR DOUGLAS J ES A. O EAL JEFF ECK LAND AND DDGER O DBYE WA P CE EL2 BETH L. OR R EORGS E RDING SMITH SHARPE.. R.. SA LY 'A „JOHNSON EG KI NTZING ER OH OL EN PHILIP 5. GARON WALTER ROCNENSTEIN II ENN ER MEWALDT p AN C N GRAM W O.HN F. BEUK EMA 2300 MULTIFOODS TOWER oBE T L.CO K NS DA O M NN MERT W OELXE LTER DUFFY. JR. BRUCE M.ENGLER THOMAS SCM NETTLER E A 5 JAMES P. STEPHENSON SUSAN L. JACOBSON MARY T GERALD T. FLOM REIO. CARIRE N LLY 33 SOUTH SIXTH STREET W LTER A.P CKMSo A LYLE G. WARD CHARLES L. HORN A DAVID JACK D. GAGE .JOHN K- STEfFEN DO NALD. C. SHEPARD LAN M "11R ON PET ER W. ANSON JOHN IS GORDON - WEN DY.�. WILDU NG. MARY K. BACHMAN Bo ES FITZMAUR ICE THOMAS M. MAYE RLE SCM TT . JOHNSON RK O. KO a LBIO DON G. BUSDICKER THOMAS G. MORGAN MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 -3694 Es O.00ON NOR MELISSA �c LENAHAN MARY TRIPPLER PATRICK C. LEUNG. ONN D. FRENCH EDWARD G. NEILMAN MIANE O. STOCKMAN JAMES C. WINE aONALD B. HEMSTAD JOHN H. H NDERAKER ELINDA GORE ELL VA NG BRUCE BATTC RSON NORMAN -CARPENTER OBERT L, E YELL. JR. MICHAEL S. FROST SCOTT P. DRAWE L W C, BROWN RICHAR A. NELSON 612/371 -5300 JAMES OLLING SCOTT R RAWE H TIN. , A B RRI U.RKE BRIAN .O'MEILL RICHARD K. BAU MAN CAROL H. „EARN JO MN T E. N S THOMAS J. GORE- TELEX 425131 THOMAS H. BENNIN KAREN LO HEARN PAUL . BIRKELAND CHAEL E. MURPHY DAVID M. BEAOIE JOHN D. SHIVELY• SHELLE FUITZMAURICE AMES M. PFAU DAVID R. BRENNAN WILLIAM R. BUSCH, _ SUSAN NN STEVEN L. 5EVERSON RI CHARD C. SCHMOKER BONNIE M. LEMING M ICHAE M. MOLTING I THOMAS M. CROSBY, JR HENRY F. FR I— MICHAEL R. VAST WART CALVIN IITSEY U DW IG B. GARTNER,JP. RANDY M. LEBEDOFF DAVID M. VAWDER AR DAVID OREHOUSE ME S B. LOKEN WINTHROP A. ROCKWELL P ETER) W. LIAMS LINDA J. RUSCH ARTHUR L. D jACN M. FRIBLEY MAR�A ITHOFF CYNTHIA A. Mc MATT IN DUANE W K OHNKE OHN 5. JAGIELA NNE T. REM ED— TENE NCE BRAnIGAN G ORGE W. FLYNN STEVEN C.SCHROER STEVEN R .ANDREWS A Cv G. ETZWILER MES A. DU.HOLM JOHN P . SC ER KRISTIN . SIEGES MUND NA2EN GRAVES HUBERT V. FORCIEP HE— M�. HOARD HOWARD w. Be RG MAN MARY A. HECK JAM E5 M.SAMPLES RICHARDA. H R OBERT FULTO ELDE N .CHAEL E KAVOVKJIAN DALE E. BEIHOFFER STEVE W. GASKINS SUSAN G L EEURE DOUGLAS LONG JEANNINE LEE CHRISTINE O: HER IMAN GALE R. W. SNIDE ROBERT C. HENTG ES TIMOTHY R. SGHUPP DIANA YOUNG MORRISSEY JERRY W, SNIDER STEVEN R. AN OE R30N 2300 REPUBLIC PLAZA CHARLES' E. UNDERBRINK TERRI K. SIMAAD ENORIK D[ JONG JAY D. CHRISTIANSEN STEPHEN FOSHOLT C HARLE N S. FE RR LL DANIEL G. WI1C2EK VALERIE N. WELCH FRANK B. BUTLER" DAVID ILLER 370 SEVENTEENTH STREET B. BROM BERG CHARLES T PARKS. JR. GORDON B. CONN, JR. - JAMES E. NIC HOLSON DENVER, COLORADO 80202 DANIEL) MEN BRUCE A. ACKERMAN REBECCA L. ROM KART L. ANDERSON MICHAEL H. HARPER, JR. MARK F. ENGEBRETSON 303/592:54590 AN T HOMY R. BATTLES RESIDENT IN DENVER February 6, 1986 Mr. Cy Knapp Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Vacation of Part of Logan Avenue North for Northbrook Shopping Center, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Dear Mr. Knapp: By this letter our client, Evest Partners, Ltd. formally applies for vacation of part of Logan Avenue North for the Northbrook Shopping Center. The building within the Northbrook Shopping Center adjacent to Logan Avenue North has an overhang on its east side that encroaches approximately .17 feet into the public right of way of Logan Avenue North. I enclose for your review a copy of the survey of Northbrook Shopping Center. We are requesting vacation of an area 3 inches in depth and approximately 252.45 feet in length. This vacated area constitutes the length of the Northbrook Shopping Center along Logan Avenue North. We respectfully request that the City of Brooklyn Center find that the above- described portion of Logan Avenue North is not needed for a public purpose and vacate that part of Logan Avenue North for the Northbrook Shopping Center. Please keep me (371 -5341) or Ms. Heidi Fischer (371 -3177) advised of all meetings and proceedings which involve our request for vacation. Very truly yFs; Rebecca L. Rom RLR:can Enc. cc: Daniel P. Gail i �C �O. I ° I f �i ` i J l I IIIItI 5 f - � X -i - - a• I 8 C 1_ __ _ - - V✓ o d d g'. t ^ y T — : 'I' —r ' � — j `� � m � ceww try 7 rz • �II tij rt .tae 6o S-'oRY w CONafrt Blocr "m ` o gCOCY Balm 3 a J i� B4frx Ac nG Co uN rRr Ctua n lT Itr:s a Y a f �r >Nerinrrn Slolrl Pwrer fda '. Eonmm /po' daana tp�l+tt / rup/a t l _ rstr /� w' .•r� �� ! v s wt . l i° 1 / l I I / � `� • ��jjj... i � ���```�1 I' jluJli oirSmN br ddrw..d«nbse� �.j „, �' ! � � 4 + / ' '`b ^k�� � /� C /(�� � I ^ � - I� ^ �a+ttrre Suer -, —133 68 — Iq riirtt l / l l ,�� Crc ewaas s , r , rJ r _ �a ✓ leas g o I I .Mt,.t p8w .....L �,. . s +�1�1 r .. N II li• K `� r8rp i � - I 11 Ivl I I I' I ' X 214.98 I t ��' — 133.61 •� � f.p'.ep•gK ti tr'i,iew %k eottmenl (n obc no. rJe7a?t 57 AVENUE s N MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection DATE: February 20, 1986 SUBJECT: Real Estate Si gns The City Council has requested information regarding various sizes of real estate signs located in Brooklyn Center and how they relate to current ordinance provisions. Attached is a copy of Section 34 -140, Subdivision 2 1 (1) of the City Ordinances regarding permitted real estate signs that do not require a permit. The ordinance allows on -site real estate signs located on residential property that are less than 10 sq. ft. in area and off -site open house type signs during the time of an open house or showing that do not exceed 2.5 sq. ft. in area. During the week of February 2 through February 8, Code Enforcement Officers Nass, Nadeau and Tombers measured and compiled a list of real estate signs located in the City. All but one of these signs were on -site signs and all were less than the maximum size allowed by the ordinance. Six square feet (24" by 36 ") was the most common size on -site real estate sign. (See Exhibit No. l attached). On the weekend of February 15 and 16, Nadeau measured and compiled a list of off - site open house type signs. Of the eight signs noted, only two were less than the 2.5 sq. ft. permitted by the ordinance. Three square feet (18" by 24 ") was the most common size off -site sign noted. (See Exhibit No. 2 attached). At your request, I have also attached a copy of my December 13, 1985 memo to the Planning Commission and a co of the ordinance y o dinance amendment amendment regarding copy 9 rummage sale signs gns that was recommended by the Commission but Y rejected b the Y Cit Council. We will be prepared to discuss this matter further with the City Council at Monday evening's meeting. 34 -140 g. Signs or posters painted on or attached to the inside of a display window. This shall include illuminated signs, but not flashing signs. h. I'lags, badges, or insignia of any government or governmental agency, or of any civic, religious, fraternal or professional organization. Commercial and industrial establishments may display a single flag consisting of the official corporate seal or insignia as identification of the individual establishment. Advertising or promotion of specific products or services is prohibited unless approved in conjunction with an administrative permit as provided in Section•35 --800. i. Emergency signs required by other agencies. j. Temporary displays which are erected to celebrate, commemorate, or observe a civil or religious holiday. k. Courtesy bench signs, provided they are installed and maintained by a person, firm or corporation licensed by the City Council. 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) square feet for residential property and thirty -two (32) square feet 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 real estate signs announcing 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 sign shall not exceed 2.5 square feet. 2. A temporary freestanding sign for the purpose of announcing or promoting a new residential, commercial or industrial project development, provided that each residential project contains at least six (6) dwellings or lots. Further • provisions are that one such sign is permitted for each major thoroughfare the project abuts; the signs shall be located at least one hundred thirty (130) feet from any pre - existing •� �- ' 3ea1 4 y S 19 rN groviG 1yn Cen =ems a _ 3 � y�(4 10 ) 6;k do Ncxs's 53 A lot rICA _T&M rs 9 i Drew A/o-;s 5133 Drew 70m bp, rs 3 H ) f4cl e 11 5°! Zen,T4 To Vie rS 31 iFt _Oubales IVrA.deat0 3706 53`' PL T �., 0 th Ovpo„T M errill �...►?c %, 36 "? x S.S n1� rri)_�l! c 1 - si,re ,Z5,.Y,� �n a40 dun NctsS e 63 331 Ca, rdcr Vass - 330d ld{;c, /Vadect cenT �� 36xa Y " G '� Cerl juryl 590'7 L y no4'c, le '7 0 6'7 U, j7•y ; 1 'Howe z,, Cd1Q� i � ii �•n:Cer $ x .7-, 3 -T uS�rce r' ,f �c 3 c��yp NE � n "'r ".' •Oaf 9 01 - 5 v- 7 ' r�ls ;, - ..y ' 'T 'J i1 � "c J T n f 1r� �tSS 5 6' V" 9 Pipr�Q�= Ong & - f �r I K re�� e7 J1JD l. oCc� TrJnl rr l�Jt i Cdun .seir .2 Et y.22" 3• �6? �� T RH -w y ",� � ,: y.�G7 � apt 4 7 3 Tcr;:�? t tic. Lpercc - rj4 ,, ) f,,C "qg► ' Exeye,� JT � 0.* ! 7 v - A V OL772 ' � - �k� _ =T� / � •Y � � �e� —� ��-- lam. _ l/ 4 `�� � `•� � � � x� � fi t. >� ? �► _, __ ,. _ �- f t • T MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Ronald A. Warren,.Planning Commission Secretary �C4; DATE: December 13, 1985 SUBJECT: Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendments on December 17, 1985 Agenda Two ordinance amendments are being offered for the Planning Commission's consideration on December 17, 1985. Both amendments primarily relate to the Sign Ordinance and address two different issues. The first issue relates to rummage sale signs and was raised on October 7, 1985 at the Open Forum portion of the City Council meeting. A Ms. Carol Kleven, 5835 Zenith Avenue North, presented her concerns regarding the interpretation and enforcement of the ordinance relating to garage sale signs. She noted that after decorating her yard with balloons for a garage sale, she was informed that the balloons would have to be removed because they are a prohibited form of signery. She also questioned the interpretation of the ordinance and indicated that it is not clear regarding the use of balloons. She added that she had no problem with other provisions of the ordinance regarding the number and duration of sales, prohibition against posting signs on power poles, etc., but felt the restriction against balloons and other atten- tion attracting devices for a garage sale or other events was overboard. The staff was directed to look into the matter to see if some modifications to the' ordinance were in order. The ordinance amendment offered provides for loosening restrictions for on -site garage sale signs and clarifies City policy and interpretation of balloons, streamers and other attention attracting devices as prohibited signs. The main thrust of the amendment would be to establish provisions in the ordinance to acknowledge rummage sale signs as "permitted signs not requiring a permit. People having a garage sale would be entitled to display banners, pennants, streamers, balloons or similar attention attracting devices only on their property during the course of.the event. In addition, they would be allowed to display one on -site garage sale sign no greater than 10 sq. ft. in area (currently a garage sale sign is limited to 2.5 sq. ft. in area). The off -site sign provisions would be basically unchanged. These signs are allowed on other residential property with the consent of that property owner and would also be limited to 10 sq. ft. in area (currently limited to 2.5 sq. ft.. in area). No attention attracting devices would be allowed with the off -site signs. All signs and attention attracting devices would have to be removed at the end of the sale. In all other respects garage sale signs, whether on -site or off -site, must conform with the provisions of the Sign Ordinance. This would mean they are not, among other things, allowed to: interfere with a traffic sign or signal; be placed in the public right -of -way or boulevard easement area; to resemble any official marker such as a stop sign; use a flashing sign or searchlight; be tacked or posted on trees, fences, utility poles or other such supports. Memo Page 2 December 13, 1985 The second ro osed amendment r p p elates to a variance requested by Arby's which was recommended for approval by the Commission. The City Council was not inclined to approve the variance, but rather tabled it directing consideration of an ordinance amendment that would address Arby's situation and similar situations. This amendment would affect only establishments located in an enclosed shopping center mall and would allow individual and /or collective tenant identification signs on exterior walls and also allow wall signs identifying the building or complex provided the total signery does not exceed 10% of the area of the wall supporting the sign. Currently, 30% is allowed for wall signs. No other changes are proposed and the current provisions would affect other attached establishments in the same way as they do now. We are not prepared, at this time, to make more far reaching recommendations._ It is important to research the effects of such an amendment on all other establishments before contemplating such changes. We also believe it would be worthwhile for the Commission to undertake a review of the entire Sign Ordinance within the next year. a• CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 13th day of January, 1986 at 8 :00 p.m. at the City Fall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Sign Ordinance regarding Rummage Sale 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 N0. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 34 AND 35 REGARDING RUWAI GE SALE SIGNS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 34 -110 and 35 -900 of the City Ordinances are hereby amended in the following manner: Rummage Sale - The infrequent temporary display and sale, by an occupant on his or her premises, of personal property, including general household rummage, used clothing 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 2. Section 34 -130 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 34 -130. PROHIBITED SIGNS. ?. Banners, pennants, streamers, balloons, [and] stringers or similar attention attracting devices, unless approved in conjunction with an Administrative Permit as P rovided in Section 35-800 or in 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 3. Section 34 -140 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended by the addition of the following: ORDINANCE N0. Section 34 -140. 2. Permitted Signs Not Requiring a Permit. M. Rummage Sale Signs as follows: 1. A temporary on -site sign not exceeding 10 square feet in area, identifying the location of and /or information relating to a rummage sale. Banners, pennants, streamers, balloons 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 10 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 provided that property owner's permission as been obtained to display such signery. These signs may be 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 4. 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.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 27th day of January, 1986 at 8:00 p.m. at the City Fall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Sign Crdinance regarding Rummage Sale 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 RUW.AGE SALE SIGNS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROCKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 34 -110 and 35 -900 of the City Ordinances are hereby amended in the following manner: Rummage Sale The infrequent temporary display and sale, by an occupant on his or her premises, of personal property, including general household rummage, used 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 2. Section 34 -130 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 34 -130. PROHIBITED SIGNS. ?. 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 in Section 34- 140, Subdivision 2m of the City Ordinances. 11. Billboards, except as provided in Section 34 -140, Subdivision 2e, 2f, 2h, 2i, 2k, 21(l); 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 - 1101 34 -140, Subdivision 2m of the City Ordinances. Section 3. Section 34 -140 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended by the addition of the following: ORDINANCE N0. Section 34 -140. 2. Permitted Signs Not Requiring a Permit. M. Rummage Sale Signs as follows: 1. A temporary on -site sign not exceeding 10 square feet in area, Tdentifying the location of and /or information relating to a rummage sale. Banners, pennants, streamers, balloons 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 10 square feet in area, indicating the location and /or time of a rummage sale may be located on other reside property not commercial, industrial or public property 87`18ed that property owner's _ permission has been obtained to display such signery. These signs may be displayed for the duration of the sale only, and must be removed at its termination. ;. Rummage sale signs must conform in all other respects with the provisions of this ordinance. Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and thirty (3C) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 14 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) Licenses to be approved by the City Council on February 24, 1986 CIGARETTE LICENSE Five Star Vending 15034 Fillmore St. NE Hiawatha Rubber 1700 67th Ave. N. City Clerk MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Alta Mechanical & Electrical P.O. Box 545 Binder & Son, Inc. 120 E. Butler Ave. Build g Official 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. 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. Sanitarian PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE ARA Services 2830 N. Fairview Northwestern Bell 5910 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Budgeter 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. Sanitarian READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE Ted Burlingame 5919 June Ave. N. Sanitarian RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: 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. /y John DeVries 2931 67th Lane Director of Planning and Inspection SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING LICENSE IW'Fun Services, Inc. 3615 50th Ave. N. Maid of Scandinavia Co. Westbrook Mall V ��Q Betty Varcoe Holiday Inn Gift Shop Sanitarian TAXI CAB LICENSE lue & White a Co. 2404 Sheridan Ave. N. Town Taxi 2812 University Ave. SE Yellow Taxi Service 127 1st Ave. NE a4pf of Police GENERAL APPROVAL: ) / D. K. Weeks, City Clerk