Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 05-06 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MAY 6, 1985 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum 5. Approval of Consent Agenda -All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. *6. Approval of Minutes April 22, 1985 *7. Presentation to City Council from National Water Ski Association 8. Resolutions: a. Accepting Petition and Engineer's Report, Establishing Ewing Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -10, and Calling for a Public Hearing Thereon b . Accepting Petition and Engineer's Report, Establishing brew Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -11, and Calling for a Public Hearing Thereon c. Accepting Petition and Engineer's Report, Establishing Dallas Road Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -12, and Calling for a Public Hearing Thereon d. Accepting Petition and Engineer's Report, Establishing Wingard Lane Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -13, and Calling for a Public Hearing Thereon e. Accepting Work under Well No. 8 Improvement Project No. 1985 -01, Phases I and II * f. Amending the 1985 General Fund Budget, Authorizing Transfer of Funds from Council Contingency Account and Authorizing Disbursement of Funds from City's Liquor Fund -This item would authorize the disbursement of funds from the City's Liquor Fund to provide for fireworks for the Earle Brown Days celebration, and would also transfer funds from the Council Contingency Account to provide for additional police security for the Earle Brown Days parade. *g. Recognizing the Achievement of Joan Domaas This resolution recognizes Ms. Domaas' achievement of swimming 500 miles in the Community Center pool. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- May 6, 1985 * h. Amending the 1985 General Fund Budget, Authorizing the Expenditure of Funds for Capital Outlay in the Fire Department Budget -This item would authorize the urchase of p blinds for the windows in the meeting room in the West Fire Station. 9• Planning Commission Items (7:30 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 85007 submitted by Sign Service, Inc. for a variance from the sign ordinance to erect an 8' x 10' freestanding identification sign at 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommended denial of Application No. 85007 at its April 25, 1985 meeting. b. Planning Commission Application No. 85008 submitted by Ryan Construction s uctio n Com an for special use permit approval to Company P p PP operate a p 1 4,000 sq. ft. drive -up bank facility in the office building under construction at Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 85008 at its April 25, 1985 meeting. 10. Public Hearing (8:00 p.m.) a Xerxes Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -09 Notice of the hearing has been published in the official newspaper and all affected property owners have received written notice of the hearing. 1. Resolution Ordering Xerxes Avenue North Street Improvement rovement P Project No.- 1985 -09 and Preparation of Plans and Specifications Thereon 11. Ordinances: a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Accessory Commercial Uses in Multi -story Office Buildings -This ordinance was first read on April 8, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on April 18, 1985, and is recommended for a second reading this evening. Accessory uses permitted under the ordinance amendment include retail food shops, gift shops, book and stationery shops, tobacco shops, accessory eating establishments, sale and service of office supply equipment, newsstands and similar accessory retail shops. b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances Regarding Liquor License Fees -This ordinance is offered for a first reading his evening and would g g provide an additional class of liquor license (Class D) to the ordinance. The ordinance also addresses miscellaneous housekeeping changes and corrections to the City Liquor Ordinance. c. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances Regarding On- Sale Intoxicating Liquor uor License Fees -This ordinance is offered for a first reading and would establish the license fee for the Class D liquor license. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA _3_ May 6, 1985 d. An Ordinance Amending the City Ordinance Relating to the Regulating, the Operating, Parking, Storing, Repairing, Servicing, and Maintaining of Vehicles. —This ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening and addresses the issue of vehicles stored on private property which had been previously classified as junk vehicles. 12. Consideration of Specified License: a. Application for On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Midwest Restaurant Associates, Inc. to operate under the name of T.J. Applebee's. The restaurant will be located in the Brookdale Shopping Mall. 13. Discussion_ Items: a. Report on Traffic Study Relating to the Retail Development Moratorium *14. Licenses 15. Adjournment i • MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION APRIL 22, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center C Counci Yn y met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene - Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Housing Coordinator Brad Hoffman, and Deputy City Clerk Tom Bublitz. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Scott. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council has 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 Mayo N uist inquired Y Yq q red if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the 'Consent Agenda. Councilmember Lhotka requested item 7f be removed from the Consent Agenda. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 8 -60 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATIONS AND AUTHORIZING CONTRACT FOR A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF EARLE BROWN FARM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared .duly passed and adopted. RESOLUT NO. 85 -61 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS FOR BITUMINOUS MIXTURES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist,_ Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the 4 -22 -85 -1- j following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -62 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 1 TO RELOCATION AGREEMENT NO. 59945 WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION THEREOF The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none" whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -63 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF DR. DUANE ORN The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -6 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH FUNK ANIMAL HOSPITAL FOR CARE OF IMPOUNDED ANIMALS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and 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. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the following list of licenses: ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Brooklyn Center Fire Dept. 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Garden City School 3501 65th Ave. N. MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP LICENSE Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth 6121 Brooklyn Blvd. RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: John & Cyndie Hoisve 6337 Dupont Ave. N. 4 -22 -85 -2- Terry Hartmann 6827 Fremont Place Robert & Carolyn Green 3607 Woodbine Lane M.B.L. Investment Co. 3613 47th Ave. N. Renewal: James & Bobbie Simons 6109, 11, 13 Beard Ave. N. Earl James Backer 7018 Brooklyn Blvd. Marvin C. Brieland 7229 Camden Ave. N. Thomas B. Egan 5239, 41 Drew Ave. N. A. Elie, T. Elie,- C. Berg 5240 Drew Ave. N. Gerald L. Ratliff 5525 James Ave. N. Gary & Vikki Linder 5715 Knox Ave. N. Robert C. Slind 5312 Morgan Ave. N. Gerald & Elaine Theis 6719 Toledo Ave. N. Michael M. Schmidt 6813 Toledo Ave. N. Quality Investment Co. 3513 47th Ave. N. Donald E. Sobania 3701 47th Ave. N. Nordic Properties 3713 47th Ave. N. L.H. Hanggi 3725 47th Ave. N. Ed Krzesowiak 3001, 07 51st Ave. N. L. A. Beisner 2816 67th Lane J. J. Barnett 2926 68th Lane J. J. Barnett 2830 68th Lane J. J. Barnett 2934 68th Lane J. J. Barnett 3938 68th Lane SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING LICENSE LaBelle's 5925 Earle Brown Dr. SWIMMING POOL LICENSE Four Court Apartments 2836 Northway Drive Northbrook Apartments 1302 69th Ave. N. Northlyn Apartments 6511 Humboldt Ave. N. TEMPORARY ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING LICENSE Brooklyn Center American Legion Evergreen Park Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 8, 1985 There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of April 8, 1985 as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Councilmember Lhotka abstained from voting as he was not present at the April 8, 1985 meeting. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) RESOLUTION NO. 85 -65 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY FOR CONSULTING SERVICES RELATED TO THE AMENDMENT OF THE FLOOD MANAGEMENT BOUNDARIES ALONG SHINGLE CREEK IN LIONS PARK 4 -22 -85 -3- 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. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -66 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH ORR- SCHELEN- M.AYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR CONSULTING SERVICES ,RELATED TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF LIFT STATION NO. 2 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Approving Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for a Van for the Mobile Command Center and Authorizing Agreement for Professional Services. Councilmember Lhotka inquired whether there were any additional costs contained in this resolution which were not in the previous resolution approved by the Council authorizing the transfer of funds for the purchase of the mobile command center. The City Manager replied that the dollar amounts were the same as contained in the original resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -67 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR A VAN FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT MOBILE COMMAND CENTER AND AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: Gene Lhotka, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Amending the 1985 General Fund Budget and explained that the item would authorize the transfer of a portion of the salary of the former Park & Recreation Director to various Park & Recreation programs. A typographical error in the resolution was noted. The word increase in item No. 6 in the resolution should be changed to decrease RESOLUTION NO. 85 -68 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1985 GENERAL FUND BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly econded b member Y Y 4 -22 -85 -4- 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. DISCUSSION ITEMS EARLE BROWN DAYS FIREWORKS AND PARADE The City Manager noted that the scale of the 1985 Earle Brown Days parade is much larger than in previous years and will require more barricades and security. Councilmember Lhotka recalled the history of the Earle Brown Days celebration, and noted that the first year the City contributed to the fireworks display on a one -time only basis and that last year the City's contribution to the fireworks was done as a bail -out situation. Councilmember Theis agreed that the Council participated in the fireworks display at the original celebration on a one -time only basis and the second year was a bail -out situation. Councilmember Theis stated that he would approve the City's participation again, since he believes that the Earle Brown Days celebration is trying to put together an exceptional and outstanding celebration but if they do not obtain the community support for the event this year it will be more difficult for them to seek funding for the celebration the next time. Councilmember Hawes commented that the 1985 Earle Brown Days celebration is a forerunner to the City's 75th anniversary and that the scale of the parade is much larger this year than in the past He explained the Earle Brown Days Committee is pursuing a number of fund raising efforts to support the celebration. Councilmember Lhotka expressed a concern that if funds for the celebration are not raised by the committee, it will be a reflection on the entire City of Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Hawes stated that the committee has received a number of funding commitments already and that he believes the celebration will pay for itself. Councilmember Theis stated that he would like to see some type of budget for the celebration. The City Manager stated he would contact the committee and obtain a budget for the Council's information. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to authorize the staff to prepare a resolution which would authorize the expenditure of funds for the 1985 Earle Brown Days fireworks display and for additional security for the Earle Brown Days parade. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING ON PRIVATE KENNEL APPLICATION The City Manager noted that a public hearing s scheduled for .m. on an 0 � 7 3 p application for a private kennel license from Mary Ann Boyer of 5817 Pearson Drive. ` Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on a private kennel license application from Mary Ann Boyer, 5817 Pearson Drive. Mayor Ny Y Y Yq noted a letter received from Mrs. Barbara Sexton, 3824 58th Avenue North. He explained the letter from Barbara Sexton expressed support for the Council's granting of a private kennel license for her neighbor, Mary Ann Boyer. Mayor Nyquist noted that Mrs. Sexton commented in her letter that "the three dogs are 4 -22 -85 -5- medium size. They are not a problem to the neighborhood. I can't remember hearing them bark. Their yard is fenced and kept clean. My neighbors to the east of me believe the Council should turn down the application for the license because the dogs may become a problem. That is hardly a neighborly attitude. I favor the granting of the license." Mayor Nyquist directed the City Clerk to enter the letter into the official record of the meeting. Mayor Nyquist recognized a member of the audience who identified herself as Mrs. Jaroscak, 3818 58th Avenue North. Mrs. Jaroscak stated that she lives one door down and behind the applicant's house. She stated that in the general area of her neighborhood there are a total of eight dogs. She stated she believes there should be some type of limit. She noted that the dos do bark and can be a nuisan h e YP e. S g also stated that there is an odor problem in the area. Mayor Nyquist noted that City ordinance requires that a private kennel license is necessary for individuals who wish to keep more than two dogs in their household, however, he explained that the ordinance does allow keeping f two dos per household without obtaining an private � A g � any license from the City. Mayor Nyquist recognized the applicant, Mary Ann Boyer, who stated that she and her husband recently moved to the City of Brooklyn Center and were not aware of the City ordinance with regard to the e number of dogs allowed per household. She explained A g P that her situation arose when, in the last litter of her two dogs, one of the puppies was epileptic and could not be sold. She also pointed out that all the dogs had been sent to obedience school and were well trained. She pointed out that next door to her there are two Labrador retrievers. She also stated that her yard is cleaned on a weekly asis and that she had not received ved an complaints from other neighbors. She Y A g expressed a willingness to respond to any problems with the neighbors regarding her dogs. Councilmember Theis noted that one of the dogs is 11 years old. He inquired of the applicant whether she would replace the dog if it died. The applicant replied that she would not replace the animal if one of the dogs died. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mrs. Jaroscak who stated that in March of this year the dogs barked constantly and that the winter was bad for barking. She again objected to the Council's granting of the private kennel license. She explained that she does not object to dogs but that with eight dogs in the area the odor problem is bad, although, Mrs. Jaroscak admitted that the applicant does take good care of her dogs. Councilmember Lhotka explained to Mrs. Jaroscak that if the kennel license is approved and any complaints are received, the application will come back before the City Council. The City Manager stated that the Council can limit the number of dogs by resolution. Councilmember Hawes stated that he believes the complaint regarding noise is legitimate and that the noise in the area should be monitored. The City Manager stated that he will review the area surrounding the applicant's home. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else present in the audience who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on a private kennel license application from Mary Ann Boyer, 5817 Pearson Drive. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers 4 -22 -85 -6- Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -69 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PRIVATE KENNEL APPLICATION FOR MARY ANN BOYER, 5817 PEARSON DRIVE The resolution shall include the following conditions: 1. The private kennel license is granted to the applicant, Mary Ann Boyer, 5817 Pearson Drive, is nontransferable and shall be approved for the three dogs stipulated in her private kennel license application dated March 25, 1985. 2. If one of the animals indicated in the application dies or is permanently removed from the residence at 5817 Pearson Drive the animal would not be replaced with another dog. 3. The animals shall be housed in the residence at 5817 Pearson Drive. 4. The private kennel license application shall comply with all other requirements of Chapter 1 of the Brooklyn Center City Ordinances. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. XERXES AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS The Director of Public Works introduced a proposal for landscape improvements along County State Aid Highway 10 and Xerxes Avenue North. He noted that the proposed improvements grew out of a discussion in conjunction with the Year 2000 Study and included the potential for landscape plantings, development of an ornamental lighting concept and the installation of architectural structures such as planters, benches, etc. He explained the staff has contacted Westwood Planning and Engineering, and has requested them to submit a proposal to provide consulting services relating to the proposed improvements. He stated that, in response to this inquiry, Westwood Planning and Engineering has submitted a proposal to provide the necessary consulting services at a cost of $1,400 for a County State Aid 10 and $1,600 for Xerxes Avenue. He also brought out the point that there are no standards established for a roadway of this type and that the Minnesota Department of Transportation will approve the project only if a variance from existing municipal state aid standards is passed. After Council discussion of the proposal, the Council agreed to approve the Xerxes Avenue portion of the study and exclude the County State Aid Highway 10 portion. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -70 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption as amended: 4 -22 -85 -7- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH WESTWOOD PLANNING AND ENGINEERING COMPANY FOR CONSULTING SERVICES RELATED TO LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG XERXES AVENUE NORTH 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 adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -71 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PETITION THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION TO GRANT A VARIANCE FROM EXISTING MUNICIPAL STATE AID STANDARDS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT OF XERXES AVENUE NORTH The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: Bill Hawes, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCES The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Use of Sick Leave. He explained the ordinance was first read on March 25, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on April 4, 1985, and is recommended for a second reading this evening. He explained the ordinance would allow employees to use four of their annual sick leave days for the care of their children or spouse due to illness. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 of the City Ordinances Regarding Use of Sick Leave. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 of the City Ordinances Regarding Use of Sick Leave. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 85 -07 Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING USE OF SICK LEAVE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes. In discussion of the motion, Councilmember Lhotka inquired whether there would be any additional cost incurred by the City as a result of the proposed policy. The City Manager explained that there would not be a measurable cost with the new policy and the policy is being proposed partly in response to employee requests since employees are now required to use vacation leave for the care of sick children and the new ordinance is an effort to allow them to remain honest in the use of leave policy. 4 -22 -85 -8- Upon a vote being taken on the motion, the following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Nyquist Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: Councilmember Lhotka. The motion passed. The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:02 p.m. and reconvened at 8:20 p.m. RECONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PETITION THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION TO GRANT A VARIANCE FROM EXISTING MUNICIPAL STATE AID STANDARDS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT OF XERXES AVENUE NORTH Councilmember Hawes indicated that he wished to change his vote to an affirmative vote on the variance resolution. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to reconsider a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Petition the Commissioner of Transportation to Grant a Variance from Existing Municipal State Aid Standards Relating to the Proposed Improvement of Xerxes Avenue North. Voting in favor: _Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -71 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PETITION THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION TO GRANT A VARIANCE FROM EXISTING MUNICIPAL STATE AID STANDARDS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT OF XERXES AVENUE NORTH The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 85006 SUBMITTED BY NEW HORIZON ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONDUCT A GROUP DAY -CARE CENTER IN THE PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER BUILDING ATR 000 EARLE BROWN DRIVE The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Councilmembers pages one through two of the April 11, 1985 Planning Commission meeting minutes and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 85006. He reviewed the location of the subject parcel which is proposed for the Park Nicollet Clinic located on Summit Drive. He explained the area is zoned C2 and that day care is a special use in a C2 zone. The Director of Planning & Inspection then reviewed the letter submitted by the applicant regarding day care standards and special use standards for day care in a C2 zone. He then reviewed the site plans of the playground area submitted by the applicant. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 85006 subject to seven conditions which he reviewed for Councilmembers. He explained the sixth condition has been met by the applicant and can be stricken. He added that a public hearing on the application is required this evening, that the proper notices had been sent and a representative of the applicant was present. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application 4 -22 -85 -9- No. 85006. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on Application No. 85006. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Application No. 85006 subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 4.- 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. 5. Six "Parent Parking Only" signs shall be installed at parking spaces near the day -care enter entrance to facilitate traffic to and from the center. 6. Special Use Permit approval is exclusive of signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS (CONTINUED) PRELIMINARY REPORT ON TRAFFIC ANALYSIS BY SHORT - ELLIOTT - HENDRICKSON The Director of Planning & Inspection noted the existing moratorium on commercial retail development on vacant C2 zoned land in the City. He explained the moratorium ordinance is scheduled to expire on May 20, 1985• He explained the Council authorized a traffic analysis to be conducted during the time of the moratorium. He noted that RFPIs had been received from BRW and Short- Elliott- Hendrickson and that the contract was awarded to Short- Elliott - Hendrickson. The Director of Planning & Inspection briefly reviewed the major points of the Short - Elliott- Hendrickson study, noting the boundaries of the study area and the fact that the plan was developed around two scenarios, one being a worst case situation where the land is developed to the maximum retail usage possible and a second scenario which outlines a modified or probable development of the study area. 4 -22 -85 -10- The Director of Planning & Inspection introduced Mr. Glen Van Wormer and Mr. Bob Byers from Short - Elliott - Hendrickson. Mr. Byers reviewed the methodology of the project which began with reviewing the various types of trips, existing land use Yp P � g number of employees, and other relevant information developed by the staff. He then reviewed how the area functions within the metropolitan area citing the example of Brookdale as a regional retail draw. He then reviewed the traffic analysis zones (TAZ) developed for the project and also the computer roadway network which gives turning movements at intersections in the various traffic analysis zones. Mr. Glen Van Wormer then reviewed the next portion of the study, and noted that the analysis reviewed the number of cars and movements recorded on the computer roadway network in the study area. He reviewed the various service levels of traffic flow at intersections which ranged from A, which is a free flow of traffic, to F which is a forced flow of traffic with low operating speeds and volumes below capacity. He reviewed a portion of the study which included the current traffic counts at Summit Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway, and also noted the projected probable and maximum counts at this intersection. He added that the same process can be used for all intersections and the study also gives information for various rush hours, such as the 4:00 to 5 :00 p.m. traffic pattern. He explained the report will also show the impact of various types of development on traffic flow. Councilmember Theis brought up the issue of "cut through" traffic included in the study, such as cars moving within the study area but not completely through it. Mr. Byers acknowledged that there would be some of this type of traffic in the study area. The Director of Public Works reviewed the various scenarios established by the study and how changes to intersections, such as signalization, sign phasing, channelization, etc. can change the grade of an intersection relative to the scale developed by the study of A through F. The Council continued its discussion of the study methodology and computer program capabilities. STAFF REPORT ON PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF TARGET STORE PLANS The Director of Planning —& Inspection directed the Council's attention to the preliminary plans for the proposed Target Store in Brooklyn Center. He explained the moratorium on retail development in C2 zones is in effect to May 20 of this year, but the plans are being introduced for preliminary review at this time so that the applicant can prepare for formal submission of the application. The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 85001, a site and building plan for a 105,000 sq. ft. Target Store. He noted the application was tabled by the Planning Commission at its January 17 meeting and reconsidered on the 14th of February. He reviewed the site and building plan as submitted to the Planning Commission in January of 1985, and pointed out that the plan includes a Target Store and an attached retail shopping area. He then reviewed the potential traffic pattern problems in the site and building plan and also the concerns expressed from the Planning Commission regarding the exterior appearance of the building initially proposed. He noted that the plans submitted in January of 1985 were tabled by the Planning Commission. The Director of Planning & Inspection pointed out that Target submitted a revised plan, still at 105,000 sq. ft., including a Target Store and retail area; However, 4 -22 -85 -11- the retail shopping area was reduced from 39,000 sq. ft. to 34,100 sq. ft. He noted that Target also revised the access points to the site and excluded the automotive center from the plans. The Director of Planning & Inspection then reviewed the landscape plans submitted with the application, and noted that the plan includes enlarged green strip areas ` along Summit Drive. He then reviewed the preliminary plat submitted with the application, and stated that if the Council considers the application on May 20, 1985, Target and Ryan Construction have requested that preliminary and final plat approval be granted at the meeting. He noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 85001 at its February 1 1985 meeting with 17 conditions. He also explained that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 85003 (the preliminary plat) with six conditions which he reviewed for Councilmembers. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that a representative of Ryan Construction is present this evening and that the purpose of this evening's preliminary review is to address any problems or concerns the Council may have regarding the project in anticipation of consideration of the application on May 20. Mayor Nyquist expressed a concern over the loading area located in the rear of the Target Store. Mr. Jeff Rice of Ryan Construction stated that he has contacted the owner of the LaBelle's property, which is Prudential, and that he will present a proposed revision for the loading area to Prudential. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10:26 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Mayor 4-22-85 -12- CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 ROOKLYN TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: May 3,`1985 RE: M.S.A. Fund Balance (Account No. 2611) Following is a summary of the Municipal State Aid Fund Balance, Account No. 2611: Fund Balance and Description The unencumbered balance in this account as of January 1, 1985 • was $1,118,475.51. This balance represents amounts from projects on M.S.A. streets which have also been partially charged to special assessments to the extent that the assessment charge is duplicated). ( ch Proposed 1985 Projects Proposed 1985 projects which have been approved, or are under consideration;, on which a portion of the project is proposed to be charged to�Account No. 2611 are summarized as follows: "City Share" to be Charged to Approved Proj ects Account No. 2611 Lyndale Avenue improvement, $ 22,850 including 55th & 56th Avenue improvements Xerxes Avenue Landscape plan 1,600 development - - - -- SUBTOTAL $ 24,450 _Xerxes Avenue Project $ 62,340 (Public Hearing to be held 5/6/85) "(074c -g . m May 3, 1985 - G.G. Splinter Page 2 Other Street Proj (C.E. reports to be considered by City Council on 5/6/85) Wingard Avenue project $ 20,590 Ewing Avenue proj 31,780 Drew Avenue project 31,780 Dallas Road project 72,430 SUBTOTAL $156,580 TOTAL = $243,370 Respectfully submitted, 4 ')�� Sy Knapp Director of Public Works l SK :j Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION, RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING EWING AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -10, AND CALLING FOR A HEARING THEREON WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, has received a petition requesting the installation of curb and gutter and related street improvements along Ewing Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report to the City Council regarding the feasibility of the petitioned improvement: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Said petition is hereby accepted. 2. The Engineer's Report, as submitted by the City Engineer, is hereby received and accepted. 3. The proposed project is hereby established: EWING AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -10 4. The Council will consider the improvement in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $48,580.00. 5. The area to be included within the assessment District for Improvement Project No. 1985 -10 shall be abutting properties along Ewing Avenue North between 68th Avenue North and 69th Avenue North. 6. A public hearing shall be held on the proposed improvement on the 10th day of June, 1985, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 8:00 P.M. local time, and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. 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, eo the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DENYING PETITION FOR IMPROVEMENT OF EWING AVENUE NORTH FROM 68TH AVENUE NORTH TO 69TH AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota received a petition for the improvement of Ewing Avenue North from '68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North signed by seven of fourteen affected property owners; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a second petition signed by nine of fourteen affected property owners which requested no improvement be made to Ewing Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the petition for the improvement of Ewing Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North is hereby denied. Date r 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 name: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 CENTER ENGINEER'S REPORT Ewing Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -10 Concrete Curb and Gutter Installation and Bituminous Overlay PROJECT LOCATION: Ewing Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North DISCUSSION: The City has received a petition for the improvement of Ewing Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North. The petition, signed by 50% of the property owners (7 of 14), requests that concrete curb and gutter and street surfacing improvements be installed. Subsequent to receipt of the original petition, the City received a second petition requesting that no street improvements be constructed along Ewing Avenue North. This petition, signed by 64% of the property owners (9 of 14),- includes the signatures of four owners who originally signed the improvement petition. Accordingly, it is difficult to evaluate the true wishes of the property owners without additional discussion and input. Staff has completed a preliminary review of existing conditions and determined that the existing surface placed in 1956 is essentially sound. Accordingly, we recommend that the improvement project, if approved, provide for widening he existing 27 to 28 foot surface g rfa to the standard rd 30 foot width. The project should also include the removal and replacement of the pavement's uneven outer edges (3 to 5 feet) to provide a match between the curb and gutter and the widened street surface. Upon completion of the curb and gutter installation and street widening, the entire surface should then be overlayed with bituminous paving along its length from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North to insure a uniform appearance and good rideability. Such a reconstructed street will have a 20 year life expectancy, assuming routine maintenance including periodic seal- coating is provided. `74,e m ,t?,ie4� „ Engineer's Report - Page 2 Project No. 1985 -10 Staff has also examined the drainage conditions at the Ewing Avenue North - 69th Avenue North intersection and determined that surface drainage can be partially corrected by construction of a concrete cross- street gutter. We consider this method to be a cost effective, temporary solution to existing drainage problems. As a permanent solution, a storm sewer system should be installed in conjunction with future improvements along 69th Avenue. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS In accordance with the recently- adopted street reconstruction assessment policy, reimbursement of project costs is based upon assessment of the $1200 residential unit charge against each of the fourteen abutting residential properties (total = $16,800). It is proposed that the balance of the cost ($31,780) be financed from the City's local Municipal State Aid Fund. A summary of the estimated project costs and funding sources is as follows: Cost Summary Construction Cost $36,650 Contingency - 5,500 Subtotal $42,150 Engineering Cost 3,790 Administrative Cost 420 Legal Cost 420 Capitalized Interest 1,800 TOTAL $48,580 Revenue Source Special Assessment Share $16,800 City Cost Share (M.S.A. Fund Balance 2611) 31,780 TOTAL $48,580 SUMMARY The proposed project as described above, is feasible under the conditions, described and at the costs estimated. Engineer's Report - Page 3 Project No. 1985 -10 As noted above, it is difficult to accurately evaluate the current level of interest in the project, because both petitions were circulated and signed on the basis of partially accurate information. If the City Council wishes to further discuss the project, and to receive further input, we recommend that a public hearing be held for this purpose. Notices would be sent to the property owners, along with more detailed information. After the public hearing, the City Council could then decide to approve, or to reject the proposed improvement. A resolution for this purpose is provided for consideration by the City Council. (Note: A simple majority vote of the Council is required to call for the public hearing. However, because 4 of the original 7 petitioners supporting the project have now signed the petition opposing it, the project could only be ordered in - after the public hearing - by a 4 /5ths vote of the Council.) If, alternately, the City Council wishes to deny the petition at this time, an alternate resolution for this purpose is also provided. Respectfully submitted, Recommended For Approval, U22'2 4-e a Ji46 Grube Sy napp City Engineer Director of Public Works JNG :j Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION, RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT,,ESTABLISHING DREW AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -11, AND CALLING FOR A HEARING THEREON WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, has received a petition requesting the installation of curb and gutter and related street improvements along Drew Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report to the City Council regarding the feasibility of the petitioned improvement: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Said petition is hereby accepted. 2 The Engineer's Report, as submitted by the City Engineer, is hereby received and accepted. 3. The proposed project is hereby established: DREW AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -11 4 The Council will consider the improvement in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $48,580.00. 5. The area to be included within the assessment District for Improvement Project No. 1985 -11 shall be abutting properties.along Drew Avenue North between 68th Avenue North and 69th Avenue North. 6. A public hearing shall be held on the proposed improvement on the 10th day of June, 1985, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 8 :00 P.M. local time, and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by -law. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DENYING PETITION FOR IMPROVEMENT OF DREW AVENUE NORTH FROM 68TH AVENUE NORTH TO 69TH AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota received a etition for the improvement of Drew p P Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North signed by six of fourteen affected property owners; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a second petition signed by seven of fourteen affected property owners which requested no improvement be made to Drew Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the petition for the improvement o f Drew Avenue North from 68th Avenue North rt to 69th Avenue North is hereby denied. 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 OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 CENTER ENGINEER'S REPORT Drew Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -11 Concrete Curb and Gutter Installation and Bituminous Overlay PROJECT LOCATION: Drew Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North DISCUSSION: The City has received a petition for the improvement of Drew Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North. The petition, signed by six of fourteen property` owners (43%), requests that concrete curb and gutter and street surfacing_ improvements be installed. Also submitted in conjunction with this request was a petition signed by seven of fourteen property owners (50 %) which - requested no work be undertaken along the street. In addition, a second petition, signed by fourteen property owners between 67th and 68th Avenues North, requested that no improvements be completed along Drew Avenue North between 67th and 69th Avenues North. Staff has completed a preliminary view of existing g conditions and determined that the existing urface laced g P in 1956 is essentially sound. Accordingly, we recommend that the improvement project, if approved, provide for widening the existing 28 foot surface to the standard 30 foot width. The project should also include the removal and replacement of the pavements uneven outer edges (3 to 5 feet) to provide a match between the curb and gutter and the widened street surface. Upon completion of the curb and gutter installation and street widening, the entire surface should then be overla Y ed with bituminous p aving g i ts alo length from 68th Aven g v ue North to 69th Avenue North to insure a uniform appearance and pP good rdeabilit Y Such a reconstructed street will have a 20 year life expectancy, assuming routine maintenance including periodic seal- coating is provided. •• .Soxetlzuc� aze L •, Engineer's Report - Page 2 Project 1985 -11 Based upon preliminary examination of drainage conditions, staff has determined that only minor adjustments to the existing storm sewer system are necessary. Specifically, the proposal provides for the addition of one drainage structure (catch basin) on Drew Avenue North at 69th Avenue North and the adjustment of various drainage structures along Drew Avenue North. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS In accordance with the recently- adopted street reconstruction assessment policy, reimbursement of project costs is based upon assessment of the $1,200 residential unit charge against each of the fourteen abutting residential properties (total = $16,800). It is proposed that the balance of the cost ($31,780) be financed from the City's local Municipal State Aid Fund. A summary of the estimated project costs and funding sources is as follows: Cost Summary Construction Cost $36,650. Contingency 5,500 Subtotal $42,150 Engineering Cost 3,790 Administrative Cost 420 Legal Cost 420 Capitalized Interest 1,800 TOTAL $48,580 Revenue Source Special Assessment Share $16,800 City Cost Share (M.S.A. Fund Balance 2611) 31,780 TOTAL $48,580 SUMMARY The proposed project as described above is feasible under the conditions described and at the costs estimated. Engineer's Report - Page 3 Project No. 1985 -11 As noted above, the petition requesting the improvement was signed by 6 property owners, while the petition opposing the project was signed by 7 property owners. If the City Council wishes to further discuss the project, and to receive further input, we recommend that a public hearing be held for this purpose. Notices would be sent to the property owners, along with more detailed information. After the public hearing, the City Council could then decide to approve, or to reject the proposed improvement. A resolution for this purpose is provided for consideration by the City Council. (Note: A simple majority vote of the Council is required to call for the public hearing,. Also, because the petition requesting this improvement was signed by more than 35% of the property owners, the project could be ordered constructed after the public hearing - by a simple majority vote of the City Council. If, alternately, the City Council wishes to deny the petition at this time, an alternate resolution for this purpose is also provided. Respectfully submitted, Recommended For Approval, Jam' n Grube Sy Khapp City Engineer Director of Public Works JNG:j �c Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION, RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING DALLAS ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -12, AND CALLING FOR A HEARING THEREON WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, has received a petition requesting the installation of curb and gutter and related street improvements along Dallas Road from 72nd Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North; and WHEREAS,, the City Engineer has submitted a report to the City Council regarding the feasibility of the petitioned improvement: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Said petition is hereby declared to be signed by the required percentage of owners of property affected thereby. This declaration is made in conformity to Minne Statutes Se ectl n 429. 035. 2. The Engineer's Report, as submitted by the City Engineer, is hereby received and accepted. 3. The proposed project is hereby established: DALLAS ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -12 4. The Council will consider the improvement in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $92,830.00. 5. The area to be included within the assessment District for Improvement Project No. 1985 -12 shall be abutting properties along Dallas Road between 72nd Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North. 6. A public ;hearing shall be held on the proposed improvement on the 10th day of June, 1985, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 8:00 P.M. local time, and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. 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 B R00 0 K ' LYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 CENTER ENGINEER'S REPORT Dallas Road Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -12 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -12 Grading, Base, Bituminous Paving and Concrete Curb and Gutter PROJECT LOCATION: Dallas Road from 72nd Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North DISCUSSION: The City has received a petition for the improvement of Dallas Road from 72nd Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North. The petition, signed by nine of seventeen property owners (53 %) requests that the street be reconstructed and that concrete curb and gutter be installed. Also submitted in conjunction with this request was a petition signed by five of seventeen property owners which requests that the proposed improvement be denied. This segment of Dallas Road was constructed in 1963, and has shown significant signs of distress (heavy alligator cracking, softness of the roadway, and water pumpage through cracks) for many years. This year several segments have experienced total failure i.e. - a complete breakup of the bituminous surface and subgrade. The primary cause of this failure is the inability of the underlying clay material to allow vertical drainage of subgrade moisture The saturated subgrade has held the water in place. As freezing temperatures occurred the frozen water crystals expanded, heaving the subgrade and the pavement structure. As temperatures warmed, the ice crystals melted and the subgrade settled. Because the saturated clay soils provide little structural support for the pavement, vehicular traffic loading then destroys the pavement during springtime conditions when the ground water rises to the surface level. „ 74 -5 ;WIW �" Engineer's Report - Page 2 Project No. 1985 -12 Staff has determined that approximately 600 feet of the total 800 feet must be totally removed and reconstructed to provide an acceptable pavement surface. Accordingly, we recommend that the improvement project, if approved, provide for (a) the installation of a subgrade drain system (b) the placement of a properly graded free - draining subgrade material, and (c) a full- width new bituminous surface. Such a reconstructed street will have a life expectancy exceeding 20 years, assuming that routine maintenance including periodic seal coating is provided. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS In accordance with the recently- adopted street reconstruction assessment policy, reimbursement of project costs is based upon assessment of the $1,200 residential unit charge against each of the seventeen abutting residential properties (total = $20,400) It is proposed that the balance of the cost ($72,430) be financed from the City's local Municipal al State Aid Fund. A summary ry of the estimated project costs and funding sources is as follows: Cost Summary Construction Cost $71,000 Contingency 10,650 Subtotal $81,650 Engineering Cost 7,350 Administrative Cost 820 Legal Cost 820 Capitalized Interest 2,190 TOTAL $92,830 Revenue Summary Special Assessment Share $20,400 City Cost Share (M.S.A. Fund Balance 2611) 72,430 TOTAL $92,830 Engineer's Report - Page 3 Project No. 1985 -12 SUMMARY The project is feasible under the conditions referenced and at the costs estimated. A resolution calling for a public hearing on June 10, 1985 is provided for consideration by the City Council. If the public hearing is held, the project can be ordered in - only after the public hearing by a simple majority vote of the City Council. It should also be noted that the "do nothing" alternative is not acceptable on this segment of street. The cost for a minimal repair, to extend the life of the existing street by 2 or 3 years is estimated at $20,000 to $30,000. Accordingly, serious consideration of the total reconstruction project is recommended. Respectfully submitted, Recommended For Approval, J _ b /7 e Sy Kriapp City Engineer Director of Public Works JNG:j Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION, RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING WINGARD LANE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -13, AND CALLING FOR A HEARING THEREON --------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, has received a petition requesting the closure of the Wingard Lane intersection to C.S.A.H. 152 (Brooklyn Boulevard) through construction of a paved "turn- around "; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report to the City Council regarding the feasibility of the petitioned improvement: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota , that: 1. Said petition is hereby accepted. 2. The Engineer's Report, as submitted by the City Engineer, is hereby received and accepted. 3. The proposed project is hereby established: WINGARD LANE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -13 6. A public hearing shall be held on the ro osed P P improvement on the 10th day f June 1985 in t Y , e h Council Chambers of the City Hall at 8:00 P.M. local time, and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing to all property owners abutting the proposed improvement. Date Mayor, ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DENYING PETITION FOR IMPROVEMENT OF WINGARD LANE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota received a petition requesting the closure of the Wingard Lane intersection to C.S.A.H. 152 (Brooklyn Boulevard) through construction of a paved "turn- around "; and WHEREAS, the City Council considers it to be in the best interest of the City to maintain the existing intersection configuration: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the petition for the closure of the Wingard Lane intersection to C.S.A.H. 152 is hereby denied and the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to notify the affected property owners of its finding. 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 T 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B O O K ' vN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 R O 1 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 CENTER ENGINEER'S REPORT Wingard Lane Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -13 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -13 Closure of Street Intersection /Construction of "Turnaround" PROJECT LOCATION: Wingard Lane at Brooklyn Boulevard DISCUSSION: The City has received a petition for the closure of the Wingard Lane intersection with Brooklyn Boulevard. The petition, signed by five of ten affected property owners (5'0%), requests that a "Hammerhead Turnaround" be constructed at the intersection as a means of eliminating "cut- through" traffic between Brooklyn Boulevard and Noble Avenue. (Note: A traffic count taken in November, 1984 showed that the traffic volume on this portion of Wingard Lane is 1250 vehicles per day. We estimate that more than 90% of this traffic is non -local traffic.) The proposed improvement provides for the intersection closure as requested, and the construction of a "hammerhead turn- around" (see sketches attached). Related construction includes the installation of concrete curb and gutter within the turn around area, extension of sidewalk along Brooklyn Boulevard, the extension of storm sewer for drainage purposes, and landscaping. Presently, the residence at 7216 Brooklyn Boulevard has driveway access to both Wingard Lane and Brooklyn Boulevard. Staff recommends the driveway access to Wingard Lane be closed in conjunction with this project. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS In consideration of the fact that the proposed project is primarily a safety improvement, of general benefit to the entire City, recommends the City finance the project through appropriation of funds from its local Municipal State Aid fund account. `7, e C „ Engineer's Report Page 2 Project No. 1985 -13 A summary of estimated project costs and revenue source is as follows: Cost Summary Construction Cost $16,280 Contingency 2,440 Subtotal $18,720 Engineering Cost 1,680 Administrative Cost 190 TOTAL $20,590 Revenue Source City Cost Share $20,590 (M.S.A. Fund Balance 2611) SUMMARY The proposed project is feasible under the conditions referenced and at the costs estimated. Although we have recommended that no special assessment be levied for this project, we do recommend that a public hearing be conducted to provide an opportunity for discussion of the proposed improvements. A resolution calling for a public hearing to be held on June 10, 1985 is provided for consideration by the City Council. An alternate resolution, denying the petition, is also provided for consideration. Respectfully submitted, Recommended For Approval, Aim Gi ub� S a Y PP City Engineer Director of Public Works JNG : j n,}� ,... - FOR '.HAMMERHEAD TURNAROUND' ON WINGARD LANE , l - . • ' , �7Z7 �Y r °� NEC ' 25 y t 1. WAIL Co d A V" , a t ZA R O � _ o ' M ,PyEAO Tu.P,c�A,POuvo Q ENTE,e (FD 1 7 2-5 .IHI,V,QR' NcEPr Pl- AA/ �L Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER WELL NO. 8 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -01, PHASE I AND PHASE II WHEREAS, pursuant to a written Contract for the reconditioning of Well No. 8 signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Layne Minnesota Company has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: WELL NO. 8 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -01, PHASE I WELL NO. 8 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -01, PHASE II NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved as follows: IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -01, PHASE T As Approved Final Amount Original Contract $ 6,325.00 $ 6,072.25 Change Order No. 1 8,600.00 5,605.00 TOTAL $14,925.00 $11,677.25 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -01, PHASE II As Approved Final Amount Original Contract $ 6,824.00 $ 6,824.00 2. The total value of work performed under Phases I and II is less than the original contract and change order amount by $3,247.75 due to a general overestimation of planned quantities 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement (Phases I and II) under said contract shall be $18,501.25. 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. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption; RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1985 GENERAL FUND BUDGET, AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM COUNCIL CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT AND AUTHORIZING DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FROM CITY'S LIQUOR FUND BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to transfer the amount of $1,030 from the Council Contingency Account to the Police Department,- Salaries.of Overtime Employees Account (4112) for use in providing additional police security at the Earle Brown Days Parade. 2. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to disburse the amount of $3,500 from the City's Liquor Fund for use in payment for the fireworks display in conjunction with the Earle Brown Days celebration. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF JOAN DOMAAS WHEREAS, over a three year period, Joan Domaas has swam 500 miles in the Brooklyn Center Community pool; and WHEREAS, this achievement reflects the dedication, skill, and perseverance of Ms. Domaas; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that the City Council recognizes her accomplishment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the achievement of Joan Domaas is recognized and she is hereby congratulated by the Brooklyn Center City Council. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1985 GENERAL FUND BUDGET, AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR CAPITAL OUTLAY IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, it has been determined that there is a need for blinds for the windows in the meeting room in the West Fire re Station; and WHEREAS, there are adequate funds in the Capital Outlay Account of the 1985 Fire Department budget for the purchase of the blinds. WHEREAS, the blinds for the West Fire Station meeting room are not a specified budget item in the 1985 Fire Department budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the expenditure of $600 for the purchase of_ blinds -for the windows in the West Fire Station meeting room is hereby authorized from the Fire Department Capital Outlay .Account. to Date Mayor I 1 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. 6 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION APRIL 25, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Plannin Commission met in stud session and was called to order b Chairman g Y Y George Lucht at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas, and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht explained that Commissioners Sandstrom and Nelson had called to say they would be unable to attend and were excused APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 11, 1985 Motion b Commissioner Malecki seconded b Commissioner Ainas -to approve the Y Y pP minutes of the April 11, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Bernards. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Manson. The motion passed APPLICATION NO. 85007 (Sign Service, Inc.) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for a variance from the Sign Ordinance to erect an 8' x 10' freestanding identification sign at 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information` Sheet for Application No. 85007 attached). Commissioner Malecki asked whether other dealerships in the area with freestanding signs received variances for those freestanding signs. The Secretary responded in the negative, except for Iten Chevrolet which received a height variance for its sign prior to the adoption of the current Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Manson noted that the sign for Iten Leasing had to be shortened to meet the requirements of a roof sign and was in compliance with the ordinance. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. C. L. McCline of Sign Service, Inc. told the Planning Commission that he was in an embarassing situation. He explained that last fall Ryan Olds went into the leasing business and wanted a sign to announce its rates. At that time, he checked with Building Official Will Dahn and was told that he could have such a sign. He explained that Mr. Dahn had not checked on the previous variance of 10 years ago. He noted that the Sign Ordinance allows for two freestanding signs for a business such as Ryan Olds. He went on to explain that there had been a delay in putting up the sign pp lied since last fall and a lied for a sign perm' pu up the sign before the permit was issued. He sta t he proceeded on the basis that the sign was permitted because of his conversation w% ; �BUilding Official Will Dahn. Mr. McCline showed the Planning Commission a picture of the sign panels on the top of the Ryan Olds building. He stated that he felt that these panels were part of the wall and that the signs were, therefore, wall signs. He asked that the Commission consider the signs as wall signs and, therefore, allow the freestanding signs normally permitted to an automobile dealership. 4 -25 -85 -1- PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85007) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Tom Ryan of Ryan Olds explained that the car dealership got into the rental car business last fall. He stated that the sign was erected on the assumption that it would be all right. He explained to the Planning Commission that, before his father owned the car dealership, there were signs in the same area advertising Velie Oldsmobile. He stated that because of the material of the building which picked up a shadow of the sign on the wall, it would have looked ugly not to replace the Velie Olds sign when the business changed hands in 1975. He noted that there are other signs on the site including a freestanding sign and a number of wall signs. Chairman Lucht asked about the freestanding sign. The Secretary explained that it is a directional sign and does not count toward freestanding identification signery which was excluded by the 1975 variance (Application No. 75004) He stated that he believed that all other signery on the property is in conformance with the Sign Ordinance. The Secretary explained that the purpose of the variance is to bring most of the site into conformance with the Sign Ordinance. He explained that prior to the 1975 variance there were a number of freestanding signs that were nonconforming on the site. The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the Ryan Oldsmobile building elevation and pointed out the three sign boards at the top of the building. He stated that he did not consider these to be wall signs since they all projected above the point where the vertical departs from the horizontal. He stated that under the ordinance these signs are roof signs and that they are all higher than is allowed by the Sign Ordinance. Regarding the reference to former Building Official Will Dahn, the Secretary acknowledged that a conversation had been held, but that no advice had been given to erect a sign without a permit. He stated that he did not feel the previous conversation, even though may have conveyed erroneous information, was relevant to the application. Mr. McCline again reiterated the conversation that he had had with Mr. Dahn. He stated that he had checked with the City prior to fabricating the sign and that the sign was made on the basis of erroneous information. He stressed that he had not intended to act outside the law. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Manson stated that she felt the three signs on the top of Bob Ryan Olds were roof signs and that the only logical choice was to reaffirm the previous variance decision (Application No. 75004). ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85007 (Sign Service, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial of Application No. 85007 on the grounds that the Standards fora Variance are not met. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas, and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 85008 (Ryan Construction Company) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for special use permit approval to operate a 4,000 sq. ft. drive -up facility in the office building under construction at Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive (6200 Shingle Creek Parkway). The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85008 attached). The Secretary 4 -25 -85 -2- t added that there have been no traffic problems associated with the existing First Western Bank at 6040 Earle Brown Drive. He also reviewed briefly a memo from Director of Public Works Sy Knapp suggesting two additional conditions of approval regarding the granting of easements. He stated that staff recommended seeking an easement at the corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive for pedestrian and landscape improvements as part of a possible future improvement project for the area. Also, along the Summit Drive greenstrip, there would be a need for a sidewalk easement in case an extra traffic lane were constructed. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. John Kelly with Ryan Construction Company stated that he had no objection to the conditions of approval and stated that he would answer any questions. Commissioner Bernards asked how the City would determine whether a traffic problem exists, what data would be used to establish whether a traffic problem existed. The Secretary stated that the City would rely on physical observations of the entrance to the site. He stated that the bank does not expect a problem, but that if there is a problem, the access would have to be moved to a point north of the building. He stated that this would be a drastic action, but that it would be effective in terms of relieving traffic problems associated with stacking on the site. Chairman Lucht concluded that the Police would basically determine if a problem existed. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. There followed further brief discussion regarding the south access onto Earle Brown Drive and possible traffic movements into and out of that access related to the bank. PUBLIC HEARING CC rman Luc-E then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissoner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85008 (Ryan Construction Company) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 85008, subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. The certificate of occupancy for the bank shall be subject to the installation of 15 minute parking signs at no less than 10 stalls on the south side of the office building. 3. The applicant shall agree in writing that the south entrance to the site off Earle Brown Drive shall be relocated to a point north of the office building upon a determination by the City that a traffic problem related to the operation of the bank exists in Earle Brown Drive. Said agreement to be executed prior to the issuance of the special use permit and prior to building permits for the bank space and shall be filed with the title to the property.: 4 -25 -85 -3- 4 Special use permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances 5. Permit approval acknowledges a proof -of- parking plan received April 11, 1985 from Ryan Construction Company providing_ 492 parking stalls on site. If it becomes necessary to install some deferred spaces, those located in the Earle Brown Drive greenstrip shall be installed first and those potentially under the landscaped islands installed last. 6. The applicant shall agree in writing to install proof -of- parking spaces upon a determination by the City that a parking deficiency exists on the site. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of building permits for the bank. 7. The applicant shall grant easements to the City for the purpose of allowing landscape improvements at the southwesterly corners of the property. 8. The applicant shall grant a 5' sidewalk easement along the southerly side of the property to the City. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, -Ainas and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. There was a brief discussion with Jack Weber of First Western Bank. He explained that the lobby hours would be the same as the hours of the drive -up tellers and that this would relieve excessive stacking on the site related to the drive -up. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Hennepin County Plan for Dispersal of Residential Facilities The Secretary then referred the Commission's attention to a plan developed by Hennepin County for dispersal of Group Homes treating mentally retarded and mentally ill adults. He stated that the plan would result in more group homes coming to the suburbs in the future. He stated that the Hennepin County Board has probably adopted the plan by now and that an earlier draft which had been more hostile to suburbs was modified after feedback from suburban governments. He stated that there is still is because same criticism in the report of suburban areas. This a use of resistance to such facilities coming into residential neighborhoods. The Secretary also referred the Commission to a letter from Wes Kooistra with Outreach Group Homes and from Jim Thomson with the City Attorney's office. He stated that Jim Thomson's letter addresses the nonconforming situation that would result on Lyndale Avenue North if group homes were limited strictly to 6 clients in an R1 zone. He stated that the letter reasons that if the clientele were to drop to 6 or less for a period of two years or more that the home could not resume a clientele of more than 6. The Secretary stated that the Planning Commission and City Council have to look at whether group homes with more than 6 clients should be looked at as permitted or special uses. He stated, that if the facilities live within the occupancy limits of the State law, the City is essentially barred from denying such facilities. He explained that the court case with Northwest Residence ruled that the City would have to use the same standards with a residential facility as with other residential 4 -25 -85 -4- uses allowed in the same zoning district. In Brooklyn Center's case, he said, this meant the occupancy standards of the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance. He stated that a separate parking requirement might be allowed for residential facilities based on the number of clients and the number of personnel working at the facility. The Secretary explained that the City has a responsibility of meeting the mandate of the State law for the dispersal of residential care facilities for mentally ill and mentally handicapped. The question, he said, is whether the City should do the minimum under the law, or allow more occupants by special use permit in a given zoning district. Chairman Lucht asked whether it was possible, in the ordinance, to consider the balance of such facilities across the City. He expressed a concern regarding the concentration of such facilities similar to what has happened in Minneapolis. The Secretary responded that the County plan cites a level of 112% of the County's population as the potential number of beds that would be needed for such facilities. He stated that this would work out to about 150 beds in Brooklyn Center. He agreed that the City should try to disperse such facilities throughout the City, rather than to allow them to be concentrated in a single neighborhood. He reviewed the location of existing facilities for mentally ill and mentally handicapped individuals and stated there was a fairly good balance at present in the community. Commissioner Malecki stated that the advantage of public hearings is that they serve an educational purpose in making neighborhood residents aware of what to expect with such facilities. She stated that it also enables the City to help balance some of these concerns with the need to disperse the facilities throughout the County. The Secretary agreed, but added that residents may resent the hearing process if they conclude that they have no real affect on the decisions as to whether a residential facility is located in their neighborhood. The Secretary explained that the City cannot look at the concerns within the facilities as to operation which are covered by State licensing. He stated that the City has to _look at the impact of such facilities on surrounding properties. He cited the concerns that are bound to be expressed by the neighbors and concluded that the time of the public hearing process might help to mitigate some of those concerns, but probably not entirely. b. Cathy Rausch Home Occupation The Secretary then reviewed with the Planning Commission two changes in the proposed home occupation at 3000 63rd Avenue North. He explained that the applicant wishes to put a sidewalk on the east and south sides of the house and bring clients into the front of the house rather than in the rear as had been planned. He also stated that she wishes to change the evening hours on Friday to Thursday and only work until 5:00 p.m. on Friday. The Secretary stated that he did not think the addition of the sidewalk would result in parking associated with the home occupation on 63rd Avenue North. He noted that there is already a sidewalk leading from 63rd Avenue North to the front of the house. He also stated that the sidewalk could be put in by the owners at any time without permit approval. He also noted that a condition of the Special Use Permit prohibited on- street parking with the home occupation. By consensus Chairman Lucht and the rest of the Commission had no problems with the proposed changes to the special use permit and agreed that a formal amendment was not necessary. c. May 6, 1985 Council Meeting The Secretary then informed the Commission that Short - Elliott- Hendrickson would be 4 -25 -85 -5- presenting its final traffic analysis to the City Council at the May 6, 1985 meeting. He stated that the Planning Commission was invited to attend that Council meeting to observe the presentation and offer whatever input it wished. ADJOURNMENT Following a discussion of upcoming business, there was a motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:13 p.m. Chairman 4 -25 -85 -6- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85007 Applicant: Sign Service, Inc. Location: 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests a variance from the Sign Ordinance on behalf of Bob _Ryan Olds- mobile to presumably erect an 8' x 10' freestanding identification sign at the Ryan Oldsmobile dealership, 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard. There exist on the site three roof signs which exceed the height and area allowed by the Sign Ordinance. These were allowed under a variance granted in 1975 which forbade any other freestanding signery on the site. The Sign Ordinance would normally allow two freestanding identification signs for this type of outdoor sales and display activity. The first freestanding sign can be up to 250 sq. ft. The second.sign can be up to 125 sq. ft. The maximum height of either sign is 32'. Roof signs are not to exceed the height of freestanding signs (or 6' above the roof line; whichever is less) and are in lieu of freestanding signs. At present, therefore, Ryan Olds has one more roof sign than is permitted and all three roof signs are higher than the 23' 6" allowed by ordinance (the roof line is at a height of 17' 6 "). Again, this situation was acknowledged by variance Application No. 75004 in lieu of all other freestanding identification signery on the site. The applicant has submitted a brief letter (attached) addressing the Standards for a Sign Variance. In it, he states that Ryan Oldsmobile and Mazda has established a leasing operation on the site and that a hardship will occur if they are not permitted to identify their daily and weekly rental. Regarding uniqueness, he states that a second freestanding sign cannot be granted because the present wall signs are identi- fied as roof signs. Regarding detriment to public welfare and neighboring property he points out that other auto agencies in the immediate area have additional free- standing signs. It should be pointed out that the sign the applicant seeks approval for is a legal sign under normal circumstances. The prior granting of a sign variance for this property, however, makes the circumstances of this case other than normal. The ;sign variance granted under Application No. 75004 allowed for three roof signs approxi- mately 39' above the point where the wall departs from a vertical plane. Since roof signs are allowed to be no more than 6' above this point, the variance was 33' in height above the maximum allowed. The applicant has made the argument that these existing signs are wall signs and should not limit the right to freestanding signs on the property. That interpretation was clearly not a part of the rationale for the sign variance granted under Application No. 75004. Indeed, there would have been no need for a variance had the signs been construed as wall signs. The Planning Commission has essentially three options with respect to this application: 1. It can affirm the reasoning of Application No. 75004 and deny this Appli- cation as violating the conditions of that variance (see Council minutes attached). 2. It can find that Application No. 75004 was in error and that the existing signs on top of Ryan Oldsmobile are wall signs rather than roof signs; therefore, no variance is needed and the site in question is entitled to two freestanding identification signs. The Commission's attention is directed to the definitions for "Sign, Freestanding ", 0 "Sign,.Roof`-", and "Sign, Wall" (attached). It is believed that a careful review of these definitions, leads one to conclude that the signs in question are roof signs, not wall signs. 4 -25 -85 -1- Application No. 85007 continued 3. Lastly, the Commission can act to amend the action taken under Appli- cation No. 75004 and allow the proposed 8' x 10' sign. This might be done by y the three si n panels on the roof as a single 9 P 9 sign, rather than signs, thereby allowing a freestanding /roof sign, namely the one proposed. It should be pointed out, however, that the Sign Ordinance defines as two separate signs any two faces at more than a 150 angle to each other. The existing roof signs are at 90 to each other. Staff recommendation is, therefore, to affirm the original decision of Application No. 75004. Regarding the Standards for a Sign Variance, it seems difficult to claim a hardship in this case. The strict letter of the ordinance has never been in effect and the owner of the property has lived for ten years within the conditions of Application No. 75004. The conditions upon which the request for a variance is based - that a new business has been started on the property - do not seem at all unique. Multiple businesses quite often occupy the same property, but that is no reason to add more and more to the allowable signery for a given parcel. Businesses that share land must share allowable signery as well. Finally, the applicant argues that no one will be hurt by the additional sign since other auto dealers have at least one freestand- ing sign each. Perhaps this is true. Perhaps it is also true that one more sign in this area of Brooklyn Boulevard will hardly be noticed. There is so much visual pollution and sign overkill between I -94 and 70th Avenue North that the impact of one additional sign may well be marginal. Of course, we are forced to wonder how much benefit such a sign can bring. If Ryan Oldsmobile is allowed freestanding signs because others have them, will others be granted height variances for roof signs be- cause Ryan Oldsmobile received one? We fail to see sufficient reasons for amending or overturning the action taken under Application No. 75004. It is, therefore, recommended that this application be denied on the grounds that the Standards for a Sign Variance are not met. 4 -25 -85 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85008 Applicant: Ryan Construction Company Location: 6200 Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests amended special use permit approval to operate a drive -up bank facility in the office building under construction at 6200 Shingle Creek Parkway. The property in question is zoned I -1 and is bounded on the north by the Brookdale Corpor- ate Center office building, on the east by the west leg of Earle Brown Drive, on the south by Summit Drive, and on the west by Shingle Creek Parkway. All access to the site is off Earle Brown Drive. A drive -up bank facility is a special use in the I -1 zoning district (as is the office building), but the parking requirement for a bank is greater than that for the office building generally on a per- unit -of -space basis. The bank space within the building is to be approximately 4,000 sq. ft. in area. The parking requirement for financial institutions is the same as the retail parking re- quirement; that is, 11 spaces for the first 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus 8 spaces for each additional 1,000 sq. ft. up to 15,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. The bank space, therefore, requires 11 + (3 x 8) = 35 parking spaces. The remaining 112, 640 sq. ft. of office space in the building require parking based on the follow- ing formula G.F.A. /(.0005 x G.F.A.) + 190 (G.F.A. = Gross Floor Area). This works out to one space per 246.32 sq. ft. of gross floor area, or 457 spaces. Adding these two requirements results in a total parking requirement of 492 spaces for the building. A proof -of- parking plan has been submitted which shows a potential of 492 parking spaces on the site of this southerly office building. These spaces are accomplished by eliminating three and one -half planter islands. The original approved plan (Appli- cation No. 81012) provided for 470 potential stalls for each office building. A proof -of- parking for medical use in the north building also eliminated the planter islands on that site (special use permit Application No. 82047) These islands would not actually be removed from the parking lot unless the City were to find that a parking deficiency existed on the site. Aside from available parking, the application also raises traffic concerns associated with the bank drive -up lanes. The four drive -up lanes are to be located on the east side of the building. Bank customers would enter the site via an access slightly south of the buidling. Cars using the drive -up lanes will turn right almost immedi- ately and stack between the drive -up teller stations and the driving lane running along the south side of the building. The concern of staff is that the stacking associated with the bank drive -up may back up into this lane, hindering entrance to the site, perhaps to the point of affecting the flow of traffic in Earle Brown Drive. Another concern is that the peak business hours for the bank, particularly Friday afternoon, will lead to conflicts between cars willing to enter the site for banking and cars exiting both office buildings and moving into the right -turn lane of south- bound Earle Brown Drive. Ryan Construction intends to place a number of 15 minute parking signs on the south side of the building in the vicinity of the bank entrance to help facilitate bank patrons who wish to avoid any back -up in the driving lanes. This is certainly one measure which would help to mitigate staff's concerns regarding traffic. Nevertheless, staff are seriously concerned that, if the bank's business grows, there may be a serious traffic problem affecting the public streets. We would recommend further that permit approval be conditioned on the southerly access being moved north of the building if the City determines that a traffic problem related to operation of the bank exists in Earle Brown Drive. 4 -25 -85 -1- Application No. 85008 continued The above comments have all been related primarily to standard(d)of the Standards for a Special Use Permit (attached). No written material has been submitted addressing these standards or the specific standards applying to commercial uses located in the I -1 zoning district. Staff find no conflict between the bank use in this location and the general standards contained in Section 35 -220. The bank should generally enhance the public welfare; will not diminish property values; and will not impede normal and orderly development on adjacent land. The specific standards contained in Section 35 -330 call for commercial uses to be compatible and complementary to existing adjacent land uses and of comparable intensity to other land uses permitted in the I -1 district. The drive -up bank use is poten- tially more intense than the office uses on surrounding land, but does seem to be compatible and complementary to those offices. The bank is certainly not more intense than the retail uses anticipated south of Summit Drive. The activity levels, at peak hours, however, will certainly exceed the normal traffic levels for permitted I -1 district uses. In terms of interna activities, the bank is less intense. Further- more, the bank, along with other even more intense uses,is comprehended by Section 35 -330 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff, therefore, see no reason to deny the proposed bank use as long as the traffic impact can be effectively managed on the site. Ap- proval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. The certificate of occupancy for the bank shall be subject to the installation of 15 minute parking signs at no less than 10 stalls on the south side of the office buidling. 3. The applicant shall agree in writing that the south entrance to the site off Earle Brown Drive shall be relocated to a point -north of the office building upon a determination by the City that a traffic problem related to the operation of the bank exists in Earle Brown Drive. Said agreement to be executed prior to the issuance of the special use permit and prior to building permits for the bank space and shall be filed with the title to the property. 4. Special use permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 5. Permit approval acknowledges a proof -of- parking plan received April 11, 1985 from Ryan Construction Company providing 492 parking stalls on site. If it becomes necessary to install some deferred spaces, those located in the Earle Brown Drive greenstrip shall be installed first and those potentially under the landscaped islands installed last. 6. The applicant shall agree in writing to install proof -of- parking spaces upon a determination by the City that a parking deficiency exists on the site. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of building permits for the bank. 4 -25 -85 -2- Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING XERXES AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -09, AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREON WHEREAS, Resolution No. 84 -48 adopted the 8th day of April, 1985, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed improvement of Xerxes Avenue North from C.S.A.H. 10 to 59th Avenue North; and WHEREAS, ten days' published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 6th day of May, 1985, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that it is hereby determined that it is necessary and in the best interests of the City and the owners of property specially benefited thereby, that: 1. The following improvement as proposed in Council Resolution No. 85 -58 adopted on the 8th day of April, 1985 shall be constructed: XERXES AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -09 2. The City Engineer is designated as the engineer for this improvement. The City Engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for this improvement. 3. The estimated cost of the project is $359,290. 4. The estimated cost will be financed by: Special Assessments $ 31,010 M.S.A. Fund Balance 2611 62,340 M.S.A. Fund Balance 2613 265,290 TOTAL $359,290 Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk RESOLUTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. C CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B RO OKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTE R ENGINEER'S REPORT Xerxes Avenue North Improvement Project No. 1985 -09 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -09 PROJECT LOCATION: Xerxes Avenue North from C.S.A.H. 10 to 194 Bridge DISCUSSION: Xerxes Avenue North was intially constructed in segments from C.S.A.H. 10 to I -94 over a period of 5 years between 1961 ad 1965. An inventory of the roadway structure indicates it suffers from excessive longetudinal and transverse cracking, but remains essentially sound. Staff proposes to improve the surface by repairing the structural cracking, then constructing a bituminous overlay. The proposed surface improvement project offers an excellent opportunity to compare two existing state -of- the -art methods of crack repair: (1) complete removal /replacement of the bituminous pavement structure in the crack area; and (2) milling of the upper two inches of the bituminous pavement in the crack area, placement of a geotextile fabric, and replacement of the bituminous paving. staff proposes to use the geotextile fabric on the northbound surface of the divided roadway while using removal /replacement process on the southbound outhbound surface. Included in the proposed surface improvement is the replacement of cracked, settled, and deteriorated concrete curb and gutter, the reconstruction of the sidewalk pedestrian ramps to meet existing code provisions (many ramps have a "lip" which is nearly immountable by wheelchair 1 users), and replacement of settled sidewalk panels at the Xerxes Avenue -194 bridge approach. In: addition to surface repair, staff proposes to construct a left turn lane for northbound to westbound traffic movements at the Xerxes Avenue -59th Avenue intersection. Included in the proposal is the construction of a roadway surface taper (from the existing 22 foot width to 16 feet) -for the northbound traffic lane approach prior to the left turn lane. j .. Semakw Nam �,. Engineer's Report Project No. 1985 -09 Page 2 Such construction will first merge traffic into one lane after crossing the Northway Drive intersection, then provide the motorist the opportunity to select the desired lane (i.e. left turn, through, or parking). Staff also proposes to lengthen the left turn lane for northbound to westbound turns at the Xerxes Avenue -63rd Avenue intersection, thereby increasing vehicle storage length from 85 feet to 160 feet. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: It is anticipated that all costs are eligible for reimbursement from the City's regular Municipal State Aid Fund Account. However, staff recommends that special assessments be levied against the benefited commercial properties located along the southerly segment of Xerxes Avenue between C.S.A.H. 10 and 59th Avenue. Staff further recommends that the special assessment amount be based upon the prorating of actual costs incurred for improvement of the street within the commercial segment only. The basis of this recommendation is similar to the rationale used in 1982 for the reconstruction of Xerxes Avenue between T.H. 100 and C.S.A.H. 10 - i.e. - the pavement structure should have provided at least 30 years of service before significant repair was required. In addition, a significant amount of curb and gutter must be replaced because of premature deterioration or settlement. Staff considers a 33% reduction in the related improvement costs to be equitable, leaving 67% of the costs to be levied against the commercial and R -5 properties bounded on the south by C.S.A.H. 10, on the north by 59th Avenue, on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard and on the 'east by a line 500 feet easterly of and parallel to Xerxes Avenue (i.e. - the northward extension of Northway Drive from C.S.A.H. 10). Staff recommends that special assessments be levied on an "area" basis similar to that adopted for the 1982 Xerxes Avenue improvement project - i.e. - with two assessment zones established as follows: Zone A - all properties within 250 feet of Xerxes Avenue; and Zone B - all other commercially zoned and R -5 zoned properties within the benefited area as described. We also recommend that 75 percent of the total assessments be levied to properties in Zone A, and the 25 percent of the total assessments be levied to properties in Zone B. Engineer's Report Project No. 1985 -09 Page 3 REVISED The effect of this proposed assessment formula is summarized below: Cost of Improvement - C.S.A.H. 10 to 59th Avenue $46,510 City Share (33 %) 15,500 Special Assessment Share (67 %) 31,010 Zone A Rate - $0.0614 /S.F. Yields $23,260 Zone B'Rate - $0.0112 /S.F. Yields 7,750 $31,010 SUMMARY A summary of the estimated costs and finances is as follows: Cost Summary Construction Cost $277,620 Contingency 41,640 Utility Relocations 2,500 SUBTOTAL $321,760 Engineering Cost 28,960 Administrative Cost 3,220 Legal Cost 370 Interest Cost 4,980 TOTAL $359,290 Revenue Summary Estimated Assessable Cost $31,010 Proposed Unit Assessment Zone A 0.0613 /S.F. Zone B - 0.0112 /S.F. City Cost 'Share M.S.A. Fund Balance 2611 - 62,340 M.S.A. Fund Balance 2613 265,940 (M.S.A. Reimbursement) -------- TOTAL $359,290 Attached information includes: Project Location and Assessment District Map and a Proposal Assessment Schedule. The improvement as described above is feasible under the conditions outlined and at the costs estimated. Respectfully submitted, Recommended For Approval, Am Grube Sy ap] ' City Engineer Director of Public Works PROPOSED ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -09 (XERXES AVENUE NORTH) PROPERTY ZONE A ZONE A ZONE ,B ZONE B TOTAL OCCUPIED BY AREA (S.F.) ASSESSMENT* AREA (S.F.) ASSESSMENT* ASSESSMENT Super Value 111,065 $ 6,816.39 97,870 $ 1,099.90 $ 7,916.29 F & M Bank 65,255 $ 4,004.90 43,645 $ 490.49 $ 4,495.39 Brooklyn Crossing 136,598 $ 1,535.13 $ _ 1,535.13 Office Building Brooklyn Crossing 158,891 $ 1,785.66 $ 1,785.66 Vacant Land Brooklyn Crossing 29,860 $ 335.57 $ 335.57 Vacant Land Twin City Federal 33,541 $ 2,058.51 $ 2,058.51 St. Paul Book & 48,549 $ 2,979.60 11,565 $ 129.97 $ 3,109.57 Stationary Grecian Health Spa 20,436 $ 1,254.22 27,434 $ 308.31 $ 1,562.53' 1st Federal l S L 66,637 $ 748.88 $ 748.88 Four Courts Apartments 100,148 $ 6,146.38 117,108 $ 1,316.09 $ 7,462.47 - -------- TOTAL 378,994 $ 23,260.00 689,608 $ 7,750.00 $ 31,010.00 *Estimated Unit Assessment Rates Zone A = $ 0.0614/S.F. Zone 8 = $ 0.0112 /S.F. l IN �►� �I�I� MEN ��� 1iiil1MIM11l�1� n.. ��� z� = n n 1111 ■ ■11111111 ■ ■r / \� -- -- -- � l 1111 n■i�j, h 1111 1 ■ ■ ■t : -• IN NIM MIN 1 ■ ■11111 ■ ■� C /1 /��� � p- � � %%i�� %�j�'`�ia G� MIE C' : �� ■ 111 �I�j I� ■ ::- -- - •�� �� ��Iil _ �Ilie CIA EMU= ■■ar y -- ... wr�i��iii�i u11■IIm■errr� , \ • . � � . � �■ � 1111 ■� ■/■ ♦ � 0 �1■/ .. X1111■ - ■11t►��i����1 /�, mtm■ ■■■ s j �; •Ir -- -= IN - :� �� ■ ■ 1111 ■I ■1 ■■ �� • � -- a �= "� ■ ■111 ■1 1111 ■■!9 //j��� - - - — ��� ■■ ■ /111�����p M M� 1 ■1111�n" �1 1u1■n ■■/� •I - - ME -- _ MM ■. �� -- ��I�� /� i -- 1 1� 111 ' /I� �• ` �$ � �� 1111�11�11 :;C �� In ►���u e �.■■ minl■� � -- 11th,, II IIAII� � ..- -- �■■► �� X11 111 -C -� 1t �11�1 ��I���'�I11 .�■ .. o � WIN �n"� t�1,11 .Ir�,� di��i■s - . iu ! ■o��! Iii moll MINIM MIN MIN mm OWN I �1�IIIICII- -� - a ISO '"• . -_ ■■� I� .�/ .- •111111 �� IN MIN � —� � . �. �� � 1111 �- -- -- - -- -- —�■.,_■ IN - - --- -� �::■ ��"�- IN�11 ■■mamas :�a� IN POP - �.� �■ X1111 � -- .�� \ s ■111 111 /11 � C. :.'111 \ - -, .. ®. �1 /■ 1111 ■111/■ s. =% �' . �w.•� _ IIIIIi► ..� , . .. o �= s NEW =■�� M� mm m M o ON 4/000 00 00 WIN Elm Elm irl. m - N-/ 00 aw mom NONE s NEW NEW 0 0000 NE W INEW NE W IN 01F ® W co 0 0 0 NEW NEW ON Im molm ON 0 NEW SEES mm ■ - -r� �� m® ME -Z-0 Elim Elm ON IN ram MEN ft–ftmft—�lll Nolen ,. =– ■'s - • . 'W E a Imp;, A LIONS PARK . - - . - ♦ice , CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby P g given that a public hearing will be held on the 6th day of May, 1955 at 9:00' p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding accessory commercial uses in multi- storey office buildings. ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING ACCESSORY COMMERCIAL USES IN MULTI- STOREY OFFICE BUILDINGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -320. C1 SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT 1. Permitted Uses. s. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory. Such accessory uses to include, but not restricted to the following: 4. Retail food shops, gift shops, book and stationery shops, tobacco shops, accessory eating establishments, sale and service of office supply equipment, newstands and similar accessory retail shops within multi - storey office buildings over 40,000 sq. ft. in gross floor area, provided: that there is no associated signory visible from the exterior of the building; there is no carry -out or delivery of food from the lot; and the total floor area of all such shops within a building shall not exceed 10% of the total gross floor area of the building. Section 2. Chapter 35 is further amended in the following manner: Section 35 -900. DEFINITIONS. The language set forth in the text of this zoning ordinance shall be interpreted in accordance with the following definition. Words used in the present tense shall include the future; words used in the singular include the plural and the plural includes the singular. Accessory eating establishment - An establishment within a multi- storey office building or apartment building where food is prepared, sold, and consumed by clients who work or live within the same building or within a complex of which the building is a part. Such establishments do not appeal through signery or other advertising to the general public. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. ORDINANCE NO. Adopted this s daY of , 1885. Mayor, ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) l l.b CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the of 1985 at at the City hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances Regarding Liquor Licenses. ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING LIQUOR LICENSES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter ,11 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner; Section 11 -502 LICENSES REQUIRED. 1. No person except wholesalers or manufacturers to the extent authorized under State license, and except the municipal liquor store, shall directly or indirectly deal in, sell, or keep for sale any intoxicating liquor without first having received a license to do so as provided in this ordinance. Licenses shall be of [five] six kinds: "On -Sale Liquor Class A "On -Sale Liquor Class B", "On -Sale Liquor Class C", "On -Sale Liquor Class D ", "On -Sale Club ", and "On- Sale Wine". 2. "On -Sale Liquor" licenses shall be issued only to restaurants which are conducted in such a manner that a significant part of the revenue for a license year is the sale of foods, and to hotels conducted in such a manner that, of that part of the total revenue derived from the serving of foods and intoxicating liquors, a significant part thereof for the license year is derived from the serving of foods. The term "significant part" as used in the subparagraph means the following: a. for Class A licenses, 80% or more of the applicable revenue derived from the serving of foods; Class A licenses are available to all hotels and restaurants. b. for Class B licenses, 50% through 79% of the applicable revenue derived from the serving of foods; Class B licenses are available to all hotels and restaurants. c. for Class C licenses, 40% through 49% of the applicable revenue derived from the serving of foods; Class C licenses are available only to hotels and to restaurants which derive a considerable part of their revenue from sources other than liquor and food [and to all licensees described in Section 11 -502 (3).1 3. [All licensees who have not established the ratio between revenue derived from foods and revenue derived from other sources at the proposed licensed premise shall apply for a Class ,C license. Upon transfer of the license of an existing licensed premise the license class is dictated by the said established ratio.] ORDINANCE NO. New applicants who have not established a ratio between food and liquor for the licensed premises shall apply for a Class D license. This is considered a probationary license. Twelve months of documentation of food and liquor sales shall be presented to the Chief of Police on or f _ determin the a ppropriate be ore November 1 to rm d PP riate P license class for the following year. If such documentation is not available, the probationary license shall be extended for no more than one additional year. Otherwise, a Class A, B, or C license will be assigned based on established ratio. 4. "On -Sale Club" licenses shall be issued only to clubs. 5. "On -Sale Wine" licenses shall be granted only to restaurants which are conducted in such a manner that a significant part of the revenue for a license year is the sale of foods, and only the sale of wine not exceeding 14 percent alcohol by volume for consumption on the licensed premises, in conjuration with the sale of food shall be permitted. a. for wine licenses the term "significant part" means 50% or more of the applicable revenue derived from the serving of food. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor I ATTEST. Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: April 26, 1985 SUBJECT:- Suggested Change in Liquor Ordinance Attached please find 'a suggested - change in the Liquor License Ordinance. While processing the T. J. Applebee's license, it became evident that Section 11 -502, paragraphs 2c and 3 contained some errors. Paragraph 2c restricts a Class C license to hotels and restaurants which derive a considerable part of their revenue from sources other than food and liquor. Paragraph 3 was meant to require all new licensees to obtain the higher prised license until such time as a food /liquor ratio can be established. Upon reading paragraph 3, we found that it does not really say that. It lists licensees who have not established - a ratio between revenue derived from other sources at the licensed premises. It should state food /liquor and not other sources. Also, the ordinance prohibits the transfer of a liquor license making the second part of paragraph 3 unnecessary. We discussed the matter and felt it would be best to make a new probationary license with the same fee as a Class C specially for new establishments. We did not want to limit this license to one year-only, because if an establishment opens Late in the year we would still not have an established food /liquor ratio by renewal time. If you have any questions regarding this, please contact me. 1 � CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the of , 1985 at at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances Regarding On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Fees. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CF:APTER 23 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE FEES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 23 -010 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 23 -010. - LICENSE FEES. The fees for the various licenses shall be as hereinafter stated, not withstanding other ordinance provisions regarding the specific fee. Fee, (annual un- less otherwise Type of License Required by Section License Expires stated) On Sale I;ntoxi.cating Liquor Class A 11 -507 Dec. 31 8,000.00 Class B 11 -507 Dec. 31 11,000.00 Class C 11 -507 Dec. 31 14,000.00 (These fees shall become effective on January 1, 1985. Until such time the fees from all classes of on -sale intoxicating liquor licenses shall be $10,000.) Class r1 11 -507 Dec. 31 $14,000 Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the of , 1985 at at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 19 Relating to the Regulating, the Operating, Parking, Storing, Repairing, Servicing, and Maintaining of Vehicles.' - ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY ORDINANCE RELATING TO TIC REGULATING, THE OPERATING, PARKING, STORING, REPAIRING, SERVICING, AND MAINTAINING OF [JUNK] VEHICLES THE CITY COUNCIL CF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 19 -1301 through Section 19 -1307 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 19- 1301 INTENT AND CONSTRUCTION. The collection of unused and unusable motor vehicle bodies, parts, engines and related accessories having become a common occurrence in the community, and such collection having become a source of danger to the physical and mental well being of children and adults within the community, and such collection having become a source of concern and complaint by citizens of the community, this [Junk] Vehicle Ordinance is enacted for the purpose of prohibiting the collection and maintaining of such motor vehicle bodies, parts, engines and related accessories. Section 19- 1302 . .. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of Section 19 -1301 through 19 -1307 inclusive, the following words and terms [wherever they occur in this ordinance] are defined as follows: a. PERSON. Person means any natural person, firm, association, partnership or corporation, and agent of any of the afore- said, except duly licensed New and Used Car Dealers, while engaged in the operation of their business. b. [JUNK] VEHICLE; [Within the context of Section 19 -1301, Junk] Vehicle means any motor vehicle which is not properly licensed for operation within the State of Minnesota by the State of Minnesota, or not properly licensed by any other state for operation within that state, or which is not in operable condition, or which is partially dismantled, or which is used for sale of parts, or as a source of repair or replacement parts for other vehicles, or which is kept for scrapping, dismantling, or salvage of any kind. Section 19 -1303 PARKING AND STORAGE. With the exception of appropriately licensed pioneer, classic, or collector vehicles as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 168.10 no person shall park, keep, place or store, or permit the parking or storage of a [ junk] vehicle on a public street or alley or on any private lands or premises which he owns, occupies, or controls unless the [ junk] vehicle shall be within a building on such premises. Appropriately licensed but inoperable pioneer, classic, or collector vehicles as defined by Minnesota Statutes Section 168.10 may be stored on the owner's property provided that such vehicles are screened from public view by means of a six foot opaque fence. ORDINANCE N0, Section 19 -1304 STORAGE OF PARTS, ENGINES,, AND RELATED ACCESSORIES. No person shall store or keep parts, engines and related accessories on a public street or alley or on any private lands or premises which he owns, occupies, or controls, unless such parts, engines, and related accessories are kept or stored within a building. Section 19 -1305 CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to permit any act prohibited by any other ordinance, statute, or rule of law. Section 19 -1306 SEPARABILITY. Should any section, subdivision, clause, or other provision of this ordinance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the ordinances as a whole nor of any part thereof other than the part so declared to be invalid. Section 19 -1307 PENALTY. Any person violating the provisions of this ordinance, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine of not more than seven hundred ( $700) dollars or imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days or both, together with costs of prosecution. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal_ publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police' 4o DATE: May 2, 1985 SUBJECT: Revision of Junk Vehicle Ordinance Attached please find a revision to what has been known as the Junk Vehicle Ordinance. As you are aware, using the word "junk" to describe the storage of vehicles has caused anger in a number of people. This term also includes those _people with new cars which have expired tabs which are parked on private property. It appears that by simply removing the word, "junk ", from the ordinance, we will eliminate the designation of these situations as junk and thus eliminate much of the anger and frustration of the people receiving these letters and citations. This revision has been reviewed by the City Attorney's office. I recommend that the proposed revisions be adopted. MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Policew 00 , DATE: April 29, 1985 SUBJECT: Liquor License Application Attached please find the resume of Investigator Dirks regarding the application for an on -sale intoxicating liquor license for Midwest Restaurant Associates, Inc. to operate under the name of T. J. Applebee's. After completion of the background investigation, the Police Department recommends approval of the license for this es- tablishment. We will hold the license until construction is completed and a final on -site inspection of the premises is made by the Police Department. The following is a resume of the investigation of Case No. 85- 04921, the Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated in application for an on- sale liquor license as issued by the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota. This investigation is conducted by Robert W. DIRKS and this resume has been transcribed and typewritten by Lori NOVAK, clerk- typist for the Brooklyn Center Police Department. APPLICANT Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated _ 1800 Midwest Plaza Minneapolis, MN 55402 business phone - 869 -7398 Business to operate under the name of: T. J. APPLEBEE'S Brookdale Shopping Mall Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. Members of the general partnership of the corporation: Donald William STRANG, Jr. 17820 Lake Road Lakewood, OH 44107 DOB: 01 -05 -38 Allen Samuel MUSIKANTOW 1430 North Lakeshore Drive Chicago, IL 60610 DOB: 12 -27 -39 Michael Louis SNOW 20 N.E. 2nd Street Minneapolis, MN 55413 DOB: 02 -09 -51 Donald William STRANG, III 5726 Colfax Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55419 DOB: 12 -08 -57 INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FILE Application for on -sale or club intoxicating or nonintoxicating liquor or wine license, City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, by Donald W. STRANG, III, Vice President, Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorpor- ated. Application for Sunday intoxicating liquor license, City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, by Donald W. STRANG, III, Vice President, Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated. City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, form in support of a prospective application for on -sale or club intoxicating liquor or wine license for Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated applying for license for T. J. APPLEBEE'S to be located at the Brookdale Shopping Mall. Resume by Investigator DIRKS Case No. 85- 04921 Page 2 Copy of the incorporation of Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated. Copy of the lease agreement for the premises at Brookdale Shopping Mall between Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated and Equitable Life Insurance Society of the United States, landlord. - In support of an application for on -sale or club intoxicating or nonintoxicating liquor or wine license, City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Part I, General Information, name of the applicant- being Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated to operate the business known as T. J. APPLEBEE'S to be located at the Brookdale Shopping Mall. In support of an application for on -sale or club intoxicating or nonintoxicating liquor or wine license, City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Part II, Personal Information, on the President of Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated, Donald William STRANG, Jr. In support of an application for on -sale or club intoxicating_ or nonintoxicating liquor or wine license, City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Part II, Personal Information, on Allen _Samuel MUSIKANTOW, Board member and 47.5% shareholder in Midwest, Restaurant Associates, Incorporated. In support of an application for on -sale or club intoxicating or nonintoxicating liquor or wine license, City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Part II, Personal Information, on michael Louis SNOW, Vice President and Secretary for Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated and 5% nonvoting shareholder. In support of an application for on -sale or club intoxicating or nonintoxicating liquor or wine license, City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Part II, Personal Information on Donald William STRANG, III, Vice President of Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated and General Manager of the T. J. APPLEBEE'S to be located at Brookdale Shopping Mall, City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Application for license, City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, in the name of Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated, a Minnesota corporation and general partner of Midwest Restaurant Associates, a Minnesota limited partnership. The prospectus for Midwest Restaurant Association, Limited Partnership prepared by LAVENTHOL & HORWATH, a Certified Public Accountants firm at 100 Washington Square, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55401. Statements of assets and liabilities for the Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated, dates of April 26, 1984, Date of Inception, to December 31, 1984, prepared by LAVENTHOL & HORWATH, Certified Public Accountants located at 100 Washington Square, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55401. Resume by Investigator DIRKS Case No. 85- 04921 Page 3 Statements of assets and liabilities for Midwest Restaurant Associates, a Limited Partnership, for the period of July 23, 1984, Inception,- to December 31, 1984, prepared by LAVENTHOL & HORWATH, Certified Public Accountants located at 100 Washington Square, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55401. Summary of the offering of the Limited Partnership of Midwest Restaurant Associates. A photocopy of an article from business magazine "Restaurants and Institutions" discussing the concept of T. J. APPLEBEE'S as owned by W. R. GRACE and Company as owned by the division of Creative Food and Fun, subsidiary of W. R. GRACE Corporation. The concept of T. J. APPLEBEE'S came into existence through the fast foods division of W. R. GRACE Corporation in 1983 as it started as a four unit chain based in Atlanta, Georgia. The concept which is managed by the subsidy of W. R. GRACE Corporation, known as Creative Food and Fun, has since expanded with other stores opening in the southern parts of the United States. W R. GRACE Corporation being familiar with Mr. Donald W. STRANG, Jr. and Mr. Allen S. MUSIKANTOW, did approach them with the concept and offer them the franchise rights in the midwestern area, offering several states as possible alternatives. Upon careful examination of the market, the parties determined that Minnesota was the area in which they wished to receive absolute franchise rights and did then form the corporation of general partnership, that being Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated. This general partnership includes Mr. Donald William STRANG, Jr., a shareholder of 47.5% and President; Mr. Allen Samuel MUSIKANTOW, Board member and 47.5% shareholder; Mr. Michael Louis SNOW, Vice President and Secretary, 5% nonvoting shareholder; and Donald William STRANG, III, Vice President and General Operations Manager for their T. J. APPLEBEE'S franchises. Investigator DIRKS, after reviewing the above listed information and talking with Michael Louis SNOW in person and Donald William STRANG, III, also in person, did receive the following information as to the basic concept behind the T. J. APPLEBEE'S restaurant as it is to be operated in the City of Brooklyn Center. The market at which this restaurant is directed is the two bread winner families who are looking for fast food service and refreshments, but giving them an alternative to the typical hamburger fast food operations with a sit down service provided airy atmosphere with a pleasant decor. This type of concept is commonly referred to as adult fast food, giving the patrons the option of being seated and served, yet having their food and beverages delivered within a very brief time span, drinks believed to be served within three minutes and food items after being ordered to be served within ten minutes. After talking with the two listed parties, Investigator DIRKS had learned that the operation had been operating successfully for a period of time in the south, specifically Georgia, so did contact agent Marty ZON of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation located in Atlanta and request any information they had on the operations as they are operated by W. R. GRACE Corporation. In talking with Mr. ZON, DIRKS was informed Resume by Investigator DIRKS Case No. 85 -04921 Page 4 that he was aware of some drug transactions taking place at APPLEBEE'S, this being between agents and patrons as far as buys being made, but that to his knowledge, there was no information that the corporation or the management or employees were involved. After talking with Mr. ZON about this, he indicated to DIRKS that he would check further on this to better substantiate the type of operation T. J. APPLEBEE'S is as operated by W. R. GRACE and he would get back. Investigator DIRKS, after a period of time passed and not hearing back from agent ZON,- did recontact him in Georgia where he was informed that the Georgia intelligence gathering section of the GBI had no information on any criminal activities or.involvements of the listed activity by managers or employees of the T. J. APPLEBEE'S and that they to the best of their knowledge were legitimately run and very well run establishments. - Investigator DIRKS did question agent ZON about the drug activity again, at which time he informed DIRKS that it was activity that would not be abnormal to any bar and that a meet could be made with any narcotics dealer in any particular location for this exchange and that in checking it appears that that was the only kind of contact where T. J. APPLEBEE'S name had come up, as a meeting place. When questioned by Investigator DIRKS specifically of any problems then with T. J. APPLEBEE'S, he indicated that there were none and that they were frequent places that he himself and other agents from their organization did go to eat and have refreshment. Investigator DIRKS, after reviewing the information and understanding the concept which the Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated was attempting to bring to Brooklyn Center, did check on the applicants themselves. In doing so, Investigator DIRKS did do criminal histories on the following individuals: both Donald William STRANG, Jr. and Karen Cline STRANG, wife of Donald STRANG, Jr., by checking with NCIC, MINCIS, Ohio State criminal history, Lakewood, Ohio Police Department, Cleveland, Ohio Police Department, Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Office, Ohio, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and for -Ohio driver's license checks. All of these checks came back with no criminal history being located on either Donald or Karen STRANG and both having valid driver's licenses in the State of Ohio with no� violations. It should be noted that in reference to Ohio Bureau of Investigation criminal history checks being obtained, they require fingerprints for those and signed releases from the applicants to obtain them. Since there showed no criminal history with the federal agency, Investigator DIRKS did not submit these. The second parties to be checked were both Donald William STRANG, III and Dawn Elizabeth Campbell STRANG, wife, by checking NCIC, MINCIS, Ohio State criminal history, Lakewood, Ohio Police Department, Arlington, Virginia Police Department, Alexandria, Virginia Police Department, Cleveland, Ohio Police Department, Ithica, New York Police Department, Bethesda, Maryland Police Department, Denver, Colorado Police Department, Cuyahoga County, Ohio Sheriff's Office, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Hennepin County, Minnesota records and Minnesota and Ohio driver's licenses. Checks on the two parties, Donald STRANG, Resume by Investigator DIRKS Case No. 85- 04921 Page 5 III and Dawn STRANG, also came back with no records of any kind criminally and having valid Minnesota driver's licenses with no violations. Again, the Ohio State criminal histories were not obtained as it required signed releases and fingerprints and since there were no federal criminal histories to indicate felony arrests they were not obtained. The third parties to be checked on were Michael Louis SNOW and Laurie Ann Sanders SNOW by running checks through NCIC, MINCIS, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Minnesota driver's license- checks, Minneapolis Police Department criminal histories, Hennepin County Sheriff's Office criminal histories, Maple Plain Police Department criminal histories, State of Michigan criminal histories, Ann Arbor, Michigan Police Department criminal histories. In checking all of these locations there were no criminal histories on either Michael or Laurie SNOW and they were found to have valid Minnesota driver's licenses with no records. The fourth parties to be checked on were Allen Samuel MUSIKANTOW and Suzanne Jacqueline Makarewich MUSIKANTOW. These checks being made with the NCIC, MINCIS, Illinois State criminal history, Cook County, Illinois Sheriff's Office criminal histories, Chicago Police Department criminal histories, Indiana State criminal history, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension criminal histories, as well as Illinois driver's license checks. In response to these checks on these individuals, Allen MUSIKANTOW and Suzanne MUSIKANTOW, Investigator DIRKS learned that there were no criminal histories existing and that both had valid Illinois driver's licenses with no violations. Investigator DIRKS then in reference to the office _holders in the general partnership of Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated finds that there are no felony records or anything that would indicate any reason that a license should not be granted to the parties who make up Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated, general partnership. It should be noted that as indicated, the two primary holders of -stock in this corporation are Donald William STRANG, Jr. and Allen Samuel MUSIKANTOW, each with 47.5 %. Investigator DIRKS next verified the references listed in the Part I, General Information sheet provided on Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated, who are residents in the State of Minnesota. Investigator -DIRKS first talked to one Doug WOLMAN of 225 Blake Road South, Hopkins, Minnesota, 5`5343, phone 933 -1161. Mr. WOLMAN advised DIRKS that he is currently the management of the Winfield Potter's located in Minneapolis and that he had known the STRANG family for over ten years and that he had worked for Mr. STRANG for about six years. -_Mr. WOLMAN informed DIRKS he is referring to Don, Jr. when he says Mr. STRANG,`_ as he informed DIRKS that he had been a manager and director of operations in Mr. STRANG's restaurants in the Cleveland market urea. Mr. WOLMAN informed DIRKS that the younger Don STRANG, III used to work for him when he was a student and that he found him to be a very good employee as he worked for him and that he knows that since that time he has Resume by Investigator DIRKS Case No. 85- 04921 Page 6 received his bachelor's and gone on after working in the industry at different locations and with different corporations to obtain his master's deg in business administration. Mr. WOLMAN informed DIRKS that he is very familiar with the STRANG's and indicates that Mr. STRANG Jr. is very Y communit minded and that all of his establishments he wants to contribute to the community and not to detract from _it. When talked to about the store that they were looking to open up of T. _ J. APPLEBEE'S, he informed DIRKS that he was somewhat familiar with the concept as he had talked with the STRANG's about it and the other parties of the corporation, and that he indicated this particular market segment that they were looking at was the two to three mile radius market segment to the restaurant location and that they were looking at a neighborhood restaurant /pub sort of atmosphere that would be catering to adults in a fast food, yet service provided atmosphere. Mr. WOLMAN informed DIRKS that as fax as the STRANG family went, in his mind they were a very close family, very moral and upright and he felt that any establishment they would operate in the City of Brooklyn Center would definitely be no problem to the community or the police department. Investigator DIRKS asked Mr WOLMAN if he was familiar with any of the other P arties- associated with the corporation corporation that being MUSIKANTOW or Michael SNOW, and he indicated that he had only heard of them and met t them in passing assin and that he was not nearly as familiar with them as he was Mr. T an is son. STRANG d h Investigator DIRKS next contacted Byron FRANK of 100 Washington Square, . , Minneapolis, Minnesota 554 p hone hone 332 -5550. Investigator DIRKS in P talking. with Mr. FRANK, learned that he is a mem ber of the accounting firm, LAVENTHOL & HORWATH, Certified Public Accountants. It should be noted that the firm LAVENTHOL & HORWATH is the accounting firm for the Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated, both the limited and general partnerships. Mr. FRANK informed DIRKS that Donald STRANG's firm has done business with the accounting firm in their Ohio office for a number of years and that he is very well known to himself as well as other members of their accounting firm. Mr. FRANK indicated that Mr STRANG was a very good business man and that he led what he stated was a very straight and moral life as he knew of him and that he was a very good and upright business man. Mr. FRANK when asked about other members of the corporation, indicated that he knew Michael SNOW as an attorney through busin ess relationships, � , as well as being a personal friend. He stated that Mr. SNOW was a very bright young man and a very good attorney and that he knew that he was involved in this enterprise and that the connections that brought them ' together were that Michael SNOW 's father is in the similar business in Ohio and has had dealings, real estatewise with both the STRANG family and the MUSIKANTOW family in Illinois. Investigator DIRKS asked Mr. FRANK about the situation between Mr. SNOW and his wife, as he had determined previously that it appeared they were living at two separate addresses and were separated, and he indicated that they were still married and that they are trying to work out the problems that they have and that they do maintain two separate addresses but that they are still in contact with each other and attempting to work out any problems that Resume by Investigator DIRKS Case No. 85- 04921 Page 7 they have, which are of a private and personal nature between the two of them. Mr. FRANK did indicate that this has in no way affected Michael SNOW's abilities or the way that he handles and deals in business, nor how he conducts himself in his personal life. Investigator DIRKS did ask Mr. FRANK next about his dealings with Mr. MUSIKANTOW or any knowledge of him and he indicated that he knows Mr. MUSIKANTOW as a well known business man in the Chicago area and that he has owned and operated restaurants in the past and that he is a developer of hotels and restaurants which has lead himself and Mr. STRANG into this current endeavor. Mr. FRANK stated that Mr. MUSIKANTOW has dealt with his firm in their Chicago offices and that the dealings with them have always been of a very professional and very pleasant business experience and that he runs his businesses as Mr. STRANG does, very straightforward and successfully. In asking Mr. FRANK if he was familiar with Don STRANG, III, he indicated that he knew it was Donald's son and that he had really no other knowledge of him than that as he has not met or dealt with him specifically. Investigator DIRKS next talked with the reference < Sheldon F. JACOBS, P.O. Box 821, Wayzata, Minnesota, 55391, phone 473 -0612. In talking with Mr. JACOBS, Investigator DIRKS learned that he originally was introduced to Allen Samuel MUSIKANTOW and Donald STRANG, Jr. by Michael SNOW, who is a business associate and friend of Mr. JACOBS. Mr. JACOBS indicated that he is a friend of Michael SNOW's and through him had met Alden Samuel MUSIKANTOW and Donald STRANG, Jr. Mr. JACOBS indicated that he knows these people as being very straightforward business men and described them as very good business men with good experience in the restaurant /hotel and liquor business and knows of them as being very moral people and straightforward business men. Mr. JACOBS stated that he knows that the relationship between Michael SNOW and these men comes evidentally through Mike's father, who has been involved in business adventures with Allen MUSIKANTOW in the past and Mr. MUSIKANTOW and Mr. STRANG being friends,friends from dealings in the same type of business- . climate. Mr. JACOBS indicated that there was nothing that he could see which would not have this establishment opened in Brooklyn Center be a success and be run according to all laws and ordinances as prescribed by the City of Brooklyn Center. Investigator DIRKS then in checking with the references listed for the corporation and the corporation office holders, did find that there was nothing indicated that should not allow them to obtain a liquor license at that step of the investigation. Investigator DIRKS next did neighborhood checks and personal checks on Donald STRANG, III, who is residing at 5726 Colfax Avenue South in the City of Minneapolis, as well as Michael SNOW, who is residing at 20 N.E. 2nd Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota, with his second address being 2676 Count Road 90 Maple Plain Investigator DIRKS did o to Minnesota. 9 Y P . 9 the neighbors of Donald STRANG in south Minneapolis where he spoke with Resume by Investigator DIRKS Case No. 85 -04921 Page 8 them and found that there was very little knowledge about Mr. STRANG since he was new to the neighborhood in February. One of the neighbors, however, who resides across the street, Mrs. ANDERSON and Mr. ANDERSON, did indicate that they felt in talking with the STRANG couple that they were very nice young people and felt that they were going to be an addition to their neighborhood as they had talked briefly when Mrs. ANDERSON was picking up for the Heart Fund and received a donation. Investigator DIRKS did next check the neighbors of Mr. SNOW, both in Maple Plain and at the Falls Condominiums in northeast Minneapolis where he resides, and found that the neighbors had nothing but positive things to say about Mr. SNOW and did indicate that they were aware of a separation, those in Maple Plain, between he and his wife, but that he still comes frequently to the residence to visit their young child and that it is mr. SNOW's hope to work out their situation if possible and that he and his wife still remain married. The neighbors did indicate that they saw no domestic problems when Mr. SNOW was in the home and that there is nothing to indicate that there would be any problem with Mr. SNOW having involvement in a liquor establishment and that they were and are still very pleasant neighbors to have. Investigator DIRKS in checking at the Falls Condominium, found that the majority of those ma hours and are working people and were not home Burin 1 people 9 P P g the nor that most of them, due to the situation that it is, that being a condominium, are not very familiar with the neighbors. Investigator DIRKS did though as indicated above, talk with the neighbors in Maple Plain where Mr. SNOW had lived the longest and found them to have nothing negative to say about this person. Investigator DIRKS did also ask of both Mr. SNOW and Mr. Donald STRANG, III for some business references and Investigator DIRKS in attempting to verify employment on Donald STRANG, III was having difficulty with the Mariott Corporation who he worked for last prior to going to work for his father's corporation of STRANG Management Corporation out of Ohio. The name given by Mr. STRANG to contact was assistant comptroller, now comptroller of the Mariott Inn in Seattle, Washington, that being David TESSIER, (206) 241 -2000, as well as a neighbor who had known him most of his life, Dr. Harry GAZELLE and his wife Donna, who live next door to his parents in Lakewood, Ohio, (216) 221 -6067. From Mr. SNOW, Investigator DIRKS was given the name of Marvin BORMAN, one of the senior partners in his law firm to verify the employment there and to find out about his work record as a junior partner in the firm. Investigator DIRKS in contacting these people did receive nothing but praise for both of these young men and had the greatest assurances that both were very professional, well educated, very bright young men and good at their professions. In questioning any problems that any of them may have in their personal lives that would detract from them running a business appropriately, DIRKS was informed that there was nothing that would detract from them running this business and that they would follow all laws ordinances prescribed b the City of Brooklyn e and. policies as pre ribed y Y n Y Center t a' community and hopefully C o maintain a good relationship with the c o r 1 i shi Y P 9 P add to the community. DIRKS was informed by the family of Dr. Harry GAZELLE that the STRANG family as they resided in the Ohio, Greater Resume by Investigator DIRKS Case No. 85 -04921 Page 9 Cleveland area, are very upstanding and well known in the area and Mr. STRANG does sit on a number of boards in reference to the arts and community service organizations and are very eager to become involved in community efforts. Investigator DIRKS was informed by Mr. BORMAN that this is the same situation with Mr. SNOW and that he is very eager to become involved in events and assist and help in developing of concepts that are going to aid to the community, not detract from. Investigator DIRKS did not receive anything negative in reference to talking with neighbors, as well as the references requested by Investigator DIRKS of both Donald STRANG, III and Michael SNOW, who are the only two local office holders of the Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated. The final portion of this investigation did deal with the financial arrangements made for the proposed T. J. APPLEBEE'S to be located at Brookdale Mall in Brooklyn Center. - Investigator DIRKS to better understand this financial situation did have a meeting with the attorney for the corporation, that being Michael SNOW, and had him explain verbally the way in which the chain of T. J. APPLEBEE'S are to open and where the working capital is to be obtained from. Firstly, the T. J. 9 P Y APPLEBEE franchise was obtained by the general partnership of Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated, which consists of Donald STRANG, Jr. and Allen MUSIKANTOW, each having 47.5 %, with Michael SNOW having 5 %, nonvoting. The capital obtained in putting together the general partnership did then come from Donald STRANG, Jr. and Allen MUSIKANTOW in the form of $125,000 from each to Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated, the general partnership. These funds coming from personal assets and romi or Jr. nd Allen p s y notes from both Donald STRANG, J . MUSIKANTOW. Secondly, IK Mr. STRANG Jr. and Mr. MUSIKANTOW were to own , three points of the Midwest Restaurant Associates, Limited partnership, this being an investment of $105,000. All of these funds being provided for the total concept for opening of eight (8) restaurants as per the franchise agreement opened between gr ement with W. R. GRACE Corporation to be o en a wee n P P the years of 1984 and 1989. Thirdly, Midwest Restaurant Associates, Ltd. would be letting fifty units, each valued at $35,000 of which Mr. MUSIKANTOW and Mr. STRANG, Jr. already each own three at their investment previously mentioned of $105,000 and Mr. Michael SNOW also holding one unit at $35,000, along with a list of other investors who have bought a recalled, sixteen to units with the remaining, s he led r 1 9 g, eighteen units to sell. Mr. SNOW informed Investigator DIRKS that these remaining units left for the Limited partnership were being sold by the firm of MILLER, SCHROEDER Municipal Bonds and at that time presented to DIRKS the offering and Investigator DIRKS did photocopy the summary of the offering of this investment opportunity to the Limited partnership. I refer the reader of this resume to that summary offering. Investigator DIRKS was then advised that the Limited partnership which has no voting rights, would be presenting capital by buying into the Limited partnership by which the general partnership with the contributions that were already made by the major shareholders, being the voting and managing parties of the corporation. Resume by Investigator DIRKS Case No. 85 -04921 Page 10 As pointed out by Mr. SNOW, this is a endeavor to open a series of eight (8) restaurants throughout the Minnesota area, with several other sites already under consideration, including Bloomington, St. Louis Park and St. Paul, with Bloomington's site scheduled to open shortly after Brooklyn Center's, after the approval of licenses. Mr. SNOW informed Investigator DIRKS that the actual cost of operating or opening the Brooklyn Center store would be approximately $300,000, as in this particular location, the landlord had supplied $190,000 in construction costs in the remodeling, with the remainder then in opening the store being approximately $300,000. Mr. SNOW informed DIRKS that this capital would come from the funds of the general partnership, as well as the Limited partnership, who are sheer investors, having no voting power and receiving benefits from their investment as spelled out in the summary of the offering. Investigator DIRKS at this time refers the reader of this resume to the prospectus of the Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated, Limited partnership and the statements of assets and liabilities for the Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated and the Midwest Restaurant Associates, a Limited Partnership. Investigator DIRKS when talking with Mr. SNOW, did inform him that he would request of the corporation that he provide to us a list of the parties holding units in the Limited partnership, full names and addresses, presently involved and that he would further provide to us upon the remainder of the units being sold in the Limited partnership, the names and addresses of those holders. Mr. SNOW did inform DIRKS that he would gladly comply with that and that those would be forthcoming to us. Investigator DIRKS in reviewing the financial information in reference to the opening of the T. J. APPLEBEE'S can find nothing to substantiate any problem with the operation or lack of financing for the store to open at the Brooklyn Center location. Investigator DIRKS in continuing the investigation for this application of a liquor license did contact both the Illinois and Ohio Liquor Control agencies who handle the licensing of liquor establishments in those states. As provided by Mr. Donald STRANG, Jr. and Mr. Allen MUSIKANTOW, information indicated that they had owned liquor establishments in those states. Investigator DIRKS in contacting the Liquor Control for Ohio and Illinois did find that the establishments run by both gentlemen during their life times as business men in managing restaurants and hotels, could find that a number of licenses had been held by each and that there had been no investigations or infractions in regards to those liquor licenses. Ohio indicated that all of the establishments that were mentioned by Mr. Donald STRANG Jr. were very credible places and that they had had no problems with any of those establishments. Illinois when queried about Mr. MUSIKANTOW's and Mr. STRANG's businesses owned there, indicated exactly the same and further indicated that they would provide us with copies of the applications for liquor licenses in the State of Illinois and stated that they have all been well run establishments without any problems to the Liquor Control agency who would investigate any infractions. Resume by Investigator DIRKS Case No. 85 -04921 Page 11 Based on this final information compiled and all of the previous information discussed in this resume, Investigator DIRKS can find no reason that a liquor license should not be issued to the corporation of Midwest Restaurant Associates, Incorporated, the general partnership and Limited partnership. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on May 6, 1985 AMENDMENT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE B. C. National Little League Hwy. 100 & Lilac Dr. Los Primos Brookdale Center is T. Wrights 5800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Sanitarian (( ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE B. C. American Legion Auxilary 4307 70th Ave. N. r� Orchard Lane School 6201 Noble Ave. N. �.. Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Advance Heating 7805 Beech St. NE Atkins Mechanical, Inc. 6550 W. River Rd. Berghorst Plumbing & Htg. 10732 Hanson Blvd. Carlson Refrigeration 133 W. Island Ave. Ganley's Htg. & Air Cond. 2401 80th Ave. N. Genz -Ryan 14745 South Robert Trail Harris Mechanical Contracting 2300 Territorial Rd. LeVahn Brothers Plumbing & Htg. 3200 Penn Ave. N. Pump & Water Service, Inc. 1800 2nd St. S. Rapid Heating & Air Cond. 205 Atlantic Ln. G. Sedgwick Htg. & Air Cond. 1001 Xenia Ave. S. BuildiV Official MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP LICENSE rookdale Ford 2500 County Rd. 10 City Clerk POOL TABLE LICENSE Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Dr. c City Clerk SWIMMING POOL LICENSE B. C. Community Center 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Brookwood Estates 6125 N. Lilac Dr. Columbus Village Apts. 507 70th Ave. N. Earle Brown Farm Apts. 1701, 07 69th Ave. N. Hi Crest Apts. 1300 67th Ave. N. Marvin Garden Townhouses 68th & Orchard Ave. N. Riverwood Townhouse Association 6611 Camden Dr. Twin Lake North Apts. 4536 58th Ave. N. }► Sanitarian TAXI CAB LICENSE Town Taxi 11318 Olson Highway ` Yellow Suburban 127 1st Ave. N. Cv f of Police i GENERAL APPROVAL: Gerald G. Sply "ter, City Clerk MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC. LOCAL NO. 82 The City of Brooklyn Center and Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Local No. 82 agree to amend APPENDIX A of the of Labor Agreement between the parties effective January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1985 as follows: 1. WAGE RATES - 1985 Police Officer After 36 months of continuous employment . . . $2,452.00 per month After 24 months of continuous employment 90% of After 36 months rate After 12 months of continuous employment 80% of After 36 months rate After 6 months of continuous employment 70% of After 36 months rate Sergeant'. . . $282 above the After 36 months rate for police officer 2, a. Employees classified or assigned by the EMPLOYER to the following job classifications or positions will receive one hundred ten dollars ($110) per month or one hundred ten dollars ($110) prorated for less than a full month in addition to their regular wage rate: Investigator (detective) School Liaison Officer Juvenile Officer Dog Handler Paramedic. b. Employees classified by the EMPLOYER to the following job classification will receive fifty dollars ($50) per month or fifty dollars ($50) prorated for less than a full month in addition to their regular wage rate: Corporal. 3. a. The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of one hundred fifty -five dollars ($155) per month, per employee, for calendar year 1985 for general health, life, long -term disability, including dependent coverage. b. If for 1985 the unit employees vote to use fifteen dollars ($15) of the one hundred fifty -five ($155) per month, per employee, of health and life insurance for dental insurance for all unit employees, then such fifteen dollars 1 ($ 5) can be used to bid out a dental insurance program, provided that the bidding process would be in compliance with State law and that this would not otherwise be precluded by State law. FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER: FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, IW LO AL 82: ?;. , 0 1 Dated this day f �A Y D ated day. of 1985. �-�y , .1985.. 0 A -1