HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 03-11 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
MARCH 11, 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. Mayoral Proclamation Regarding a Day of Spiritual Rededication in
Brooklyn Center
7. Resolutions:
*a. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract 1985 -C (Liquor Store No. 1
Remodeling Project No. 1985 -03)
f *b. Amending the 1985 General Fund Budget, Transferring Funds from
Council Contingency Account to Fire Department Automotive Equipment
Repair Account for the Repair of the Fire Department's Aerial Ladder
8. Planning Commission Items (7:15 p.m.)
a. Planning Commission Application No. 85004 submitted by Cathy Rausch
for special use permit approval to conduct a home beauty shop with
one nonresident employee in the existing family room of the residence
at 3000 63rd Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of Application No. 85004 at its February 14, 1985 meeting.
This application was tabled at the February 25, 1985 City Council
meeting to allow time for the applicant to consider the conditions of
approval discussed by the Council.
9. Consideration of Specified License:
a. Brookwood Condo Rental License
10. Consideration of Specified License:
a. Wine and Beer License Application for Denny's Restaurant
-The wine and beer license for Denny's Restaurant was approved at the
February 11, 1985 City Council meeting for 30 days contingent upon
clarification of the investigation report regarding the length of
tenure of the present restaurant manager.
11. Public Hearing (8:00 p.m.)
a. Public Hearing for Water Main Improvement Project No. 1985 -04 and
Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -05 (Lyndale Avenue Improvements
between 53rd and 57th Avenues)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- March 11, 1985
Notice of the Hearing has been published in the official paper and all
property owners have been notified by mail.
1. Resolution Ordering Water Main Improvement Project No. 1985 -04 and
Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -05
2. Resolution Ordering Sidewalk Improvement Project No. 1985 -06
3. Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications for Lyndale Avenue
Improvement Projects No. 1985- 04,1985 -05, and 1985 -06 and Directing
Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1985 -F)
12. Discussion Items:
a. Staff Report on Sale of Cable Television Franchise
-The staff will be prepared to report on this item at the Council
meeting.
*13. Licenses
14. Adjournment
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, in 1952, an event was inaugurated by Christian
leadership groups in the United States Senate and the House
of Representatives; and
WHEREAS, the Annual Presidential Prayer Breakfast has
become a time for the rededication of the individual and the
Nation to God; and
WHEREAS, a voluntary committee of concerned citizens
have joined together to stage the Annual Brooklyn Center
Mayor's Prayer Breakfast on Saturday, April 20, 1985, at the
Holiday Inn for a similar rededication of local community
leaders and business representatives and our City to high
Judeo- Christian ideals; and
WHEREAS, a devoted Christian, Jeff Siemon, former
Viking star, has consented to be the featured speaker for
this event;
NOW BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED by the Brooklyn Center City
Council that Saturday, April 20, 1985, be designated as
"A DAY OF SPIRITUAL REDEDICATION IN BROOKLYN CENTER"
calling upon all citizens to join in quiet reverence and
dedication as stated in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are
created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain inalienable rights; that among these are life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these
rights, governments are instituted among men...."
AUTHORIZED by the Brooklyn Center City Council this
day of , 1985.
DEAN A. NYQUIST, MAYOR'
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT
1985 -C (LIQUOR STORE PROJECT NO. 1985 -03)
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for
Improvement Project No. 1985 -03, bids were received, opened, and
tabulated b the e City Clerk and Engineer, on the 7th day of March,
1984. Said bids were as follows:
Bidder Base Bid Alt. 1 Alt 2 Alt. 3
The Fendler Co. $116,400.00 $11,800.00 $ 6,300.00 $4,265.00
Robbie Const. 121,945.00 8,869.00 4,270.00 3,920.00
Morcon Const. 125,497.00 10,300.00 5,400.00 4,000.00
Nordling Const. 130,774.00 10,897.00 10,634.00 4,480.00
Phillips Klein Co. 132,300.00 11,300.00 6,200.00 4,440.00
George W. Olsen 134,479.00 11,428.00 7,252.00 4,149.00
David N. Volkmann 136,934.00 16,155.00 14,252.0.0 4,312.00
Michael Const. 136,977.00 11,620.00 5,844.00 4,688.00
Steenberg- Henkel 138,450.00 11,500.00 8,900.00 4,300.00
D.N.R. Const. 140,590.00 15,579.00 8,048 00 4,112.00
Gladstone Const. 141,430.00 11,300.00 6,100.00 4,340.00
Cottonwood Const. 142,948.00 11,978.00 8,890.00 4,150.00
McDonnel Const. 148,900.00 16,390.00 6,500.00 4,950.00
Falls & Nyhusmoen 151,730.00 12,090.00 13,112.00 4,520.00
Landborg Brothers 155,715.00 11,476.00 14,915.00 3,920.00
Maertens -B e
r nn 163 600.00 15 850.00 0
Y � 5,9 0.00. 4,000.00
Kloster Madsen Inc. 168,300.00 12,500.00 8,500.00 4,300.00
Perry Const. 192,432.00 18,900.00 16,600.00 4,200.00
WHEREAS it a that. The Fen pp ndl r Company is the lowest
responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota:
1. Subject to the City obtaining title and possession of
the property on which this improvement is proposed to
be made, the Mayor and City Manager are hereby
authorized and directed to enter into the attached
contract, in the amount of $134,500 (for Base Bid,
Alternate 1 and Alternate 2) with The Fendler Company
in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for
Improvement Project No. 1985 -03 according to the plans
and specifications therefor approved by the City
Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk.
2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with
their bids, except that the deposit of the successful
bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained
until a contract has been signed.
RESOLUTION N0.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that:
1. The estimated cost of Improvement Project No. 1985 -03
is hereby amended according to the following schedule:
As Bid
Contract Cost $134,500
Contingency for Landscaping' 3,000
Engineering Cost
Consultant
14,500
Administration 1.380
TOTAL $153,380
2. Accounting for Improvement Project No. 1985 -03 will be
done in Division 91 of the Liquor Store Fund.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY
Z:j OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
C ENTER
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works
DATE: March 8, 1985
RE: Bids for Remodeling of Liquor Store No. 1 (former 7 -11 Store)
On March 7, 1985 18 bids were received and opened for remodeling of Liquor
Store No. l according to plans and specifications as prepared by architect
Bob Pierce.
Bid items were established as follows:
Base Bid - includes all basic work to enlarge and remodel the building,
to install a new metal fascia on the South and East sides of
the building, to stain the existing cedar shake "mansard" fascia
on the North and West sides of the building to match the new
metal fascia, to do minimum repairs in the driveway /parking
areas and to install one light standard in the South parking
lot.
Alternate 1 - includes remodeling the driveway /parking area - to provide
parking for 30 cars (instead of the 25 spaces provided under
the Base bid), to reconstruct the East driveway to eliminate
the severe grade problem, to overlay the entire driveway /parking
area, and to install another lighting standard in the East
parking lot.
Alternate 2 - provides for replacement of the existing cedar shake "mansard"
fascia on the North and West sides with a new metal fascia
matching the other two sides (thereby assuring total uniformity
of appearance on all four sides).
Alternate 3 - provides for installation of two advertising sign boards on
the outside of the building.
Because neither the City of Brooklyn Center nor Architect Pierce have any previous
experience with the low bidder (The Fendler Company) we asked Mr. Pierce to
check their references. Mr. Pierce reports that he has received excellent reports
on their work from several of their clients, including Towle Realty and Fairview
Hospital.
.., Jlse Sa�srcetli.cg �l ane L� ..
March 8, 1985
Page 2
Also, because most of the bids received were considerably higher than the low
bid (and second low bid), Mr. Pierce requested them to review their proposal.
After consideration, The Fendler Company advised Mr. Pierce that they "are
comfortable" in proceeding with the contract at their bid price.
After review of all bids, we recommend award of the contract (including Base
Bid, Alternate 1 and Alternate 2) to The Fendler Company, at a total contract
cost of $134,SOO. Liquor Store Manager Jerry Olson recommends that Alternate
3 not be included into the contract award because he feels this work can be
done later, at a lower cost, if it is determined to be needed.
This contract does not include landscaping. However, a separate,landscaping
contract will be awarded later. Adequate funding for this work is available
within the project budget.
One final note: The attached resolution provides for award of the contract to
the low bidder subject to the City's obtaining title and possession of the property.
We are reviewing this question with our attornies at this time. In the event
this causes any concern, we may instead recommend that the Council table consid-
eration of the award until their March 25 meeting. Our specifications allow the
City to "hold" bids for 30 days after the bid opening date.
Respectfully submitted,
SK: j
�J
Member introduced the following resolution and r ] b
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1985 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM
COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND TO FIRE DEPARTMENT AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT REPAIR
ACCOUNT AND AUTHORIZING THE REPAIR OF FIRE DEPARTMENT AERIAL LADDER
WHEREAS, the Fire Department's American LaFrance Aerial Ladder has been
inspected by Underwriter's Laboratories Inc. of Northbrook Illinois in accordance
with NFPA standard 1904; and
WHEREAS, the inspection of the aerial ladder determined that certain
repairs were needed to meet or pass the Underwriter's Laboratories Inc. test; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 471.345 of the Minnesota Statutes provides for the
purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment, or any other kind of construction
work by informal quotations when the amount of such contract is $14,999 or less;
and
WHEREAS, the City's purchasing policy requires the City Council to
award contracts for purchases between $5,000 and $14,999; and
WHEREAS, the following quotations were obtained for the repair of the
American LaFrance Aerial Ladder:
American LaFrance $21,677.75
Truck Utilities and Manufacturing Inc. $14,090.00; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has determined that the quotation from Truck
Utilities and Manufacturing in the amount of $14,090.00 is the best quotation
received from a responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center as follows:
1. Increase the. Fire Department Automotive Equipment Repair account
(01- 4381- 000 -32) by $14,090 for the repair of the American LaFrance
Aerial Ladder.
2. Reduce the Council Contingency appropriation (account #4995) in the
Unallocated Departmental Expenses Budget by $14,090.00.
3. Authorize the City Manager to contract for the repair of the American
LaFrance Aerial Ladder in the amount of $14,090 from Truck Utilities
and Manufacturing Inc.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY
OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE
561 -5720
TO: JERRY SPLINTER - CITY MANAGER
FROM: RON BOMAN - FIRE CHIEF
SUBJECT: AMERICAN LA FRANCE AERIAL LADDER
DATE: MARCH 1, 1985
In 1984 I had the American La France Aerial Ladder inspected
by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. of Northbrook, Illinois in
accordance with NFPA Standard 1904, regarding aerial ladder
inspections. During the inspection, numerous defects were
found in the aerial device. These included leakage in the
hydraulic system, some drift in the hydraulic cylinders,
damanged ladder rungs, a twist in the ladder, and numerous
welds on the aerial ladder that do not meet or pass the Under-
writers Laboratories, Inc. test.
I contacted American La France and spoke with both the Presi-
dent and Vice President of the company as I felt some of the
repair costs should be absorbed by American La France. After
numerous conversations with Mr. Glenn Decker, National Service
Manager at American La France, he stated that American La France
has taken the position that this was normal wear and tear and
thus, would not bear any of the repair costs. I disagreed with
this decision and spoke with them at great length and informed
them that we would not ,purchase any additional equipment from
them in the future; however, this seemed to make no difference.
We have received two bids for the repair of the aerial ladder;
one from American La France, and one from Truck Utilities and
Mfg., Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota. The bids are as follows:
American La France $21,677.75
Truck Utilities & Mfg., Inc. 14;090.00
,•0 74 .Sosuethi rg nZ are j?i 1V .,
i
Page 2
March 1, 1985
It is my recommendation that we have Truck Utilities and Mfg.
do the repair on the aerial ladder. I have talked with other
fire departments that have used them and they are well pleased
with the labor and workmanship that was done on their equipment.
We would also save additional expenses that would be involved
in delivery And pick -up of the truck in Chicago.
I would like to see this presented to the Council as soon as
possible, as Truck Utilities has informed us that they could do
the repairs on our aerial in April of 1985. I feel this is very
important as we are not able to use the ladder due to the problems
with it. As I have not budgeted for these repairs, I recommend
that the monies be taken from the Contingency Fund.
If any other problems not covered in the estimate are found, the
Fire Department will be notified before any repairs are started.
R.B.
/
Attachments
OF
F< <
CUSTOMER SERVICE
December 17, 1984
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Attention: Chief Ronald Boman
Dear Chief Boman:
I have reviewed the Ladder Test Report that was sent to our President,
Mr. Clarke. Most of the deficiencies listed in the report are maintenance items;
i.e., numerous oil leaks, torquing of bolts, damaged controls, missing rung
covers, etc. The damage to the butt section rungs appears to be caused by
ladder locks being out of adjustment at some point in time. The "ironing' of
the base rails is a result of roller adjustment or rollers not turning freely.
American LaFrance has agreed to repair the welds at No Charge to the City
of Brooklyn Center. The other defects mentioned above were not present on
Delivery. Therefore, we feel our quotation to repair these items is justified.
Very truly yours,
AMER�CAN LaFRANCE
Glenn A. Decker
National Service Manager
GAD:sw
c.c. P. Clarke
W. Kasper
.N. Stuempges
1051 South Main St., P.O. Box 1 508, Elmira, New York 14902 -1508
FIGGIE 607 -734 -8181 Telex #932 -475
INTERNATIONAL
OF
AM ERICAN L►NCRA CE
CUSTOMER SERVICE
September 13, 1984
Mr. Bob Cahlander Re: American La France
Brooklyn Center Fire Department Waterchief
6844 Shingle Creek Pkwy Reg# 6714
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 UL Report 84FES43
Dear Mr. Cahlander:
The following is American La France's proposal for the ladder
repair of your American La France apparatus Register No. 6714.
LADDER AND LADDER HYDRAULICS
We will remove the ladder from your apparatus and return it
to the factory in Elmira, New York. The rebuilding of the
ladder will be totally controlled by the factory and at
their option. Should the ladder be such that the factory
cannot safely rebuild one or more sections, we will advise
you before proceeding.
The rebuilding of your existing ladder will include the
following:
Remove the ladder from the apparatus, ship to the
factory for rebuilding.
Install new rollers and slides. Properly adjust all
rollers, cables and ladder locks on the ladder.
Check and adjust all ladder bed supports.
Check and adjust or repair ladder bedlock
assembly.
Repair aerial ladder twist.
Repair ladder base rails.
1
390 East Irving Park Road, Wood Dale, Illinois 60191 /312- 595 -x'060 AFKM NTEFNA TK)NAL
cxMwwro
American LaFrance engineering will inspect
and advise as to proper repair or acceptance
of base rail minimum tolerance.
All damaged or missing rung covers will be
replaced.
All damaged rungs will be repared or replaced.
Reinstall the ladder on your apparatus.,
All weldments on the aerial ladder questioned by
UL will be brought up to current day standards.
Aerial ladder twist will be corrected with -in
manufacturing limits.
Turntable hydraulic oil leak will be repaired.
Left outrigger control hydraulic leak will be
repaired.
Both left and right elevation lift cylinders
will be rebuilt.
Should the condition of the lift cylinder bore or
piston be such that they cannot be rebuilt and
return the drift to within manufacturing standards
it would then be necessary to replace piston or
or cylinder or both you will be advised. The
replacement of the piston and /or cylinder is
not included in this bid price.
Hydraulic relief pressure will be adjusted to
manufacturing specifications.
Retorque rotation gear reduction box mounting
bolts.
Repair hydraulic swivel oil leak.
Repair hydraulic control valve leak.
Repair power take -off transmission leak.
Repair hydraulic pump oil leak.
Repair turntable pedistal hydraulic oil leak.
Repair damaged operator control.
Return hydraulic control pressure to original
manufactures specifications.
Repair extension motor hydraulic oil leak.
2
All hydraulic leaks have been bid accepting the fact they
can be repaired using seals and gasket kits with replacement
hose and hose fittings.
TOTAL PARTS AND
LABOR $20,297..00
The following options are available to you at this time. The
prices quoted are only valid if they are done at the same
time as the rest of the repower /refurbish work.
ELECTRIC LADDER LOCKS
American LaFrance has designed and engineered electric ladder
locks which we would like to offer you as an optional install -
ation on your aerial ladder while the other repairs are being
made.
The electrical ladder locks would operate on the third section
of your ladder employing both sets of locks, one set for the
fly section and the other set for the second section. Some
modification will be completed on the butt section ladder
locks, however they will remain cable operated.
h
This option is an additional cost of $1,189.00 to the bid price
LADDER SLIDES
American LaFrance has designed and engineered a set of ladder
slides that would replace the rollers in your ladder. We would
like to offer you the replacement slide kit in place of the rollers
at this time.
This option is an additional cost of $1,330.00 to the bid, price.
WATER CHIEF NOZZLE DRIVE MODIFICATION
American LaFrance has designed and engineered a Water Chief
nozzle chain drive to replace the hydraulic system presently
on your equipment.
This option is an additional cost of $1,380.75 to the bid price.
FIRE PUMP MASTER DRAIN —�
American LaFrance has a new designed fire pump master drain.
It is a single arm master drain.
This drain carries a cost of $582.00 not installed.
Order part number 499 1200061
The workmanship in the rebuilding and /or repower of your fire
apparatus will be of the highest quality available to the Fire
Industry. All work will be completed in a standard workmanship like manner, according to accepted practices. Any alterations
3
or deviations from the above specifications requiring extra costs
will be executed only upon written orders and will become an
4 extra charge over and above the bid price.
American La France warrants service completed on y ou ap paratus
P Y ,
as follows:
All parts installed during the service function are fully
warranteed for one year, labor is warranteed for 90 days.
This warranty covers manufacturing defects in both labor
and material and does not cover items damaged as a result
of abuse or negligence.
This quote is valid for 30 days, at which time it will have to be
reviewed for any price increases. We must have your purchase order
or authorization in writing before we can begin ordering parts.
Time required to complete this job is approximately 90 days after
we have received the parts in Wood Dale, Illinois. Lead time for
most manufactured parts is approximately 90 days. All parts
removed become the property of American La France and any trade-
in value has been taken into consideration and has been deducted
from the installed price.
Terms of payment are: Payment in full upon completion and
acceptance of the apparatus at American La France Service Center,
Wood Dale Illinois.
The City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota is responsible for _delivery
and pickup of the apparatus at American La France, Wood Dale,
Illinois.
Thank you for this opportunity to serve the City of Brooklyn Center,
Minnesota.
V y truly your
G William J. p r��/
Midwest R onal Manager
WJK /css
cc Glenn Decker
4
CK UTILITIES M
Truck Utilities & Mfg
L Q
`0 484.3305
fr ;•; S Q 2370 ENGLISH - CORNER OF HIGHWAY 36 - SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55109
pA V�, MINN. v DATE: 2 -15 -85
CUSTOMER REF.:
Brooklyn Center Fire Dept. TERMS: Net 10 days
6844 Shingle Creek Parkway QUOTE VALID FOR: 60 days
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 F.O.B. POINT: Our Plant
DELIVERY:
Attn: Bob Cahlander TELEPHONE: 561 - 5440
L CONTRACT:
IN RESPONSE TO YOUR INQUIRY, WE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING PRICE PROPOSAL:'
DESCRIPTIO
REPAIRS TO 100' AERIAL LADDER
1. Retorque mounting bolts on reduction box.
2. Repair hydraulic leak at main swivel.
3. Repair hydraulic leak at top control valve.
4. Repair elevation lock as needed.
S. Remove PTO and reseal unit and reinstall.
6. Repair hydraulic leak at pump.
7. Remove boom cylinders and send out for repair.
Reinstall cylinders after repairs.
8. Adjust relief valves to proper pressure settings
9. Repair hydraulic leak at extension motor.
10. Disassemble ladder section.
11. Sandblast ladder sections.
12. Repair all cracked welds in ladder.
13. Build up base rail of 3rd section, if possible.
14. Replace all damaged rollers, approximately 6 sets:
15. Repair damaged rungs.
16. Primer and repaint ladder section acrylic enamel:
17. Reinstall ladder onto truck.
18. Replace damaged rung covers.
19. Replace hydraulic oil filters by pump.
"I WISH TO SUBMIT MY ORDER BASED UPON THE ABOVE PRICES, TRUCK UTILITIES AND
CIFICATIONS AND TERMS." MANUFACTURING CO.
ACCEPTED BY BY /� Z��
DAT P.O. NUMBE
CUSTOMER COPY
JcK UTILITIES MSC
Truck Ut Mfg. Inc.
484 -3305
2370 ENGLISH - CORNER OF HIGHWAY 36 - SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55109
pq �l, • ..MINN• �
0 DATE:
CUSTOMER REF.:
TERMS:
Brooklyn Center Fire Dept. QUOTE VALID FOR:
F.O.B. POINT:
(Page 2) DELIVERY:
TELEPHONE:
CONTRACT:
IN RESPONSE TO YOUR INQUIRY, WE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING PRICE PROPOSAL:
DESC
SUBLET WORK:
20. Cylinder City Install furnished packing kits ..........$ 500.00
21. Have A.T.C. do function tests and safety test ........... $ 650.00
SUBRr j,AL : ............. ............... .....................$
OPTION
Modify water nozzle to hydraulic operated rotation,
Replace seals ........... ............................ ADD ....$ 655.00
OPTION
Paint ladder sections with Imeron Paint .............. ADD ....$ 650.00
TOTAL ...... ............................... .................
* NOTE : After unit is disassembled, if any twists or bows
are found in ladders, you will be contacted before
repairs are started.
If any other problems not covered in estimate are
found, you will be contacted before repairs are
started.
"I WISH TO SUBMIT MY ORDER BASED UPON THE ABOVE PRICES, TRUCK UTILITIES AND
I C FICATIONS AND TERMS." MANUFACTURING CO.
ACCEPTED BY BY
DAT P.O. NUMBE Rod Fleischauer
CUSTOMER COPY
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
STUDY SESSION
FEBRUARY 28, 1985
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman
George Lucht at 7:31 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas,
Carl Sandstrom, Mike Nelson and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of
Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Administrative Assistant Brad Hoffman and
Planner Gary Shallcross.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 14, 1985
The Secretary noted that the spelling of Mrs. WykrentIs name on page 6 was incorrect
and offered the correct spelling. Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by
Commissioner Nelson to approve the minutes of the February 14, 1985 Planning
Commission meeting as corrected. Voting in favor Chairman Lucht, Commissioners
Malecki, Sandstrom and Bernards. Voting against: none. Not voting:
Commissioners Manson and Ainas. The motion passed.
APPLICATION NO. 85002 (Target)
There was a motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to remove
Application No. 85002 from the table. The motion passed unanimously.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the
public hearing on Application No. 85002 which had been continued at the February 14,
1985 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed uananimously.
ACKNOWLEDGE WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85002 (Target)
Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to acknowledge
withdrawal of Application No. 85002 on the basis of a letter received from Tom
Bonneville of Target stating no interest in pursuing the application. Voting in
favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom, Nelson
and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
DISCUSSION ITEM
Tax Increment Financing District in the Earle Brown Farm Area
The Secretary then introduced a discussion item regarding a proposed tax increment
financing district to be established over the commercial area south of the freeway
and north of County Road 10 including the Northbrook Shopping Center and Plitt
Theater site. The Secretary explained that the primary purpose for establishing
the district was to acquire and preserve the Earle Brown Farm site. He added that
there would be some public improvements to the district including streetscape
improvements. The Secretary also stated that consideration has been given to
possible high -rise senior housing in the area of the Earle Brown Farm. He noted
that such a housing proposal would require rezoning of land and an amendment to the
2 -28 -85 -1-
City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated that there has been no commitment as to the
eventual reuse of the Farm site at this time. He stated that the staff was flexible
on what type of development would be best in conjunction with rehabilitation of the
Farm and was looking for a reaction from the Planning Commission as to what types of
development to specifically avoid.
Administrative Assistant Brad Hoffman then explained at some length the purpose for
the tax increment financing district and basically how it would work. He stated
that the Earle Brown Farm is the driving force behind the tax increment district.
He explained that, in a tax increment financing district, the tax revenues raised
from within the district would be frozen in future years and any new development or
increase in taxes because of inflation would be dedicated to paying off improvements
that were part of the tax increment plan. He explained that the main cost within the
district would be the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Earle Brown Farm. He
explained that the City is now in a good position to acquire the Farm since the owner
is willing to sell the property. He also pointed out that a committee has been
established to look at potential uses for the Farm complex. Meanwhile, he
explained, the staff are looking at how to finance the improvements proposed in the
tax increment plan.
Mr. Hoffman explained that the acquisition of the Farm would probably cost about
$2,000,000 and that the restoration of the Farm would cost another $2,000,000. He
stated that one possible reuse of the Farm buildings was a senior center with a
number of services offered to elderly residents available within the Farm complex.
He also stated that there would be improvements to the area in the form of sidewalks,
decorative lighting, etc. Mr. Hoffman also stated that a low interest loan fund for
rehabilitating deteriorating structures such as the Northbrook Shopping Center
could be financed out of the tax increment district. He added, finally, that a
vacant parcel of land south of the library site is in need of substantial soil
correction before it can be built on and that that soil correction might be financed
by the tax increment revenues.
Mr. Hoffman then briefly reviewed the time schedule that was being pursued. He
stated that the district should be certified by April 22, 1985 in order to capture
the increment from the high -rise office building at the corner of Shingle Creek
Parkway and Summit Drive. He stated that a tax increment financing plan was being
developed on the assumption that the City Council would approve the district and
acquisition of the property could be concluded at an appropriate time.
Mr. Hoffman noted that the proposed tax increment financing district lies entirely
within the Brooklyn Center School District and that there would be a definite impact
on the district's revenues. He stated that the City was considering a compromise
with the School District whereby less than the total increment would be captured and
some additional revenue would go to the school district.
Chairman Lucht asked how long the district would last. Mr. Hoffman responded that,
under law, it could be discontinued at any time, but that it could also be in place
for 25 years. He stated that staff do not anticipate that the district will be in
place any longer than necessary. He explained that when the improvements are paid
for, through increment revenues, the district would be dissolved.
Commissioner Sandstrom asked why it was so important to save the Earle Brown Farm.
Mr. Hoffman responded that that was a good question. He noted that the tax
increment plan would be a definite burden, but noted that a survey of area residents
2 -28 -85 -2-
shows that 67% of Brooklyn Center residents favor spending tax dollars to preserve
the Earle Brown Farm. Commissioner Sandstrom asked why the owner of the Farm was
getting top dollar for his property. Mr. Hoffman stated that the price being
negotiated was actually at the lower end of the range between two appraisals of the
property and did not constitute top dollar. In response to the concern over why the
Farm should be preserved, the Secretary pointed out that the Earle Brown Farm is
designated as a historic site by the Minnesota Register of Historic Places. He also
noted that State law allows for a suit to be filed to prevent any demolition or change
to a historic site. He also stated that the Farm is generally considered by the
community to be a resource that, once destroyed, cannot be restored. He also stated
that preservation of the Farm is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan. The Secretary
further explained that the actual historic site is basically contiguous with the
fence around a number of the Farm buildings. He stated that staff are assuming
there is a public interest in preserving the Farm. In response to another question
from Commissioner Sandstrom, the Secretary discussed some of the possible
improvements that would be pursued as part of the tax increment plan and noted that
there was possible redevelopment of the Plitt Theater site south of County Road 10.
Mr. Hoffman added that there was a need for improvement to the Summit Drive exit from
Highway 100 and to the John Martin Drive bridge over Highway 100.
Chairman Lucht asked what kind of incentives there would be for private developers.
Mr. Hoffman responded that there are many options that could be pursued with tax
increment revenue. He stated that the one that is being considered at this time is
low interest loans f or rehabilitation of deteriorating structures. Chairman Lucht
asked how any redevelopment and rehabilitation accomplished within the tax
r
increment district .. would relate to a general redevelopment Pm policy. He asked if
condemnation would be used if necessary. Mr. Hoffman stated that he did not see
condemnation as an option in the present case, but that it was always a possibility
in future redevelopment projects.
Commissioner Ainas noted the possible need to include the block between Logan and
Knox, north of 58th Avenue North. There was a brief discussion as to whether this
would be beneficial or not. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether redevelopment of
the Farm would be by the City or the private sector. Mr. Hoffman answered that the
City would acquire and, in all likelihood, own the Farm complex itself. The
Secretary further explained that the City would not be acquiring other property in
the district.
Commissioner Bernards then discussed his past relationship to the Earle Brown Farm.
He stated that the Brooklyn Center School District had been financially strapped for
many years and that the homeowners in the district had born the financial burden with
little or no help from Earle Brown and the property he owned. He pointed out that
the burden of the tax increment district would fall more heavily on the Brooklyn
Center School District than on other portions of the City. He stated that he
personally did not have much honor for Earle Brown and didn't see a great public need
to preserve the Farm. He asked who was pushing for the preservation of the Farm and
what would be the costs of the tax increment district on the School District. The
Secretary stated that he thought Commissioner Bernards comments were good. He
noted that, under the fiscal disparities law, both the City and the School District
were losers of revenue. He stated that that revenue would not be lost under a tax
increment district. Mr. Hoffman also explained that some federal financing in the
form of community development block grant monies was available for acquiring the
Farm property.
2 -28 -85 -3-
V
Chairman Lucht asked whether the Farm would ever return to the tax rolls if it was
acquired by the City. Mr. Hoffman responded that that was not yet known. He
reviewed some possible uses that might go into the Farm complex, some of which would
generate tax revenue and some of which would not. He stressed that the City was not
yet locked in on what type of development should go into the Earle Brown Farm.
Commissioner Bernards asked what the significance of the new office building and
Target would be to the district. Mr. Hoffman explained that the value of those
developments would be captured in the tax increment district if the district were
certified by April 22, 1985. Chairman Lucht asked what the increment on the office
building would be in terms of taxes. Mr. Hoffman responded that it would be
approximately $250,000. Commissioner Bernards asked whether a compromise on the
disbursement of tax increment revenues would be legal. Mr. Hoffman responded in
the affirmative explaining that not all of the increment revenues had to be
dedicated to the district improvements, but that some could be returned to the
taxing entities.
Commissioner Ainas pointed out that, in his contacts with developers, they always
ask whether tax increment financing is available. Mr. Hoffman acknowledged this,
but inted out that t the only properties Y Y erties that would definitely be affected b the
P
district would be the Farm site and the R7 property to the south of the Hennepin
County Library.
There followed a discussion as to the relative burdens of the propsed tax increment
district. Chairman Lucht pointed out that taxes on other property in the community
would rise as a result of the increment being drawn off for this project. The
Planner noted, however, that the burden of the tax increment district would fall
much more heavily on the Brooklyn Center School District which receives more than
half of the property taxes paid by property owners in the district. Commissioner
Nelson asked what the affect of the tax increment district would be on existing
developments such as Burger Brothers. Mr. Hoffman stated that their tax rates
would stay essentially the same and that there would be no real effect on existing
developments. Commissioner Nelson asked about the need to cap expenditures for the
district and end the district when those projects were completed. Mr. Hoffman
stated that the projects would be set forth in the tax increment financing plan and
that that plan would have to be amended in order to extend the district any longer
than necessary to pay off those improvements.
The Secretary asked the Commission whether they had any problem with the projects
discussed by the staff. Commissioner Nelson stated that he had no problem with the
acquisition of the Farm or its restoration and redevelopment of other property, but
stated that traffic corrections and other improvements should be financed through
special assessments. The Secretary noted that benefit had to be shown to abutting
properties for a special assessment to be levied. He noted that some of the
improvements probably would not be considered a benefit by abutting properties.
The Planner added that tax increment financing district revenues would - be
considered the same as general property tax revenues; that is, they would be the last
resort. e stated that e H s at other financing ools such as special
g assessments and state
aid monies or federal grants would be used up first and that tax increment revenues
would be the last resource tapped. He added that, by minimizing the tax increment
financing, increment generated within the district would a off the
g u
g pay
improvements that much quicker.
2 -28 -85 -4-
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the
meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning
Commission adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
airman
2 -28 -85 -5-
Memorandum
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspect on Z t�
DATE: March 8, 1985
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Application No. 85004 (Cathy Rausch)
The City Council on February 25, 1985 tabled Planning Commission Application
No. 85004 involving Cathy Rausch's request for a special use permit to conduct
a home occupation /beauty shop with a nonresident employee at 3000 63rd Avenue
North. Attached is a copy of pages 5 through 8 of the February 14, 1985 Planning
Commission minutes containing the Commission's recommendation regarding this
application.
The City Council decided to prohibit any on- street parking related to this home
occupation and also decided to allow a part -time nonresident employee for only
18 months at which time Mrs. Rausch's application would be re- reviewed by the
City Council for the purpose of eliminating this employee provision and also,
for the purpose of cutting back on the hours of operation.
Mrs. Rausch requested the Council to table this application so she could review
these restrictions further.
Mrs. Rausch contacted our office on February 27, 1985 and stated that she would
like to proceed with the application and could accept the 18 month limitation
on the nonresident employee.
Based on this understanding, the following conditions are recommended for the
City Council's consideratioon with this application:
I. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes,
ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be
grounds for revocation.
2. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator
of the facility and is nontransferable.
3. A current copy of the applicant's State operator's license
shall be kept on file with the City.
4. The home occupation shall be conducted on an appointment only
basis. The hours of operation shall be: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m., Wednesday and Thursday; 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Tuesday
and Friday; and 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., Saturday.
5. The special use permit approval authorizes one, part - time,
nonresident employee . working in the..beauty shop for a period not to
exceed 18 months following the issuance of the special use
permit.
6. The special use permit approval is exclusive of all signery
which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City ordinances.
Memo
Page 2
March 8, 1985
i
7. The existing driveway off Xerxes Avenue North shall be
widened to 26' with a throat on Xerxes Avenue North of
approximately 22'. No removal of curb or improvement within
the Xerxes Avenue North boulevard shall be commenced prior
to approval by the City Engineer.
8. Special use permit approval acknowledges the use for the
home beauty shop of an existing 11' x 28' family room. No
greater area within the home for the home occupation is
comprehended by this approval.
9. The premises shall be inspected by the Building Official and
any structural alterations recommended by him shall be completed
prior to the issuance of the special use permit.
10. A 10 lb. fire extinguisher shall be placed within the home beauty
shop area.
11. This application shall be brought back before the City Council
within 18 months after its issuance for the purpose of elimi-
nating the provision for a nonresident employee and to reduce
the number of hours authorized in Condition No. 4 above.
mlg
APPLICATION NO. 85004 (Cathy Rausch)
The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for
special use permit approval to conduct a home beauty shop with one non-
resident employee in the existing family of the residence at 3000 63rd
Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report
(see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85004
attached). The Secretary noted that a previous home beauty shop with
a part -time nonresident employee was approved in the past, but this was
before on- street parking was allowed for home occupations. The
Secretary also discussed other situations in which on- street parking
has been allowed, primarily for group lessons.
Commissioner Sandstrom noted that it was possible for three cars to be
parked on 63rd Avenue North and noted that the conditions of approval
would limit parking to two cars on 63rd Avenue North. The Secretary
stated that on- street parking should be minimized, but that two
additional spaces would probably be needed in addition to the three
stalls that were possible on the lot. Further discussion ensued
regarding the need for parking and the location of parking with respect
to the home occupation.
Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether she had anything to
add. The applicant's husband, Mr. Duane Rausch, submitted a scaled
drawing to the Planning Commission that provided for five cars to be
parked on the site in addition to the garage. Chairman Lucht asked Mr.
Rausch whether they were interested in on- street parking at all. Mr.
Rausch answered in the negative, stating that he felt all parking could
be handled on -site.
2- 1.4 -85 -5-
Commissioner Malecki asked Mrs. Rausch whether she had a beauty shop at
present. Mr. Rausch answered in the affirmative.
There followed a brief discussion regarding the traffic to the site.
Mrs. Rausch stated that the addition of an employee created only about
one extra car per hour. The Secretary asked how many cars were
generated when she worked by herself. Mr. Rausch answered that there
would generally be two cars present at a time. The Secretary stated,
upon looking at the submitted scaled site plan, that he did not think
five stalls could be accommodated on the site because of greenstrip
requirements on private property.
PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85004)
Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked
whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application.
Mrs. Loretto Wykrent of 3006 63rd Avenue North expressed a number of
concerns
She stated that she was concerned about parking on 63rd
because no one parks close to the intersection, fearing that they will
be hit by cars coming around the corner. She stated that she was afraid
they would park in front of her house. She also expressed concerns
regarding odors from permanent treatments, conversion of the area to
commercial, and interference on her TV from the hair dryers.
Mrs. Rausch stated that the State Board of Cosmotology requires doors
and windows to be shut when haircutting and permanents are being done.
She stated that the State would not allow customers to be exposed to
chemicals that would be of any harm to neighbors. She also stated that
the ventilation of the beauty shop would be adequate. She noted that
the home has central air.
Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding
the application. No one addressed the Commission. Chairman Lucht,
therefore, called for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by
Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the
public hearing.
Chairman Lucht asked the applicant if she could manage the operation
without any on- street parking. Mrs. Rausch answered that she could
perhaps handle it through scheduling certain types of appointments
together so that there would never be more than three cars coming to the
property at one time. There followed a discussion regarding how the
parking arrangement might work. Mrs. Rausch concluded that she would
need at least one on- street parking stall if she had a part -time
employee.
The Planner discussed with the Planning Commission briefly the
considerations in the ordinance for allowing on- street parking. He
stated that they basically relate to such parking not infringing on the
rights of other residents in the area to have visitors park on- street
and generally with respect to the residential character of the
neighborhood. He noted that, in this case, the parking could be
accommodated in front of the applicant's property and that it was a
fairly busy area to begin with. The Secretary suggested that the
Commission, first of all, decide whether to allow any on- street
parking at all and then to look at the nature of the proposed home
occupation.
2 -14 -85 -6-
Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the applicant has the same right to
have a client park on the street as a neighbor has the right for a
visitor to park on- street. Commissioner Malecki suggested that
perhaps the condition should be changed to allow only one on- street
parking stall since that was all that seemed to be absolutely
necessary. Commissioner Nelson stated that he had no problem with on
street parking. Commissioner Bernards, on the other hand, stated
that he objected to customer parking on 63rd Avenue North and related
his own experience with a home occupation that had significant on-
street parking. There followed a brief discussion of limiting the on
street parking to one stall. The majority of the Commission generally
agreed that this would be an acceptable solution.
There then followed a discussion whether the home occupation was
incidental to the residential use of the property. Commissioner
Sandstrom stated that he felt the size of the room being used was
incidental to the larger home. Commissioner Malecki expressed
uncertainty regarding the matter. Commissioner Nelson agreed that it
was incidental. Commissioner Bernards stated that he had no
objection to a second employee. Chairman Lucht stated that he did not
want to see a commercial endeavor created on the corner that would
change the character of the neighborhood. Regarding concerns over
motors and noise, the Secretary stated that the special use permit
would be issued subject to compliance with codes, ordinances and
regulations including these areas. He stated that any complaints
regarding odor could be reviewed as nuisance complaints.
Chairman Lucht then olled the Commission regarding their feeling
P g g g
about the hours of operation, as to whether they constituted an
incidental use of the property. No Commissioner voiced any objection
to the proposed hours.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85004 (Cathy Rausch)
Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to
recommend approval of Application No. 85004, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable
codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation
thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
2. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as
operator of the facility and is nontransferable.
3. A current copy of the applicant's state operator's
license shall be kept on file with the City.
4. The hours of operation shall be: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. , Wednesday and Thursday; 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. ,
Tuesday and Friday; and 9 :00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.,
Saturday. The home occupation shall be conducted on
an appointment only basis.
2 -14 -85 -7-
5. Special Use Permit approval acknowledges one, part-
time, non - resident employee working in the beauty
shop.
6. Special Use Permit approval is exclusive of all
signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City
Ordinances.
7. Special Use Permit approval acknowledges on- street
parking of not more than one customer vehicle on 63rd
Avenue North only.
8. The existing driveway off Xerxes Avenue North shall
be widened to 26' with a throat on Xerxes Avenue North
of approximately 22 No removal of curb or
improvement within the Xerxes Avenue North boulevard
shall be commenced prior to approval by the City
Engineer.
9. Special Use,Permit approval acknowledges the use for
the home beauty shop of an existing 11' x 28' family
room. No greater area within the home for the home
occupation is comprehended by this approval.
10. The premises shall be inspected by the Building
Official and any structural alterations recommended
by him shall be completed prior to the issuance of the
Special Use Permit.
11 A 10 lb. fire extinguisher shall be placed within the
home beauty shop area.
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom
and Nelson. Voting against: Commissioner Bernards. The motion
passed.
Commissioner Bernards stated that he voted against the application
because of his objection to on- street parking.
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 85004
Applicant: Cathy Rausch
Location: 3000 63rd Avenue North
Request: Special Use Permit /Home Occupation
The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate a home
beauty shop in the residence at 300063rd Avenue North (the northwest
corner of 63rd and Xerxes Avenue North)._ The property in question is
zoned R1 and is bounded on the east by Xerxes Avenue North, on the
south by 63rd Avenue - North, and on the west and north by single- family
residences. Home beauty shops are considered special home occupations
and are, thus, subject to the Standards for Special use permits con-
tained in Section 35 -220 (attached).
The applicant has submitted a letter and site sketch (attached)
explaining the proposed home occupation. She states that the hours
of operation would be 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday and Thursday;
9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Tuesday and Friday; and 9:00 a.m. to 2. :00
p.m. Saturday for approximately 40 hours per week. The home beauty
shop would be on the main floor of the home in the existing family
room on the west end of the house. This room measures 28'_x 11' (a
total of 308 sq. ft.). It is basically a converted one -car garage.
Customers will enter and exit via the rear (north) entrance. She
states that parking is to be provided on the lot and that a sidewalk
is to be installed leading from the parking area (by the new garage
off Xerxes Avenue North) to a deck off the family room. Access to
parking is to be off Xerxes Avenue North. Mrs. Rausch also states
that there would be one part -time (20 hrs. per week) non - resident
employee working with her. A sign within the limits (2.5 sq. ft.)
of the Sign Ordinance would be placed at the corner of 63rd and
Xerxes Avenues North.
In response to the applicant's letter and sketch, staff have retr --eyed
the latest site dr "awing of the property from a 1980 building permit
for a deck. That site drawing shows the existing two -car garage to
be set back 25' from 'Xerxes Avenue North rather than the presumed 35'.
The existing driveway is 16' wide. From this site drawing, it would
appear there will be less room for parking than depicted on the appli-
cant's sketch. If a -15' "greenstrip" is required inside the property
line, the existing 25' setback would allow only one parking stall to
the north of the garage. If the applicant's cars are parked inside
the garage, there would be room for two cars unobstructed on the
driveway. It may be best to simply widen the existing driveway to
26' (with a narrower throat at the curbline if possible) and have
three cars abreast since a car pulled onto a perpendicular parking
space (parallel to the street) would be blocked by cars parking on
the driveway. It appears, therefore, that the property cannot accom-
modate more than three - cars unobstructed with certaih improvements .
Staff would recommend that four parking spaces be assumed necessary
for a two - operator shop. Parking is allowed on both 63rd Avenue
North and on Xerxes Avenue North, but it would be preferable for
such parking to be on 63rd Avenue North. Also, customers coming from
the south may tend to park on 63rd rather than make a U -turn around
the Xerxes median at O'Henry Road. On- street parking associated with
a home occupation may only be authorized in consideration of the
Standards for Special Use Permits and of the following:
2 -14 -85 -1-
Application No. 85004 continued ~
a. The amount of the applicant's street frontage
b. The rights of adjacent residents to park on the street
C. Preservation of the residential character of the
neighborhood.
(from Section 35- 406.7)
Staff do not feel there would be traffic congestion in the public
streets if no parking were allowed on Xerxes Avenue North. The lot
in question is 94.48' wide,providing plenty of room for two or even
three cars to park on 63rd Avenue North in front of the applicant's
property. No infringement should be made on the frontage of other
residences. As to the residential character of this neighborhood,
it should be noted that there are no nearby commercial establishments.
Nevertheless, the lot in question is located at the intersection of
two collector streets. Therefore, a higher -than- average level of
traffic already exists. The Commission should pr•ob.ably weigh, during
its public hearing process, the perceived impact of the proposed two -
operator beauty shop on this neighborhood. It is staff's judgment
that, if clients are properly educated as to parking options, this
home occupation could function adequately at this location. However,
the area devoted to the use and the fact that a part -- time non-resident
employee will be engaged does make the proposed beauty shop more
intense than the average home occupation. We do not, in any way,
foresee the conversion of this intersection to a commercial mini-
district. Strict conditions should, therefore, be applied to any
approval the home occupation special use permit.
As far as the special use standards not related to traffic and park-
ing, staff do not feel that noise, odor, light, glare, etc. from the
home beauty shop will diminish property values or impede the use of
neighboring property. As proposed, the home beauty shop does live
within the letter of the Zoning Ordinance. It is always a matter of
collective judgment whether a home occupation is secondary and in-
cidental to the residential use of the premises. The area of the
house dedicated to the home occupation and the hours of operation
make the beauty shop a secondary, but perhaps not an incidental use
of the property. Nevertheless, there has been at least one case of
a home beauty shop with a non- resident employee approved in the past.
If the Planning Commission is disposed to recommend approval of the
application, the following conditions are recommended:
1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable
codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation
thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
2. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as
operator of the facility and is nontransferable.
3. A current copy of the applicant's state operator's
license shall be kept on file with the City.
2 -14 -85 -2-
Application No. 85004 continued
4. The hours of operation shall be: 9:00 a.m. to 5 :00
p.m., Wednesday and Thursday; 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.,
Tuesday and Friday; and 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.,
Saturday.
5. Special Use Permit approval acknowledges one, part -
time, non - resident employee working in the beauty
shop.
6. Special Use Permit approval is exclusive of all
signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City
Ordinances.
7. Special Use Permit approval acknowledges on- street
parking of not more than two customer vehicles on
63rd Avenue
North onl
8. The existing driveway off Xerxes Avenue North shall
be widened to 26' with a throat on Xerxes Avenue
North of approximately 22'. No removal of curb or
improvement within the Xerxes Avenue North boulevard
shall be commenced prior to approval by the City
Engineer.
9. Special Use Permit approval acknowledges the use
for the home beauty shop of an existing 11' x 28'
family room. No greater area within the hone for
the home occupation is comprehended by this approval.
10. The premises shall be inspected by the Building
Official and any structural alterations recommended
by him shall be completed prior to the issuance of
the Special Use Permit.
11. A 10 lb. fire extinguisher shall be placed within
the home beauty shop area.
- -
2 14 85 -3-
C) a'
MEMORANDUM
a
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant
DATE: March 8, 1985
SUBJECT: Brookwood Rental License
Brutgers, Inc. has requested the opportunity to address the Council and request
approval of their rental license. To date, they have purchased back five
(5) of the eight (8) units. They are currently negotiating with two (2)
of the remaining three (3) with the third party refusing to discuss the
matter with them.
The question before the Council, apart from the license and any settlement
with the remaining occupants, has to deal with the assurance the City has that
the project remains elderly. By law, Brutger cannot enter into an agreement
with a guarantee to discriminate on the basis age. In order to keep the
building for the elderly, we need to amend the development contract with
Brutger. The rental building has a clause that requires Brutger to reimburse
the City the hard costs we have in each unit amortized over a ten (10) year
period. I feel that such a sition makes it too easy to rent to those Po Y
0 outside the target group. The City has appxoimately $212,000 into the Condo
building. I would recommend that the City require an amendment to our
contract that would require Brutger to reimburse the City the full $212,000
should they rent to anyone outside the target (54 years plus or handicapped)
group. Presently, they are required to reimburse the City $2,900 for each
unit sold outside the target group.
Brutger representatives ' °should be prepared to discuss what steps they are
Proposing to take to assure that the building remains elderly. They should
be prepared to discuss what efforts they will take in marketing the condos.
I will be prepared to cover these points in greater detail Monday..
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police
DATE: February 26, 1985
SUBJECT: Follow -up Information on Denny's Restaurant Licenses
In checking, we find the memorandum of January 29, 1985 was in
error. William David Claflin has been employed at the Brooklyn
Center Denny's Restaurant since June of 1978, but not as manager.
At the time they applied for a new license for the new corporation,
they also submitted the new Manager's form and Investigator
Hennessy completed the usual background check. Since.1979, he
has had three traffic violations, but otherwise has no other
violations on his record. He also has no previous employer as
he was a student in Menomenie, Wisconsin prior to June of 1978.
If you require any further information, please let me know.
•
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
LYNDALE AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS NOS. 1985 -04,
1985 -05, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
(CONTRACT 1985 -F)
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and
specifications for Improvement Projects Nos. 1985 -04, 1985 -05, and
and has presented such plans and specifications to the City Council
for approval
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of
the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that
1. The plans and specifications for the following
- improvements as prepared by the City Engineer are
approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk:
WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -04
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -05
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be
inserted at least twice in the official newspaper
and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement
for bids upon the making of such improvement under
such approved plans and specifications. The
advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10)
days prior to the date for receipt of bids, and
specify the work to be done, state that said bids
will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00
A.M. on April 4, 1985, at which time will be
publicly opened in the Council Chambers at City
Hall by the City Clerk and City Engineer, will
then be tabulated and will be considered by the
City Council at 7:00 P.M. on April 8, 1985, in the
Council Chambers, and that no bids will be
considered unless sealed and filed with the City
Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's
check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the
City for 5 percent of the amount of such bid.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
I
RESOLUTION N0. _
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 ORDERING WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1985 -04 AND STREET IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1985 -05
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 85 -35 adopted the 11th day of
February, 1985, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed
installation of water main and reconstruction of street surfacing
on Lyndale Avenue North from 53rd Avenue North to 57th 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 11th day of March, 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 interest of the
City and the owners of property specially benefited thereby,
that:
1. The following improvements as proposed in Council
Resolution No. 85 -35 adopted the 11th day of
February, 1985 shall be constructed:
WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -04
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -05
2. The City Engineer is designated as the engineer
for these improvements.
3. The estimated total project cost of the
improvements is as follows:
Improvement Project No. 1985 -04
Previous Capital Expenditure $ 71,180.00
Construction Cost 60,060.00
Overhead Cost 6,600.00
Interest Cost 8,000.00
TOTAL $145,840.00
Improvement Project No. 1985 -05
Construction Cost $300,570.00
Overhead Cost 40,410.00
Interest Cost 5,550.00
TOTAL $346,530.00
RESOLUTION NO.
4. The estimated total project costs will be financed
as follows:
Improvement Project No. 1985 -04
Special Assessments $ 97, 640.00
Payment Against Previous
Capital Expenditure 48,200.00
TOTAL $145,840.00
Improvement Project No. 1985 -05
MSA Turnback Funds $265,450.00
Special Assessments 38,800.00
Public Utility Fund 15,230.00
MSA Fund (Fund Balance 2611) 27,050.00
TOTAL $346,530.00
�F
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.
NOTE TO COUNCIL:
this resolution requires
approval by 4 /5th's of
the City Council, on a
roll -call vote.
Member introduced the following resolution �I a
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NO. 1985 -06
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that it is necessary and in the best
interests of the City to construct sidewalk along Lyndale Avenue
North from 53rd Avenue North to 57th Avenue North.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City
of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that:
1. The following improvement shall be constructed:
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -06
2. The City Engineer is designated as the engineer
for this improvement.
3. The estimated cost of Improvement Project No.
1985 -06 is $45,660.00.
4. The estimated project cost will be financed by:
01 MSA Turnback Funds - $44,550.00
MSA Fund (Fund Balance 2600) - $1,110.00
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
NOTE TO COUNCIL:
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Adoption of this resolution
seconded by member , ai requires approval by a
taken thereon, the following voted in favor 1 majority of the City
and the following voted against the same: Council)
whereupon said resolution was declared duly
Member introduced the following resolution 3
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
LYNDALE AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS NOS. 1985 -04,
1985 -05, 1985 -06 AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
(CONTRACT 1985 -F)
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and
specifications for Improvement Projects Nos. 1985 -04, 1985 -05, and
1985-06 and has presented such plans and specifications to the
City Council for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of
the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The plans and specifications for the following
improvements as prepared by the City Engineer are
approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk:
WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -04
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -05
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -06
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be
inserted at least twice in the official newspaper
and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement
for bids upon the making of such improvement under
such approved plans and specifications. The
advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10)
days prior to the date for receipt of bids, and
specify the work to be done, state that said bids
will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00
A.M. on April 4, 1985, at which time will be
publicly opened in the Council Chambers at City
Hall by the City Clerk and City Engineer, will
then be tabulated and will be considered by the
City Council at 7:00 P.M. on April 8, 1985, in the
Council Chambers, and that no bids will be
considered unless sealed and filed with the City
Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashiers
check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the
City for 5 percent of the amount of such bid.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
RESOLUTION NO
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY
OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
IL T
iR OOKLYiN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
C ENr"ER
February 8, 1985
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Lyndale Avenue Improvement Projects
Nos. 1985 -04, 1985 -05, 1985 -06
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Water Main Improvement Project No. 1985 -04
Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -05
Sidewalk Improvement Project No. 1985 -06-
PROJECT LOCATION: Lyndale Avenue North from 53rd Avenue North to
57th Avenue North.
DISCUSSION: The City Council was presented a proposal for the
improvement of Lyndale Avenue North in 1984, said proposal
recommending the City provide for the installation of water
main, reconstruction of the street surfacing, and construction
of concrete sidewalk between 53rd and 57th Avenues North.
Subsequent to an informal neighborhood meeting and formal
public hearing regarding the proposal, the City Council
terminated proceedings and directed the staff to propose a
funding program for the project which would be more equitable
in its use of state, local, and special assessment funds.
Based upon that =directive, staff has presented a proposal for
a new City -wide policy regarding special assessment of street
reconstruction costs. This report incorporates said proposal.
Following is a brief summary of the Lyndale Avenue North
improvement proposal and an analysis of the effect of the
special assessment recommendations on project financing.
Water Main Improvement Project No 1985 -04
As noted in the 1984 proposal, it is recommended that water
main be extended along Lyndale Avenue North between 53rd and
57th Avenues North in conjunction with the completion of
street improvements,. The proposal provides for extension of
municipal water service to one of the few areas within the
City presently served by individual private wells only. In
addition to providing a source of water for domestic use, the
main installation would extend the existing fire protection
system which consists of fire hydrants at 53rd and 57th
Avenues North only.
1
74 Srv Xaw �,.
In conjunction with the main and hydrant installation, it is
recommended that water service lines be extended to all
developed lots and to those undeveloped lots which are capable
of being developed without need of variances from setback and
area requirements.
Street Improvement Project No 1985 -05
The proposed improvement of Lyndale Avenue North provides for
reconstruction of the street surface from the existing rural
cross- section configuration of 24 to 26 feet to the minimum
State Aid urban section standard of 28 feet. The proposed
construction provides for installation of curb and gutter and
concrete driveway aprons, thereby eliminating ponding along
the street's edge.
As noted in the 1984 proposal, an analysis of the roadway
structure has shown it will be more economical to totally,
remove and reconstruct the existing roadway than it would be
to upgrade the existing roadway. This decision is reinforced by the consideration that at least 25% of the existing surface
would have to be removed and replaced to allow installation of
the water main.
Again, as in 1984, the proposal comprehends the prohibition of
on- street parking unless agreement can be reached by the
adjacent property owner and the City. Conditions which must
be met in order that on- street parking may be provided
include:
Condition No. l - Adequate street right -of -way exists, or the
requesting property owner provides required
easements at no cost to the 'Cit .
_Y
Condition No. 2=- The City Engineer determines that proper
drainage patterns can be maintained through
such parking bays.
Condition No. 3 - The City Engineer determines that safe and
proper slopes can be maintained in the
boulevard areas.
Condition No. 4 - The property owner agrees to pay full- rate
special assessments rather than the reduced -
rate assessment (recommended later in this
report) available to property owners who do
not require on- street parking.
Condition No. 5 - The property owner understands and agrees
that any such on- street parking spaces are
public parking spaces which are subject to
the same rules and regulations which apply
to any other on- street parking areas within
the City.
2
A new feature incorporated in the current proposal is that an
extensive streetscape design be implemented in conjunction
with the street reconstruction (see attached concept plans).
The design goal is the achievement of a parkway effect,
thereby promoting the motorist's tendency to reduce speed
along the seemlingly narrowed corridor. The concept, as
proposed by the City's consultant Erkkila & Associates,
proposes the planting of larger stock canopy trees along the
boulevard, while interspercing lower level decorative trees
along strategic sight lines toward the Mississippi River. The
concept also enhances various locations along the route
through the use of shrubbery and other various decorative
plantings and includes screening of the City's lift station.
In conjunction with the proposals comprehended above, staff
recommends that concrete curb and gutter, concrete driveways
and bituminous overlay be constructed along 55th and 56th
Avenues North between Lyndale Avenue North and the cul -de -sacs
to the west.
Sidewalk Improvement Project No 1985 -06
Staff recommends the street improvement "package" include the
construction of public sidewalk along the west side of Lyndale
Avenue North between 53rd and 57th Avenues North, thereby
providing a pedestrian link between the two bridges both
bridges have sidewalks) and to the River Ridge Park urea. In
the event the sidewalk construction proposal is deleted from
the current project, boulevard restoration should include
construction of the "benched" area to allow future
installation of a sidewalk.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. Water Main Improvement Project No 1985 -04
Staff has reviewed its previous position regarding the levy of
special assessments for water improvements within ip the subject
area and again recommends
g the City Council levy one
residential unit assessment against each property which is
used as a single- family residential site. Further, staff
recommends that the City Council defer additional assessments
allowed for levy against any site which could support a 2
family tructure if that site to is resentl supporting a single
P Y PP g
g
family structure. Said deferrment would remain in effect
until such time as the property is fully developed.
In those cases where the property currently supports ± a multi-
family structure (i.e. the duplex at 5519/5523, the 4 -plex at
5547 and 5601, and the motel at 5608) we recommend that the
property be assessed frontage, excess area, and service costs
in accordance with the existing assessment policy.
3
Finally, staff again recommends that no water main assessment
be levied against presently undevelopable land (i.e. variance
required). Rather, it is recommended that the Council propose
to levy hookup charges only if and when development occurs on
these properties.
B. Street Improvement Project No 1985 -05
For Turnback projects, the Municipal State Aid system has
established a special "Turnback Account" specifically for the
purpose of allowing the City to upgrade the street to current
standards. Accordingly, turnback funds will be made available
for street construction, curb and gutter installation,
driveway construction and storm sewer modifications.
Staff also proposes that all abutting properties be specially
assessed on the basis of the separate staff report which has
been submitted to the City Council for consideration.
As applied to this project, the proposed assessment policy
recommends that properties zoned and /or used as single - family
home sites be assessed at $1200 /unit, unless such property is
subdividable'to more than one building site without
requirement of a variance. All other properties (i.e.
properties used for multiple dwellings, properties which are
subdividable to more than one building site, and properties
which are used for commercial purposes) would be assessed at
$16.00 per assessable foot.
A unique consideration applies to the proposed Lyndale Avenue
project, i.e. - the proposal to prohibit parking along most
segments of the project. To compensate for this factor we
recommend that reduced special assessment rates be applied to
those properties where no on- street parking is allowed. In
these areas, we recommend that single - family properties be
assessed $900.00, and that all other properties be assessed at
$12.00 per assessable foot.
In addition to the street improvement assessment, property
owners who do not now have paved driveways would be assessed
for the cost of concrete driveway apron construction at an
estimated cost of $35.00 per square yard.
Regarding the proposed street improvements on 55th and 56th
Avenues North, staff again recommends that no additional
assessments be levied for sideyard footage.
Whereas, in 1984 staff proposed that the City Council assess
street improvement costs for all properties abutting Lyndale
Avenue North to the east, we now recommend that no assessment
be levied for those properties considered unbuildable
according to City rdinanc
y es i.e. those properties lying
( P P
Y
g
between 53rd and
55th Avenues
North).
)
4
Based upon the incorporation of the special assessment policy
amendment as recommended and the reduction in the area
considered for special assessment, the City will be
responsible for financing approximately $22,850 from its local
M.S.A. account.
C. Sidewalk Improvement Project No 1985 -06
It is anticipated that the sidewalk improvement project can be
paid for by the use of turnback funds. However, this is
subject to final determination by the MN /DOT State Aid
Division when project plans and specifications are approved.
In the event of an adverse ruling regarding use of turnback
funds, there is no doubt that the City can elect to use our
regular Municipal State Aid funds.
PROJECT COST AND FUNDING SUMMARY: Based upon the information
provided, staff has estimated the project costs and funding'
available for the proposed projects. A summary of the costs
and finances is as follows:
Estimated Project Costs:
A B C
Project Project
1985 -04 Project 1985 -05 1985 -06
- - - - -- ------------------------- - - - - -- - - - - - --
Lyndale Lyndale 55th -56th Total Lyndale
Item Water Main Street Street Street Sidewalk
Construction $54,600 $260,440 $12,810 $273,250 $37,750
Contingency 5,460 26,040 1,280 27,320 3,780
Subtotal $60,060 $286,480 $14,090 $300,570 $41,530
Engineering
Consultant 7,500 7,500
City 5,400 25,780 1,250 27,030 3,750
Administration 600 2,870 140 3,010 380
Legal 600 2,870 2,870
Capitalized Interest 8,000 5,550 5,550
- - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - --
Subtotal $74,660 $331,050 $15,480 $346,530 $45,660
Previous Capital
Expenditure 71,180
Total $145,840 $331,050 $15,480 $346,530
$45,.66.0
5
Previous Capital Expenditure
for Main Extension @ I94 = $ 71,180
Estimated Total Cost, Project 1985 -04 = $ 74,660
Estimated Total Cost, Project 1985 -05 = $346,530
Estimated Total Cost, Project 1985 -06 = $
Estimated Grand Total, All Projects = $538,030 plus cost of
driveways and
water service
lines
Estimated Revenue Sources:
A. Water Main Improvement Project No 1985 -04
Special Assessments
Single Family Residential (26 Units
@ $2,484.00 /Each) $ 64,580
Frontage (1286.49 L.F. @ $25.43/L.F.) 32,720
Area (4,297 S.F. @ &7.89/100 S.F.) 340
Service Line Installations Actual Cost
TOTAL $ 97,640
(plus service line
Payment Against Previous Capital costs)
Expenditures for Main Extension
@ I94 -$--48,200
TOTAL PROJECT
FUNDING $145,840
B. Street Improvement Project No 1985 -05
Municipal State Aid Turnback Funds
Construction & Contingency $238,630
Engineering Costs 31,020
SUBTOTAL $269,650
Special Assessments
Single Family Residential (25 Units
@ $900 /Each) $ 22,500
Frontage (215.42 L.F. @ $16.00 /L.F. 16,300
1070.97 L.F. @ $12.00 /L. F.)
Driveway Actual Cost
SUBTOTAL $ 38,800
TOTAL $308,450
Plus transfer from Public Utility fund 15,230
Plus transfer from M.S.A. Account 2611 2 2,850
TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING $346,530
6
C. Sidewalk Improvement Protect No 1985 -06
Municipal State Aid Turnback Funds
$ 45,660
(Alternate source = Regular M.S.A. funds)
D. Net Grand Total Project Revenue $538,030
plus charges for driveways,
E. Sanitary Sewer Connection Charge and water service lines
Departmental records indicate that four remnant parcels
located at the southwest corner of Lyndale and 57th Avenues
may be combined to form one developable parcel. Neither
remnant (nor its partent parcel) has - been assessed a` sanitary
sewer connection charge. It is recommended that the City
Council acknowledge this condition and consider levying a
special assessment for said connection charge based upon the
1960 levy rate ($402.23) with interest compounded at 6
percent per year, resulting in a hookup charge of $1,726.32.
Assessment Spread Sheets
Attached to this report are the following exhibits:
Exhibit A - is a summary of special assessment: information
including annual installment cost calculations
for the water main project
Exhibit B is a summary of special assessment information,
including annual installment cost calculations
for the street improvement project
Exhibit C - provides a comparison of street assessments on a
parcel -by- parcel basis under the 1984 proposal
vs. the current proposal.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: The improvements as described
above are feasible =under the conditions outlined and at the costs
estimated. It is recommended the City Council establish a public
hearing for the project on March 11, 1985 and authorize staff to
hold a neighborhood meeting prior to the proposed improvement
hearing date thereby affording the affected property owners an
opportunity to become familiar with the staff proposals.
Respectfully submitted,
James N. Grube
City Engineer
Recommended for Approval,
Sy iKnaPP
Director of Public Works
7
Note to City Council:
If this report meets with your approval, we recommend the follow-
ing schedule for consideration:
February 11th City Council officially receives Engineer's
Report and calls for Public Hearing.
February 27th or 28th -City staff review proposal at informal
neighborhood meeting
March 11th Public Hearing and approval of plans and
specifications
April 4th - Open bids
April 8th - Award contract
May ist - Start construction
September lst - Complete project
8
��• �+_ R � KDROr �a u �P�N ��rr,�o �..� ; ole
TLOrI'f 'fD EHtou¢H��
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
LIFT �TATI ry
VIEMIIr of IGUEIL
LY DAL — AV €,
Alt
! i
a
\\ `CGO�RDIwtG -- Ittt�R4 �• t �
WI(N fD�LtaRONND PL&W rol" PRE - v�
w17N CA) N�
UFf H _! 'f+ti. lN1R^( r 1RCF/! �i MiouJN�g
&W1D h !'trG�AI�
° PI =F/�� 41G ^Y THE ltt(d�E�nvN - -- N1N� _
Wr(NI VIN
SHEET 'T' Of / DREY� JANUARY 10. 1985 i � A
LYNDALE AVENUE LANDSCAPE PLAN i
53rd to 57th AVENUES Q V �� CI I Y OF C �C'SOQ tSQ� = Ek
llrW � 11.cNUC1V.1. ;
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN. � � � � .x.66 ;e � �� _I
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
�H�f t• @.M_pvt�- .UH�UrfArit.E. {t.Al�{ MhTE1iW��_
IM HE YlT+ !SOD i' T. ;1- L'i'.EJtt.��i
f'lKLF.1UED llatrJN Df.�''(K.
. 581 SL00 66A0 6621
LYNDALE AVE.
– �— ci —
af
BAIT Y ti l(
Pi.AC�^Gr�+f ctsm up op.6ft
'bioH SuPrvlef Ta "REIMFP[GG�E�EL+��il i{;��
• fritAOt,15+�1 P�RKv</AY F.F�1;�'(
• �'fABLI� LNARA4'ft%R TD TNFi LOR�It'OR. .
• PRFi �lZV� VIEW�i D� 'ME 1?JUGIC
• FAL�L.!'fA'(� MAlht'fL'h1ANUi R �
• �'"OWIMh ,
C�� SHEET 3 of 7 e
D ATE : JANUARY 10, 10 ®6
Rev.
LYNDALE AVENUE LANDSCAPE PLAN Q e
53rd to 57th AVENUES (Won '�
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN.
Vim~ � I &Y4 100 �n CaM�ul NE r
MMU-". Lot 554111 781-NOW
40- / ' - 59TH AV E. N .
4-
Q)
1 58TH AVE. N.
' 57TH AVE. N.
w w
11 - - , 56TH AVE. N.
a a ll
J k M
--Q co all
10
Ll
,1
55TH AVE. N.
go
= h
BELLVUE r N 0 , \
PARK •
= j 54TH AVE. N.
53RD AVE. N.
MAP OF PROJECT LOCATION AND
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT.
Watermain Imp Project 1985-04
� p J
Street Imp Project 1985-
J 05
Sidewalk Imp roject 1 -
p J 9.85 06
EXHIBIT A
LYNDALE AVENUE WATER MAID,
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
1985 SINGLE — FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RATE = $2,484 (INCLUDES SERVICE LINE
TO PROPERTY LINE)
1985 MULTI- FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL RATE _ $25 /FRONT FOOT
+ `$ 7.89/100 SQUARE FEET
+ SERVICE LINE COST
PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
FOR WATER MAIN
PAYMENT PERIOD = 20 YEARS
ESTIMATED INTEREST RATE = 12% e
ASSESSMENTS ARE CERTIFIED TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR COLLECTION
WITH PROPERTY TAXES
FIRST PAYMENT WILL BE DUE WITH 1986 TAXES
EXHIBIT A -1
LYNDALE AVENUE WATER MAIN
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
(CONTINUED)
TYPICAL SCHEDULE OF SINGLE - FAMILY - - RESIDENCE
ANNUAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT = $2,4.84 20 = $124,20 /YEAR
1ST INTEREST PAYMENT (FOR AN ESTIMATED 15 MONTH PERIOD)
$21484 x ,12 x 15/12 = $372,60
ESTIMATED TOTAL, 1ST PAYMENT = $496,80
2ND INTEREST PAYMENT
$2 359 =
.80 x ,12 $283.18
ESTIMATED TOTAL, 2ND PAYMENT = $407.38
11TH INTEREST PAYMENT
$1,242 x ,12 = $149,04
ESTIMATED TOTAL, 11TH PAYMENT= $273
20TH INTEREST PAYMENT
$124.20 x ,12 = $14,90
ESTIMATED TOTAL FINAL PAYMENT = $139,10
'
EXHIBIT B
LYNDALE AVENUE STREET
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
1985 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RATES
NO ON- STREET PARKING - $ 900
WITH ON- STREET PARKING - $1,200
1985 MULTI - FAMILY AND COMMERICAL RATES
NO ON- STREET PARKING - $12,00 /FRONT FOOT
WITH ON- STREET PARKING - $16,00 /FRONT FOOT
PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR STREET
PAYMENT PERIOD - 10 YEARS
ESTIMATED INTEREST RATE - 12%
ASSESSMENTS ARE CERTIFIED TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR COLLECTION
WITH PROPERTY TAXES
• FIRST PAYMENT WILL BE DUE WITH 1986 TAXES
EXHIBIT B -1
LYNDALE AVENUE STREET
ESTIMATED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
(CONTINUED)
TYPICAL SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS FOR $900 TOTAL ASSESSMENT
ANNUAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT = $ 900 ; 10 = $90 /YEAR
1ST INTEREST PAYMENT (FOR AN ESTIMATED 15 MONTH PERIOD)
$900 x ,12 x 15/12 = $135.00
ESTIMATED TOTAL, 1ST PAYMENT = $225.00
2ND INTEREST PAYMENT
$810 x .12 = $97.20
ESTIMATED TOTAL, 2ND PAYMENT = $137.20
6TH INTEREST PAYMENT
$450 x .12 = $54.00
ESTIMATED TOTAL, 6TH PAYMENT = $144.00
10TH INTEREST PAYMENT
$90 x .12 = $10.80
ESTIMATED TOTAL FINAL PAYMENT = $100.80
i
EXHIBIT B -2
LYNDALE AVENUE STREET
ESTIMATED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
(CONTINUED)
TYPICAL SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS FOR $1,200 TOTAL ASSESSMENT
ANNUAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT = $1,200 as 10 = $120 /YEAR
1ST INTEREST PAYMENT (FOR AN ESTIMATED 15 MONTH PERIOD)
$1,200 x ,12 x 15/12 = $180,00
ESTIMATED TOTAL, 1ST PAYMENT = $300,00
2ND INTEREST PAYMENT
$1,080 x ,12 = $129,60
ESTIMATED TOTAL, 2ND PAYMENT = $249,60
6TH INTEREST PAYMENT
$ 600. x .12 = $72,00
ESTIMATED TOTAL, 6 TH PAYMENT = $192,00
1OTH INTEREST PAYMENT
$120 x ,12 = $14,40
ESTIMATED TOTAL FINAL PAYMENT = $134.40
EXHIBIT C
LYNDALE AVENUE STREET ASSESSMENT COMPARISON
TOTAL ASSESSMENTS*
(NOT INCLUDING DR IVEWA Y COSTS)
1984 PROPOSAL 1985 PROPOSAL
PARCEL (ADJUSTED TO UNDER PROPOSED
NOS DESCRIPTION FO OTAGE 1985 R ATES) POLICY CHANGE
1 MN/DOT PROPERTY TO BE SOLD FOR 147.0 $ 4 $ 1, 764 , OO
DEVELOPMENT
2 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 77 , 6 2,636.85 900.00
3 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 78,0(E) 2,65044)
DOUBLE FRONTAGE 78 , 0 (W) 2 5 900.00
4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 77 , 9 (E) 2,647,04)
DOUBLE FRONTAGE 77,9(W) 2,647,04)5294,08 900,00
5 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 78.0 2, 650. 44 900.00
6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 65 , 6 2, 229 .09 900.00
40 7 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 65 .6 2, 229 .09 900 .00
8 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (S) # # 194.5 6, 609 ,11 2, 3-)4. 00
9 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 103,7(E) 3,523,73)
DOUBLE FRONTAGE 103,7(2) 3,523,73)7047,46 900.00
10 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 62O(E) 2,106,76)
DOUBLE FRONTAGE 62:0(w) 2,106.76)4213.52 900.00
11 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 112'. 05 3 807.46 900.00
12 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 90.6 3 078. 59 900.00
13 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 98.0 3 900.00
14 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 103.7 3'J 73 900.00
15 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 103.7 3 900.00
16 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 100.6 3, 418 , 39 900.00
17 MULTIPLE FAMILY STRUCTURE 103.7 3 1,244.40
18 MULTIPLE FAMILY STRUCTURE 103.7 3 523.73 1,244.40
(NS) = NOT SUBDIVIDABLE UNDER CITY'S SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE WITHOUT VARIANCE
# # (S) = SUBDIVIDABLE UNDER CITY'S SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, WITHOUT NEED FOR VARIANCE
PAGE 1
LYNDALE AVENUE STREET ASSESSMENT COMPARISON
TOTAL ASSESSMENTS
(NOT INCLUDING DRIVEWA COSTS)
1984 PROPOSAL 1985 PROPOSAL
PARCEL (ADJUSTED TO UNDER PROPOSED
N O, DES C R IPTION FOO TAGE 1985 R ATES) PO LIC Y CHANGE
19 SINGLE � FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 103.72 3 ,524.41 900.00
20 MULTIPLE FAMILY STRUCTURE 101,7 3,455,77 1,220,40
21 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 62.0 2,106 , 76 900.00
22 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 78.72 2, 674. 91 900.00
23 MN /DOT PROPERTY TO BE 65 , 0 2,208,70 780.00
SOLD FOR 103., 244. 40
DEVELOPMENT 103.7 3 ; 523 :73 1; 244 , 40
PURPOSES 60.0 2, O38 , 80 720.00
24 UNDEVELOPABLE PARCEL - EASTS IDE 133,6(E) 4, 539. 73 O ; OO
25 UNDEVELOPABLE PARCEL - EASTS I DE 77. 6 (E) 2 - .J 636, 8 5 0.00
26 UNDEVELOPABLE PARCEL - EASTSIDE 78. 0 (E) 2 650.44 0.00
7 UNDEVELOPABLE PARCEL - EASTSIDE 65.6(E) 2,229-09 0.00
28 UNDEVELOPABLE PARC EL EASTS IDE 65. 6 (E) 2, 229 , 09 0.00
29 UNDEVELOPABLE PARCEL - EASTS IDE 194 , 5 (E) 6,609.11 0.00
30 UNDEVELOPABLE PARCEL - FASTS IDE 275,94 (E) 9j376.44 0.00
31 CITY PROPERTY 26 893.67 315.60
32 CITY PROPER 33,0 1,121,34 396,00
33 CITY PROPERTY 28.67 974.21 344.04
34 UNDEVELOPABLE PARCEL - EASTS IDE 4 33 0.00 0 , 00
35 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 155.55 5j285.59 900 , 00
36 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 152.45 5,180.25 900.00
37 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 103. 7 3 523.73 900.00
38 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 103,7 3 ,523,73 900,00'
39 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 103.72 3 900.00
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 84.95 2, 886, 60 900.00
PAGE 2
LYNDALE AVENUE STREET ASSESSMENT COMPARISON
TOTAL ASSESSMENTS
(NOT INCLUDING DRIVEWAY COSTS)
PARCEL 1954 PROPOSAL 1955 PROPOSAL
N0. DESCRIP (ADJUSTED TO UNDER PROPOSED
FOOTAGE 1955 RATES) POLICY CHANGE
41 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 74.95 2,546.80 900.00
42 COMMERCIAL PROPERTY 215.42 7,319.97 ?, 446 , 72
43 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 103.7 3, 523 , 73 900.00
44 UNDEVELOPABLE MN/DOT PROPERTY 0.0 0,00 0.00
PAGE 3
POLICY COMPARISON
1984 PROPOSAL (ADJUSTED TO 1985 RATES)
ASSESSABLE N0. OF UNIT TOTAL
UNIT UN RAT ASSESS
FRONT FOOTAGE 41F847.37 $33.98 /FOOT $164.71 -
(ALL PROPERTIES)
1985 PROPOSAL (WITH PROPOSED NEW POLICY)
ASS SSABLE 0. OF UNIT TOTAL
6NIT UNITS R ATE ASS ESSMENT
SINGLE - FAMILY PARCEL 25 $900 /EACH $22.,500
(NOT SUBDIVIDABLE)
FRONT FOOTAGE 1,070.47' $12,00 /FOOT# 12,850*
(ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES)
FRONT FOOTAGE - 215.42' $16.00 /FOOT 3, 45O
(COMMERCIALLY USED
PROPERTY, WITH ON- STREET
PARKING PROVISIONS)
TOTAL = $38,800
* NOTE: THESE RATES /TOTALS ARE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT NO
ON STREET PARKING WILL BE PROVIDED IN THESE AREAS,
WHERE ON STREET PARKING IS PROVIDED, THE RATES WOULD
BE $1200 /UNIT AND $16.00 /FOOT.
T 'PRO CO DIST
THE FOLLOWING TABULATION SHOWS TOTAL COST DISTRIBUTION
UNDER THE TWO PROPOSALS.
SOURCE 1984 PROPOSAL 1985 P
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS $ 164,710 $ 38,800
CITY SHARE 117.500 307,730
TOTAL $ 282,210 $346,530#
- NO TE: TOTAL COSTS FOR THE 1985 PROPOSAL INCLUDE THE
ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
(NOT INCLUDED IN THE 1984 PROPOSAL),
• FEBRUARY 27TH, 1985
INFORMATIONAL MEETING FOR LYNDALE PROPERTY OWNERS
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Attendance: 13 property owners
Q Where else are there sidewalks in Brooklyn Center?
A 300 of Brooklyn Center has sidewalks. Most lead to and from schools, parks,
shopping areas, etc. Camden, Humboldt, 53rd and 57th are a few streets in
in your area with sidewalks.
Q What happens if trees, mailboxes or fences are in the way of construction?
A We will relocate them at City expense.
Q There is a gully between 54th and 55th Avenues. Is the roadway and sidewalk
going to dip in and out of the gully? If there are plans to fill it up, where
will the water go?
A Our plans are to fill it in and level off the roadway. The water runoff will
drain into the street (slope will be from the yards into the street) and be
carried away utilizing the curb and gutter.
Q What is the reason for the 8 -12 foot greenstrip between sidewalk and street?
I thought most sidewalk was 3 -5 feet from the street edge.
A An 8 foot greenstrip will allow for snow storage in the winter months. Also
an 8 foot greenstrip has a better chance of supporting grass that does a 3 -4
foot area.
Q Will it be possible to eliminate the mailboxes and have mail delivery to the
house?
A We have no control over this issue. Please contact the post office. We will
support you in your efforts, however.
Q I have a driveway off 56th Avenue. How will this affect me?
A We will be reconstructing 56th Avenue in the same manner as Lyndale. You
will have a concrete driveway apron and curb and gutter installed.
Q Are you going to be redoing both 55th and 56th?
A In a manner of speaking. 56th will be totally ripped up and the grade lowered
with curb and gutter. 55th will simply be overlayed and curb and gutter
installed.
Q Why are the street assessments so much less this year than last year?
A Staff and City Council have re- evaluated the reconstruction assessment policy.
We are now assessing on the basis of benefit to the property (in market
value) not on the cost of the project.
Q Has the City received word on whether turnback funds were approved?
A Yes. The City has been given the go ahead by the State and turnback funds will
finance 1000 of the street and sidewalk projects, but landscaping costs are not
eligible for use of turnback funds.
February 27, 1985
Page 2
0
Q If turnback funds will cover 1000 of the cost, why are we being assessed at all?
A City Council has established the policy that turnback funds should be used for
the benefit of the entire City, and that assessments should be levied according
to benefits received.
Q How much will the sidewalk cost us?
A Nothing, City will finance this with turnback funds 1000.
Q How about what we pay in additional taxes after the Assessor has been through?
A It has been determined that sidewalk will not affect your property taxes.
Water main and street improvements will, however.
Q Will 55th and 56th Avenues be widened to 28 feet as well?
A 55th and 56th Avenues are now 30 feet wide.
Q What rebate will the property owners get for putting up with all the dust,
dirt and inconvenience?
A There is no provisions for any rebate. We cannot deny that there will be
some. However, not to the extent of that you experienced with I94 construction.
This project will be smaller, shorter in duration and more controlled.
Q If we now don't have a 9 ton roadway, why have there not been any weight
restrictions? We have semis and all kinds of trucks coming down Lyndale.
A You do have a 9 ton roadway now, as do all "collector" streets such as
Humboldt, 57th, Xerxes, 53rd, etc.
Q Who's responsible for any septic tanks that should be discovered in digging
up the area?
A The City will abandon them for the property owners. In fact, we would
appreciate knowing about any septic systems that do exist in the boulevard
or potential construction area so that we may anticipate these conditions
before we run into them.
Q What about wells in the boulevard?
A To our knowledge there should be no wells in the boulevard areas. If you
think yours is there please contact use and we will be certain for you before
we begin construction.
Q Will all of the street be torn out at once?
A Basically, yes. However, provisions will be made for local traffic only in
your area as well as access every morning and evening to your driveways.
Any conflict or special problems that you anticipate we can discuss with you
at that time.
Q How about low clearance vehicles? It wouldn't take much to rip off a
tank on the bottom of some R.M s.
February 27, 1985
Page 3
A.Please discuss this with us. We are most interested in avoiding these kinds
of.problems as will be our contractor.
Q From 53rd to 55th on the east side of the road the land is undevelopable.
Why not install the water main on the west side to shorten the hookup distance?
A Between 53rd and 55th, the water main will be installed on the west side.
However, between 55th and 57th we plan to place the water main in the east
half of the street because there would be conflicts with other utilities on
the west side.
Q How far apart does water main and sanitary sewer lines have to be?
A 10 feet.
Q How about on private property?
A If you have cast iron sanitary service and copper water service the 10 foot
separation is not necessary.
Q How much will the landscaping improvement run?
A If we planted according to the maximum concept, it could be as much as $50,000.
However, that is far too much for the area. So it will be considerably less
than $50,000. Plans are not in any way final. We will consult each property
owner individually to discover personal preferences. We are recommending
that landscaping be done under a separate contract, to allow the plans to be
tailored to meet the requests of the property owners.
Q Who will be responsible for maintenance of the landscaped area?
A The City will be responsible for the shrubs, bushes and trees. The homeowner,
as is now the case, will be responsible for grass and leaves.
Q Landscaping is attractive, however most of us bought our property for the view
of the river.
A Again, we will meet with you individually to talk about personal preferences.
Q Can anything be done about the lift station odors? When the wind is in the
right direction it is awful.
A We were not aware that there was a serious problem in your area. We will
definitely investigate the problem and work for a solution.
Q What is the total of the turnback funds?
A 100% of the improvement cost except for landscaping costs.
February 27, 1985
Page 4
Q If on- street parking is provided will it be on the boulevard or in the street?
A In the boulevard area.
Q How about those that park on the street now and have no driveway area.
A We will have to work it out with those that are affected on a case by case basis.
Q Will the current centerline remain the same?
A There will be very little change, 2 feet or less.
Q Could the $45,000 for sidewalk be used for the street assessment portion instead
of constructing the sidewalk?
A If the sidewalk is not constructed the City will not get the allocated amount
from the State. The State will only give us the turnback funds for the sidewalk
construction if the sidewalk is put in.
Q How is the $38,000 street assessment figure arrived at?
A It is the total. mount for the neighborhood of benefit derived from the street
improvement; market value increase for the property.
Q If the sidewalk didn't go in would the curb and gutter?
A Yes
Q Will the $900 assessment figure remain constant or is that subject to change
depending on the cost of the project.
A It will remain the same because benefit does not increase or decrease,with the
cost of the project.
Q Will landscaping be paid for in the street assessment?
A No additional assessment will be levied for landscape improvements.
Q What is the project schedule?
A If the project is given the go ahead, startup is scheduled for May 1st and
completion by Labor Day. This is total completion. Your street will not be_
torn up the total length of time. Clean up and other minor details are
all included in this time span.
Ia C�-
Hauser Communications, Inc.
Gus tave v M. H auser 437 Madison Avenue. New York, N.Y. 1 @ 922
Chairman 212 -832 -2788
Chief Executive Officer
February 12, 1985
Mr. Greg Moore
Executive Director
Northwest Suburbs Cable '
Communications Commission
6901 Winnetka Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55428
Re: Requested Franchise Transfer
Dear Mr. Moore:
In connection with our request that the Franchise
for the Northwest Suburbs cable television system be transferred
from Northern Cablevision Northwest (NCN) to Suburban Cablevision
Company, Limited Partnership (SCC), the Northwest Suburbs Cable
Communications Commission is being asked to take the following
actions:
1, The Commission is requested to issue, at the time
of closing of the transaction, a letter confirming to SCC and the
financing institution, The Bank of Montreal, that NCN is in
compliance.with the terms of the Franchise. Such a request and
the issuance of such confirmation are normal in transactions of
this type. 'Certain matters, such as the provision of-text,
interactive and security services, currently in compliance
because of deferrals will also require specific confirmation that
such deferral is to continue until the parties recognize that it
is technically and /or economically feasible to provide'siich:.services.
2. The Commission is requested to take appropriate
action to permit SCC to implement, thirty days following the
closing of the transaction and the transfer of the Franchise, an
increase of $2.00 in the current charge for Tier II basic service
and a $1.50 increase one year later, should SCC determine that
market conditions permit these adjustments. Also requested is an
adjustment of $3.50 in the rate for Tier I basic service, which
has very few subscribers. The effect of this action by the
-2-
Commission -is to anticipate.-the effectiveness of new Federal
legislation which deregulates such rates. 'We believe and-have
demonstrated that such rate are essential to the
economic viability of the cable system and to the provision of
adequate service to-its subscribers . Most systems in the area
have rates higher than those being requested. A formal request
for this action on rates, together with supporting data, was
filed with the Commission on February 7,. 1985.
3. The Commission is requested, prior to the closing
of the transaction, to adopt an amendment to the current_ Franchise
Ordinance which would permit new plant construction and new
subscriber installations to proceed on a single cable basis rather
than the dual cable facility specified in the Franchise.. The cable
system, as constructed, is one of the world's best. However, the
second, "B ", cable is not now necessary or being utilized, and
further operation or construction of dual plant represents a serious_
impediment to the economic viability of the system. Accordingly,
the action being requested would enable SCC to "mothball" the
existing "B " cable (with substantial savings in power and'maintenance
costs) and to achieve substantial in capital by constructing
new plant on a single cable basis.- Similar.action has or is being
taken in jurisdictions where dual plant has been constructed.
Since the capacity of the "A" cable is-more than sufficient for
all foreseeable needs, service to subscribers will not be.affected
by this amendment. The "B" cable would be reactivated and dual
plant extended at such time as economically feasible and justifiable.
4. The Commission is requested, prior to the closing
of the transaction, to adopt an-amendment to the Franchise
Ordinance which would restructure the access and local origination
elements of the Franchise ordinance in two essential ways. First,
responsibility for this function would be transferred to the C.A.C.,
including employees, space and equipment. SCC would provide a
specified level of funding and space, and would over to C.A.C.
equipment having a very substantial value. A summary of this
proposal.is attached as Exhibit A. We believe that the total
resources available for origination /access under this approach
will enable the function to continue at least at its current level;
projected increases-in such resources will enable it to grow,
should.the Commission decide on this course. A review of current
and projected sources and applications of resources is included
with Exhibit A. We believe the resources now and potentially
being to origination /access equal or exceed those devoted
to this activity in any system of a similar size in America. And
i
.the proposed contributions of SCC n cash and in kind will permit
the system to be economically viable. Any further requirements
-3-
on SCC and its subscribers, necessarily entail a cut back in
costs and services in some parts of the system's operation.
We believe that in view of the experience and
franchise modification requests made by other new -build systems,
these proposals represent relatively modest adjustments to the
Franchise and have no adverse effect on the quality of the system
or its services to the subscriber.
.Thank you for your courteous consideration.of our
request for transfer- of•.the Franchise and of the matters discussed
in this letter. We look forward to discussing all of this with
you, and to the opportunity of serving the subscribers of the
Northwest Suburbs cable system.
Sincerely,
GMH:par
Enclosure
NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE
March 12, 1985
8:00 A.M.
Plymouth City Hall
AGENDA
1. Local Origination /Access. ATTACHMENT 1
2. Dual Plant. ATTACHMENT 2
3. Rates. ATTACHMENT 3
4. Two -Way Interactive Services. ATTACHMENT 4
Committee has not formed position on issues which follow:
5. Future Construction of Subscriber Network. ATTACHMENT 5
6. Institutional Network (ICN). ATTACHMENT 6
i
7. Video Override. ATTACHMENT 7
8. Technical Issue. ATTACHMENT 8
9. Letter of Compliance.
ATTACHMENT 1
LOCAL ORIGINATION /ACCESS
COMMITTEE'S POSITION
The company should provide a level of support which guarantees
the greater of: $980,000 per year to include franchise fees in
1985 pro -rated with 8% per year escalators in each year thereafter;
or 5% franchise fees and .45 per month per subscriber with 8% per
year escalators in each year thereafter; and the liquidation of
$680,514 in outstanding franchise commitments and free use by
public agencies of the I.C.N. capacity not used for commercial
purpose.
ISSUE I. RESTRUCTURING OF LOCAL ORIGINATION AND ACCESS
LOCAL ORIGINATION ACCESS STAFF AND FUNDING
MPARISON OF NORTHERN'S ORIGINAL STAFF AND FUNDING COMMITMENT, TO ACTUAL STAFF AND FUNDING,
0 PROPOSED FUNDING.
YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 10
Oct 1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 1986/87 1990/91
NORTHERN'S ORIGINAL
STAFF AND FUNDING
(19 employees) - -- (31 employees) - -- (40 employees)
SALARIES & WAGES $239,000 $278,000 $364,000 $384,000 $464,000
AVERAGE WAGE $ 12,579 $ 12,579 $ 11,742 $ 12,387 $ 11,600
NORTHERN'S ORIGINALLY
PROPOSED STAFF ADJUSTED
TO REFLECT ACTUAL _ -- - -- $603,477 $651,755 $1,144,120
SALARIES & 8% ANNUAL
INCREASES
I RESENT STAFF ADJUSTED
TO REFLECT ACTUAL (15 emplo
SALARIES AND 8% ANNUAL - -- - -- $272,800 $294,840 $401,126
INCREASES AND NO IN
CREASE IN EMPLOYEES
SUBURBAN CABLESYSTEM (Number of employees unspecified)
PROPOSAL - .40 PER - -- - -- $158,400 $172,800 $220,800
SUBSCRIBER
INCREASED BY 8% PER - -- $185,000 $320,000
YEAR
3/5/85
COMPARISON OF PRESENT BUDGETS AND REPLACEMENT COSTS TO SUBURBAN CABLEVISION'S
PROPOSED LEVEL OF SUPPORT
LO /ACCESS WITHOUT LO
PRESENT BUDGETS
Commission $ 80,367 - --
CTC 335,000 - --
Northern LO Access; salaries, fringe,
overhead, $19,467 average 292,000
TOTAL $707,367
$25,000 average salary, fringe,
overhead 375,000
TOTAL $790,367 (15) $690,367 (11)
ADDITIONAL EXPENSES
Repair and Replace $1,000,000 $100,000
worth of equipment
Replace Brooklyn Park Studio and
offices, 3,600 square feet
Rental $8 per sq. per yr. $ 28,800
$ 22,400 (2800 sq.ft.)
Purchase
Building, landscaping, park- $216,600
ing, $60 per ft.
Land $ 50,000
$266,000
Financing, 10 yr. 157 $ 51,312 $ 42,192
Operating cost $4 per ft. per yr. 14,400 11,200
$ 65,712 $ 53,392
(3600) (2800)
Overhead; bookkeeping, secretarial 22,000 - --
TOTAL Budgets $790,367 ---
Equipment 100,000 - --
Building Purchase 65,712 53,392
Overhead 22,000 - --
$978,079 $865,759
LO /ACCESS WITHOUT LO
SUBURBAN'S PROPOSAL
Franchise Fee 1985 $583,467
.45 per subscriber 178,200
$716,667
Present Budgets and Replacement $978,079
Proposal 716,667
Shortfall $261,412
ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN FRANCHISE COMMITMENTS
L. 0. Studio $222,861
Program grants 149,000
I.C.N. Equipment 103,903
$475,764
L.O. Van 204,750
$680,514
3/1/85
Television equipment to be transferred to the Community Television Corporation.
Plymouth Studio $121,446.90
Maple Grove Studio $121,446.72
New Hope Studio $121,446.94
Brooklyn Center Studio $118,349.70
Public Access Van and Equipment $111,247.00
Brooklyn Park Equipment $52,774.43
Brooklyn Park Playback System $98,222.78
Character Generator System $58,920.00
$803,854.47
Television equipment to be retained for restructured operations.
Portion of Brooklyn Park $201,358.37
equipment including cameras,
switcher, 2 video tape decks,
sync system.
L.O. Van $178,319.06
Portion of Brooklyn Park $51,457.70
Playback System
$431,134-76
NOTE Detailed inventory and itemized cost of above equipment available.
SUBURBAN CABLEVISION - NORTHWEST SUBURBS,MN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
SUBURBAN CABLEVISION
LOCAL DAIGINATIOH I COMMUNITY ACCESS
FUNDING PROPOSAL ANALYSIS
1984 1985 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
SOURCES OF FUNDS: ACTUAL CURRENT PROPOSED
Franchise Fees 314,000 435,000 538,467 650,163 781,217 865 940,457 1,031,300
Cable Op. Cash 188,000 292,000 187,290 203,825 222,863 237,801 249,902 261,835
Total Cash Available 502,000 727,000 725,757 853,989 1,004,080 1,103,085 1,190,359 1,293,135
In Kind Space 75,000 75,000 57,000 57,000 57,000 ' 57,000 57,000 57,000
TOTAL SUPPORT AVAILABLE 577,000 802,000 782,757 910,989 1,061,080 1,160,085 1,247,359 1,350,135
USE OF FUNDS:
CAC Budget 155,000 335,000 335,000 335,000 335,000 335,000 335,000 335,000
HER Cost 188,000 292,000 292,000 292,000 292,000 292,000 292,000 292,000
Total Cash 343,000 627,000 627,000 627,000 627,000 627,000 627,000 627,000
In Kind Space 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000
TOTAL SUPPORT USED 418,000 702,000 702,000 102,000 702,000 702,000 702,000 702,000
ENDING CASH BALANCE 159,000 100,000 80,757 208,989 359,080 458,085 545,359 648,135
CUM SURPLUS IDEFICITI 80,757 289,745 648,825 1,106,910 1,652,269 2,300,404
ATTACHMENT 2
DUAL CABLE
COMMITTEE'S POSITION
That the company should construct a B shadow cable (not activated) and dual
drops to all subscribers; and that the company should be allowed to mothball
existing b cable electronics.
DUAL VS. SINGLE PLANT ANALYSIS
I. Plant Construction
Dual Cable Plant $31,000 /mile
Single Cable Plant $21,000 /mile
Savings $10,000 /mile
5 Year Analysis of Cost Savings
129 mile projected $10,000 /mile $1,290,000
Interest cost @ 15% on average
capital investment $484,000
Total 5 Year Savings $1,774,000
Per Subscriber Analysis:
Average Subscribers 41,000
Savings per sub - 5 years 43.27 /sub
Savings per sub /mo .721mo
11. House Drops
Dual Drop $80.00 /drop
Single Drop $48.00 /drop
Savings $32.00 /drop
5 Year Analysis of Cost Savings
35,000 new drops installed during 5 year period.
*35, 000 x$32.00 - $1,222.000
Interest cost @ 15% on average
capital investment $458,000
Total 5 Year Savings $1,680,000
Per Subscriber Analysis:
Savings per sub $40.98
Savings per sub /mo .68 /mo
NOTE 70,000 projected connects to replace disconnects; add new customers.
50% of connects will be new drop installation.
III. Total Savings Per Sub for Construction and Drops
Total Savings
Construction $1,774,000
Drops $1,680,000
$3,454,000 or $691,000 /year.
Construction .72 /sub /mo
Drops .68
Savings 1.40 /sub /mo
IV. Building of Shadow Trunk Analysis
129 miles x $2,500. cost /mile = $322,500
Cost $322,500
Interest $121,000
Total Cost $443,500 or $88,700 /year.
Average subs - 41,000
Cost per sub $10.81
Cost per sub /yr. .18 /sub /mo
V. Go Back Cost to Construct "B" Cable
129 miles x 21,000 = $2,709,000
35,000 drops x $40 /drop = $1,400,000
$4,109,000
15% interest over 5 yrs. $1,540,000
Total $5,649,000
Average subs - 51,200
Cost /sub $110.35
Cost /sub /mo $1.84
ATTACHMENT 3
RATES
COMMITTEE'S POSITION
The Commission should not waive its right to regulate basic rates.
BASIC
1. That the first company proposed rate increase of $2.00 to be effective
immediately after transfer, raising basic rates from $7.95 to $9.95
or to $10.45 if the program guide is included, be allowed.
2. That the second proposed increase of $1.00 effective one year after
transfer not be allowed. (Basic rates are completely deregulated
in December, 1986 by federal law.)
FAMILY (first 30 channels)
That a rate increase of $3.50, raising the rate from $3.95 to $7.25, not
be allowed.
GENERAL
That the company agree not to request a further rate increase until
deregulation and that the company not impose a 57 increase in December, 1986.
BASIC CABLE RATES - METROPOLITAN AREA
COMPANY NAME SYSTEM FULL BASIC
CITIATION CABLE FOREST LAKE $ 9.95
DOW -SAT OF MN MOUND 11.00
GROUP W BURNSVILLE -EAGAN 10.95
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 11.95
NORTH CENTRAL 12.95
NORTH SUBURBAN 7.95
QUAD CITIES 10.95
RAMSEY -WASH. 8.45
METRO CABLE APPLE VALLEY 9.95
ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS MINNEAPOLIS 10.95
SW SUBURBS 15.00
STORER CABLE BLOOMINGTON 10.50
FRIDLEY 10.50
ST. LOUIS PARK 10.50
T.D.S., INC. ST. CROIX VALLEY 8.50
HASTINGS 9.50
S. WASHINGTON CTY. 10.95
UNITED - ZYLSTRA CHASKA 11.95
SHAKOPEE 8.50
AVERAGE MARKETPLACE RATE 10.58
ATTACHMENT 4
TWO -WAY INTERACTIVE TEXT SERVICE
COMMITTEE'S POSITION
The Franchise Ordinance states that Text services shall be made initially
available and that Interactive Services shall be provided as available.
The Commission has simply deferred any decision on these services.
The Commission should defer the implementation of these services until
the Commission finds a service to be in the public interest.
TEXT
1. Social Service Information
2. The Source
3. Movie Reviews
4. Personal Financial Information
5. Employment Opportunities
6. Transportation Schedules
INTERACTIVE
1. Security Service
2. Library Link
3. Reuters
4. Dow Jones
5. The Source
6. Per per view
7. Opinion Polling
8. At -Home Banking
9. Shop -at -home
10. Community College Credit
11. Call -up Cable Films
12. Video Games
ATTACHMENT 5
FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF SUBSCRIBER NETWORK
COMPANY'S POSITION
That all future construction of this network be done in accordance with
the line extension policy found in the franchise ordinance and that
all future construction proceed on the basis of identifiable annual
programs; and that the line- extension policy be changed consistent
with attachment 5b.
Presently homes within the initial service territory must receive
service regardless of density. This proposed change primarily impacts
new housing developments within initial service territory.
ATTACHMENT 5b
decrease in Franchise term per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs
or continues.
(b) Revocation of Grantee's performance bond shall occur in the event that
construction of the system is not commenced within one year of the effective date
of the Franchise; or if Grantee's construction schedule of 22 months as set forth
above is exceeded by one year or more.
(c) Grantor further reserves the right to revoke this Franchise, and all rights
and privileges pertaining thereto in the event that the commencement of the
construction schedule, the one -year scheduled construction, or the completion of the
construction as set forth in Paragraphs C, D, and E of Section 7.02 is delayed for
over 18 months.
J. Act of God Provision. The requirements of this section be waived by the
Grantor upon the occurrence of unforeseen events, acts of God, or events out of the
reasonable control of Grantee.
7.03 Line Extension Policy Residents of the Cities who do not fall within
categories described in Section 7.02 shall have the right to receive service, provided they
assume responsibility for the extra installation costs involved over and above the current
Average installation costs associated with areas within the franchise territory which have
reached the 35 dwelling unit per mile threshold.
A. Grantee shall serve at rates set forth in Exhibit 2 all areas which contain _
35 or more dwelling units per cable mile, the cable mile(s) to be calculated from
the point where existing distribution plant ends
-38-
ATTACHMENT 5b
Grantee shall extend cable service to areas where densi ' are between
20 and 35 ho per mile at the following additional c er installation:
Additional Cost
Density /Miles Per Installation
30 to 34 $30.00
25 to 29 $50.00
to 24 $7
C. Where densities are 34 or less homes per mile, Grantee shall serve
those subscribers on a cost sharing basis between the system and the sub-
scribers on a graduated basis as follows: provided that 457 of such homes
shall, prior to construction, agree in writing to become subscribers and
have contributed their share of construction costs.
Density /Miles Cost Paid Cost Paid
by Northern by Subscribers
15 to 19 35 607 407
10 to 14 507 507
5 to 9 407 607
0 to 4 307 707
D. Subscribers electing to receive cable under the extension plan will
be eligible for a pro rata refund depending.on number of additional subscribers
taking service during the 24 months following activation of service to each
extension area.
E. Any request for service in the line extension area shall be served
in six months or less, weather permitting after construction of the initial
service territory is completed.
ATTACHMENT 6
I.C.N. NETWORK
1. CONSTRUCTION
The company requests that we acknowledge construction of the I.C.N. network
to be complete and that future free drops from the I.C.N. to public and
non- profit agencies not exceed 250 feet.
The Franchise Ordinance provides that 158 miles of I.C.N. will be built and
that all public and non- profit agencies will receive free drops. There
is presently no restriction on the length of the drop.
There are several sub - issues:
A. The actual mileage of the I.C.N. constructed vs. that proposed
158 miles.
B. The free drops to buildings listed in the Franchise Ordinance and
to buildings which have requested free drops and have not received
these drops. (See attachment 6b)
C. The channel capacity on the I.C.N. available to public and
non- profit agencies. (40% required by the Franchise Ordinance)
2. MARKETING
The Franchise Ordinance provides that five marketing employees be hired
to develop commercial business for the I.C.N. The company requests this
continue to be deferred until parties agree it is technically and economically
justifiable.
ATTACHMENT 6b
LOCATIONS THAT HAVE REQUESTED INSTALLATION
THAT ARE NOT HOOKED UP TO THE INSTITUTUIONAL NETWORK
Meadowbrook School
New Hope Fire Station
New Hope. Community Center
New Hope Public Works Building
:Maple Grove Public Works Garage
Maple Grove Fire Station I
Maple Grove Fire Station II
Sacred Heart School
Golden Valley Fire Station I
Golden Valley Fire Station II
Golden Valley Public Safety Building
Golden Valley Brookview Community Center
Brooklyn Park Public Safety Building
Brooklyn Park City Garage
Brooklyn Park Community Activity Center
Robbinsdale Community Center
Robbinsdale Police and Fire Building
Robbinsdale City Shop
North Memorial Hospital
Plymouth Public Works Building
Plymouth. Fire Station I
Plymouth Fire Station II
Plymouth Zachary Park Shelter
Plymouth Water Treatment Plant
Plymouth Oakwood Shelter
Plymouth Creek Shelter
Plymouth Junior High Shelter
LOGIS (New Location)
St. Raphael's School
St. Margaret Mary School
St. Joseph's Parish
Si.inn; Hollow Elementary
Total
32 Institutions
ATTACIMNT 6b
INSTITUTIONS ON THE ORIGINAL FRANCHISE APPLICATION LIST
THAT ARE NOT HOOKED UP TO THE INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK
March 8, 1985
Brooklyn Center Fire Station East
Brooklyn Center Fire Station West
Brooklyn Park Police /Fire
Crystal Fire Station North
Crystal Fire Station South
Golden Valley Police /Fire
New Hope Fire
Osseo Police
Plymouth Fire
Robbinsdale Police /Fire
Municipal Court (2nd Division)
State Highway Department
Brookdale Service Center (Hennepin County)
Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home
Crystal Care Center
Northwest Hennepin County Mental Health Center
Golden Valley Health Center
Colonial Acres Home
Weldwood Nursing Home
Trevilla of Golden Valley
Mission Care Center
Ambassador Nursing Home
Northridge Care Center Home
St. Therese Home
Berkshire Residence
Monterrey Nursing Inn
Crystal Lake Nursing Home
Trevilla of Robbinsdale
Courage Center
North Memorial Medical Center
(continued next page)
-2-
Evergreen Elementary
Monroe Elementary
Riverview Elementary
Meadowbrook Elementary
Sunny Hollow Elementary
District 287 Offices (Hennepin Technical Centers)
Valley Baptist Theological Seminary
Association of Free Lutheran Theological Seminary
Sacred Heart School
St. Margaret Mary School
St. Raphael's School
Good Shepherd School
Minneapolis Apostolic Christian Academy
St. Vincent DePaul School
St. John's Lutheran School
Fair Community Center (postponed by Mr. Thomas Tripet)
Thorson Community Center
Brookview Community Center
Zanewood Community Center
YMCA
Community Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP)
Junior Achievement Center
Hennepin County Workhouse (Adult Corrections Facility)
Crystal Airport
Boy Scouts of America Central Headquarters
LOGIS
Osseo Senior Citizen Center
New Hope Ice Arena
(continued next page)
_
Central Community Center
Brooklyn Park Activities Building
West Medicine Lake Community Club
Post Publications
Osseo -Maple Grove Press
Total Number: 63 Institutions
ATTACHMENT 7
VIDEO OVERRIDE
The Franchise Ordinance provides for a video override. The company
requests that the video override be eliminated. An audio override
would be available if desired, a description of which is attached.
STO R WLE
Commitment to Excellence
March 8, 1985
Mr. Greg Moore
Executive Director
NWCCC
6901 Winnetka Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
Dear Greg:
You have requested a brief description of the emergency alert
capabilities of this cable system. -
The system is capable of sending two kinds of audio signals
to subscribers. The first is the ComAlert system which features
audio override of all channels. This can be triggered from a
remote location via telephone. There are four systems, one per
headend, which enables override on a hub discrete basis.
The second audio alert system is provided as part of the
Jerrold converter system. Upon activation, a beeper alert is
emitted from each Jerrold converter in the field. Activation
occurs through the master terminal located at our Brooklyn Park
facility. Deactivation can occur either at our headend or
through the use of the reset button on the back of each
converter.
Sincerely,
STORER CABLE
John R. Ed y
General Manager
A Service of
NORTHERN CABLEVISION N.W., INC.
6901 Winnetka Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
ATTACHMENT 8
TECHNICAL ISSUES
1. ICN REDUNDANCY
2. ROUTING COMPUTER
3. STATUS MONITORING
4. STANDBY POWER
STAFF IS CONSULTING WITH CARL PILNICK ON THESE ISSUES AND WILL REPORT ON TUESDAY.
Licenses to be approved by the City Council on March 11, 1985
CIGARETTE LICENSE
Delaney Vending 1999 Palace Ave.
46 Green Mill 5540 Brooklyn Blvd._
City Clerk
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Brookdale Assembly of God 6030 Xerxes Ave. N.
Brookdale Christian Center 6030 Xerxes Ave. N.
Brookdale Covenant Church 5139 Brooklyn Blvd.
Brookdale Mobil 5710 Xerxes Ave. N.
Brooklyn Center American Legion 4307 70th Ave. N.
Brooklyn Center Baptist Church 5840 Humboldt Ave. N.
Community Emergency Assistant Program 7231 Brooklyn Blvd.
Country Club Market 5715 Morgan Ave. N.
Davanni's 5937 Summit Drive
Donut Delight 6838 Humboldt Ave. N.
Evergreen Park Schol 7020 Dupont Ave. N.
Garden City School 3501 65th Ave. N.
Green Mill Inn 5540 Brooklyn Blvd.
Harron United Methodist Church 5452 Dupont Ave. N.
Little Brooklyn 6219 Brooklyn Blvd.
Nutrition World Brookdale Center
Orchard Lane School 6201 Noble Ave. N.
Red Lobster Restaurant 7235 Brooklyn Blvd.
Wes' Standard 6044 Brooklyn Blvd.
Willow Lane School 7020 Perry Ave. N. �.
0 Sanitarian
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Brooklyn Center Lioness Club 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
Sanitaria
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE
Midland Heating & Air Conditioning 6442 Penn Ave. S.
Build'n Official
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd.
Chuck's Q. 1501 69th Ave. N.
Sanitarian
SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE
Midway Sign Company 444 N. Prior Ave. -OD
Buildi Officia
GENERA R
L APPROVAL:
Gerald G. SplinteiV City Clerk
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED PROPERTY OWNERS RESIDING ON LYNDALE AVENUE BETWEEN 2::t�
53rd Avenue North and 57th Avenue North, WOULD AGREE TO THE INSTALLATION
OF A 9 TON STREET ALONG LYNDALE ONLY IF THE CITY USES THE FUNDS PROVIDED
BY MINNESOTA STATE TURNBACK FUNDS TO PAY FOR THE ENTIRE COST OF PAVEMENT.
WE FEEL THAT THIS IS NOT A RESIDENTIAL STREET ( and therefore should not
be treated as such) BUT A HIWAY BYPASS AS RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE OF MN..
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA IS FINALLY RECOGNIZING THE TEN YEARS OF INCONVENIENCE
CAUSED TO THE RESIDENTS OF THIS AREA DURING THE HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION AND
ACKNOWLEDGING THE FACT THAT 98% OF THE TRAFFIC ON THIS STREET OR MORE IS
NON- RESIDENTIAL AND HAS CAUSED THE DETERIORATION OF THE SURFACE.
'So 9
VV
�r
J'- °° 41 ,
r
F
�r
I
t
i
it
+i
1 ; I
,I
G
i
i `
o
t'7
! Iff
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED PROPERTY OWNERS, ARE AGAINST THE INSTALLATION OF
A042
• W4iVi-'SERVICE ALONG LYNDALE AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN 53rd Avenue North
i
and 57th Avenue North.
�(
67 Y. -7
60 >4vr . �.
t
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED PROPERTY OWNERS, ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE INSTALLATION
OF WATER SERVICE ALONG LYNDALE AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN 53rd Avenue North
and 57th Avenue North.
J,
0,
e S o a ,
IVMf�f 4 YV A
f
f
II I
7
o��
F
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED PROPERTY OWNERS RESIDING ON LYNDALE AVENUE BETWEEN
53rd Avenue North and 57th Avenue North, ARE AGAINST THE INSTALLATION
OF SIDEWALK ALONG THIS STREET.
C 1 i
7 �
DSO 9 e-&W. Vo.
-'o 0-4 9 P
JA A A'le2 —A4 I/,-<-
s
S 60 , 69
69 t .
oll
Llf
�� ,•C ,��
SS std
-- 3
{�