Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 02-11 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FEBRUARY 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. Approval of Minutes January 28, 1985 7. Resolutions: *a. Establishing Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project No. 1985 -08, Approving Specifications, and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract No. 1985 -E) *b. Denying the Request by Neil Heating and Air Conditioning for a Mechanical Contractor's License l c. Amending the 1985 General Fund Budget, ansferring Funds from Council Contingency Account to Police De artment Mobile Equipment Account No. 4553 for Mobile Command Cent r *d. Authorizing Purchase of Two 27,500 GVW D p Trucks -The purchase of the trucks is being rec mmended as per the Hennepin County bid and is authorized for the Street Department in the 1985 Budget. *e. Accepting Bid and Approving Purchase of 14' Step Van for the Fire Department -It is recommended the bid of Polar Chevrolet in the amount of $20,737 be accepted. f. Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into an Agreement } with Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. to onduct a.Traffic Analysis Relating to Retail Development within Brooklyn Center *g. Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public Service of Virginia Swanson *h. Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public Service of Diane Lemke 8. Planning Commission Items (7:15 p.m.) a. Planning Application g No. 40 submitted PP 8 36 e by the City of Brooklyn Park for a special use permit to conduct a ditch dredging project in the flood plain within the Crystal Airport property west of Unity Avenue, north and south of 63rd Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No.'84036 at its January 31, 1985 meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- February 11, 1985 9. Ordinances: a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 of the City Ordinances Regarding Holiday Leave -This ordinance was first read on January 14, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on January 24, 1985, and is offered this evening for a second reading. The ordinance provides for time and one -half pay for certain holidays for police clerk /dispatchers and those employees working irregular work shifts. A public hearing on the ordinance has been scheduled for 8:00 p.m. b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Location of Group Day Care Facilities in Commercial Zoning Districts -This ordinance was first read on January 14, 1985, published in the City' official newspaper Y on January 4 and ' 1` 8 is offered Y 9 5 e ed this evening for a second reading. The ordinance was presented in conjunction with Planning Commission Application No. 84039 submitted by New Horizon Enterprises, Inc. A public hearing on the ordinance has been scheduled for 8:00 p.m. c. An Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Development of Certain` Commercially Zoned Land within the City of Brooklyn Center -This ordinance was first read on January 14, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on January 24, 1985, and is offered this evening for a second reading. A public hearing on the ordinance has been scheduled for 8:00 p.m. 10. Discussion Items: a. Staff Recommendation Regarding Assessment Policy Amendment Related to Street Reconstruction - Resolution Amending Assessment Policy Relating to Street Reconstruc- tion b. Lyndale Avenue Water Main and Street Reconstruction Resolution Accepting Engineer's Report, Establishing Lyndale Avenue North Water Main Improvement Project No. 1985 -04, Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -05 and Sidewalk Improvement Project No. 1985 -06, and Calling for a Public Hearing Thereon 11. Consideration of Specified License: On Sale Wine and Beer License for Denny's Restaurant 12. Gambling Licenses: t a. Knights of Columbus - Application for Class B Gambling License (requires a majority vote of the City Council to pass) Waiver of the $10,000 fidelity bond (requires the unanimous vote of the City Council to pass) *13. Licenses 14. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JANUARY 28, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, Mr. Jim Thomson, representing the City Attorney's office, and Administrative Assistants Brad Hoffman and Tom Bublitz. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Assistant Pastor Barry Braun of Northbrook Alliance Church. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the Open Forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. C ONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Hawes requested item 7d removed from the Consent Agenda. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 85 -17 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) 14 FOOT ALUMINUM STEP VAN r The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon,, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -18 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PRIVATE SALE OF ONE PARCEL OF LAND ON CLASSIFICATION LIST 11 670- NC►' 1 -28 -85 -1- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, -Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same:' none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -19 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF EUGENE H. HAGEL The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the following list of licenses: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE A & J Enterprises 6843 Washington Ave. S. Ault Inc. 1600 Freeway Blvd. GASOLINE SERVICE STATION Brooklyn Service Center 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Garden City School 3501 6th Ave. N. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Abel Heating, Inc. 266 Water Street Key Plumbing & Heating 11915 Brockton Ave. N. H.O. Soderlin, Inc. 3731 Chicago Ave. S. Stein's, Inc. 1420 W. 3rd Ave. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE American Vending Co. P.O. Box 380 Sears Brookdale Brookdale Center Bill's Juice Vending 3900 Beard Ave. S. Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd: Bill's Vending Service 7317 W. Broadway Brooklyn Center Getty 6245 Brooklyn Blvd Christy's Auto 5300 Dupont Ave. N. Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd. Bermel Smaby 6500 Brooklyn Blvd. Brookdale Car Wsh 5500. Brooklyn Blvd. Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth 6121 Brooklyn Blvd. Brookdale Urgent Care 6000 Earle Brown Drive Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. Cass Screw Co 4748 France Ave. N. City Garage 6844 Shingle Cr Pkwy. 1 -28 -85 -2- r" > Country Store 3600 63rd Ave. N. Donaldson's Brookdale Center Earle Brown School 5900 Humboldt Ave. N. Garden City School 3501 65th Ave. N. Herman's Brookdale Center Hirschfield's Paint 5615 Xerxes Ave. N. Humboldt Sq. Cleaners 6824 Humboldt Ave. N. Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. Johnson Controls 1801 67th Ave. N. K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr. Kar -win Auto 6846 Humboldt Ave. Keehn Brothers 3400 48th Ave. N. Maranatha Nursing Home 5401 69th Ave. N. Mentor Corp. 2700 Freeway Blvd. Minnesota Utilities 6800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. N. France Health Club 4001 Lakebreeze Razor Court 5740 Brooklyn Blvd. Saber Dental Studio 6800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Salvation Army 2300 Freeway Blvd. Skelly Service 63rd Brooklyn Blvd. Snyder Brothers Brookdale Center Sound of Music 5717 Xerxes Ave. N. St. Paul Book 5810 Xerxes Ave. N. Summit Properties Mgmt. 6120 Earle Brown Dr. Union 76 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. Vicker's Oil 6830 Brooklyn Blvd. Willow Lane School 7030 Perry Ave. N. Country Club Market 5717 Morgan Ave. N. Evergreen Park Elementary 7020 Dupont Ave. N. Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 N. Lilac Dr. Maranatha Nursing Home 5401 69th Ave. N. Minnesota Viking Food Service 5200 W. 74th Street LaBelle's 5925 Earle Brown Dr. NSI /Griswold Co. 8300 10th Ave. N. Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd. Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Dr. N.S.P. 4501 68th Ave. N. Northwest Microfilm, Inc. 1600 67th Ave. N. Pearl Manufacturing 6801 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Precision, Inc. 3415 48th Ave. N. Red Owl Country Store 3600 63rd Ave. N. Snyders Brookdale Center Twin City Vending 1065 E. Highway 36 Earle Brown Farm Ind. 6100 Summit Dr. Group Health 6845 Lee Ave. N. Sears Brookdale Center Woodside Enterprises 11889 65th Ave. N. City Hall 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. PERISHABLEL VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Minnesota Vikings Food Service 5200 W. 74th St. LaBelle's 5925 Earle Brown Dr. NSI /Griswold 8300 19th Ave. N. Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd. 1 -28 -85 -3- G t Northwest Microfilm, Inc. 1600 67th Ave. N. Twin City Vending 1065 E. Highway 36 Earle Brown Farm Ind. 6100 Summit.Dr. Group Health 6845 Lee Ave. N. Sears Brookdale Center READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE Fisher Food Products 6800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Douglas J. Bistodeau 5541 Emerson Ave. N. Jay Showalter 6742 & 6744 France Ave. N. Rick Hartmann 6800 Fremont Place N. Terry Hartmann 6804 Fremont Place N. Rick Hartmann 6805 Fremont Place N. Terry Hartmann 6809 Fremont Place N. H.E. Homes 6819 Fremont Place N. Joe Semler 6820 Fremont Place N. Joe Semler 6824 Fremont Place N. Rick Hartmann 6831 Fremont Place N. Walt Halberg 6835 Fremont Place N. Joon K. Kim 4216 Lakebreeze Ave. Eugene Van Lith 2901 Mumford Road Charles Q. Hillstrom 1217 & 1217 54th Ave. N. Terry Hartmann 1323 67th 'Lane N. Walt Halberg 1326 67th Lane N. Terry Hartmann 1339 67th Lane N. Renewal: Dwight Jereczek 6319 Brooklyn Drive Guy & Patricia Reuss 5824 Camden Ave. N. Gene Anderson 5812 James Ave. N. Vernon Vendel 5651 Knox Ave. N. Thomas & Mary Harty 5837 Lyndale Ave. N. Joe Thomas 6736 Scott Ave. N. Don Pfau 6913 Unity Ave. N. Nancy & Jack Huang 3518 Woodbine Lane Nancy & Jack Huang 5419 70th Circle SIGN HANGERS LICENSE Attracta Signs, Inc. 6417 Penn Ave S. SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT B.C. Liquor Store #1 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. B.C. Liquor Store #2 6250 Brooklyn Blvd. B.C. Liquor Store #3 Northbrook Center Burger Brothers 5927 John Martin Dr. Children's Palace 5900 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. M & S Drug Emporium 5900 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. 1 -28 -85 -4- • APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 14, 1985 There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the minutes of the January 14, 1985 City Council meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager introduced a Resolution Directing Staff to Study and Develop a Redevelopment Program and Tax Increment Plan for the Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment. He reviewed the activities of the Earle Brown Farm Development Advisory Committee, and indicated that even without a specific recommendation for redevelopment the tax increment plan can still be developed in a general manner. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -20 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE A REDEVELOPMENT AND FOR INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE EARLE BROWN The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Approving Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for a Request for Proposal for a Market Analysis of the Earle Brown Farm. He explained the market analysis would focus in on the feasibility of uses for the buildings on the Earle Brown Farm site. Councilmember Theis requested the staff's assessment of whether or not the estimated $25,000 fee for such a study was average or high for such a study. Administrative Assistant Hoffman stated that in his opinion the fee was normal for this type of study. yp u y. Councilmember Theis also asked if Administrative Assistant Hoffman could indicate the number of hours proposed for this fee. Administrative Assistant Hoffman indicated that it would be difficult to indicate a specific number of hours. He added that the study will be used to determine how the buildings would or could be retrofitted for particular uses. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -21 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR A MARKET ANALYSIS OF THE EARLE BROWN FARM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Approving Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for a Request for Proposal for a Structural Analysis of the Earle Brown Farm. 1 -28 -85 -5- Councilmember Theis uestioned that ' q if the structural study proves negative what benefit would the market stud be. e ' Y The City Manager stated that he feels fairly certain that several of the buildings on the farm should be able to be saved. Administrative Assistant Hoffman added that all the buildings could be saved but the study will also address which buildings would be most economical to save. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -22 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR AN RFP FOR A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE EARLE BROWN FARM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Approving a Special Use Permit for a Community -Based Group Care Residential Facility at 4408 69th Avenue North. Councilmember Hawes inquired whether it would be necessary to change the City ordinance to reflect the court's decision in this case. Mr. Thomson, of the City Attorney's office, stated that the court limited the Council's authority in certain areas in this case but he did not think it would dictate a change in the existing ordinance. However, he agreed that it would be advisable to review the ordinance in light of the court's decision. Mayor Nyquist suggested an amendment to gg the resolution which would amend the third paragraph of the resolution by adding the words "pursuant to the District Court order" in the paragraph and deleting the words "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center." There was a motion by Mayor Nyquist and seconded by Councilmember Theis to amend the third paragraph of the resolution to read as follows: "Now, therefore, pursuant to the District Court order, the application of Northwest Residence, Inc., file No. 83021, to operate a community -based group care residential facility for mental roved subject ct • " Y 8 menta ill persons is approved to the following owin c J g onditions. Voting in favor. Mayor Nyquist, Counc' Y Yq llmembers Lhotka c S ott Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -23 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its ,adoption as amended: RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMUNITY - BASED GROUP CARE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY AT 440 8 9 �6 TH AVENUE NORTH The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1 -28 -85 -6- DISCUSSION ITEMS STAFF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY AMENDMENT RELATED TO STREET RECONSTRUCTION The Director of Public Works referred Councilmembers to his memorandum of January 23, 1985 which addressed the special assessment policy for street reconstruction in residential areas. He pointed out a typographical error in the last paragraph of page two, and noted that $15 should be changed to $28 in that paragraph to reflect the current rate. The Director of Public Works then reviewed the City's current assessment policy for reconstruction projects, and explained that recent court cases have required changes in assessment policies and that cities are now required to prove an equal benefit for the assessment levied. He explained the courts are requiring that an assessment can only be levied where there is a benefit equal to that assessment received by the property owner. He proceeded to review a survey of assessment policies of other cities dealing with reconstruction, and also reported on discussions with real estate appraisers who have indicated that it is very difficult to develop specific findings which clearly demonstrate the amount of increase in market value to properties which occur as a result of street reconstruction improvements. Finally, he reviewed the staff's recommended policy for street reconstruction assessments. e ts. Councilmember Lhotka stated he would like to see some concrete examples of past projects done under the City's existing policy and the recommended policy in order to obtain a better comparison. The Director of Public Works explained that he has used the proposed Lyndale Avenue reconstruction as an example, and pointed out that the estimated cost of the street reconstruction project under the current City policy is $165,000 and with the new proposed policy it would be $38,800. He pointed out that the water main portion of the project would be the same under the current and proposed policy. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he did not have enough information this evening to make a decision on any change in the City's assessment policy, and again requested concrete examples of comparisons between the current and proposed policies. The Council continued its discussion on the recommended changes in the assessment policy in light of the recent court rulings. The Council then deferred further discussion of the policy until later in the meeting to allow time for the Public Works Director to prepare additional information. ORDINANCES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER The City Manager introduced the Ordinance Amending the City Charter and explained it was first read on November 19, 1984, published on December 6, 1984 and December 13, 1984 and is offered for a second reading this evenin e n , H noted a public g g lic hearin P g on the ordinance has been scheduled for 8:00 p.m. and that the ordinance amendment provides for even year elections in the City of Brooklyn Center. He then explained that in order to implement an even year election schedule it would be necessary to modify the terms of existing Councilmembers. He emphasized that the purpose of the ordinance is to change from an every year to even year election calendar and not to change the terms of Councilmembers. 1 -28 - 85 -7 - Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending the Brooklyn Center City Charter. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Donn Escher, Chairmen of the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission. Mr. Escher addressed the Council and explained that the Charter amendment provisions emanated from the public to the Charter Commission. He also noted that the Charter Commission worked with the City staff and had held considerable internal discussion regarding the Charter amendment prior to transmitting the ordinance to the Council on May 31, 1984. He also pointed out there were several articles in the Brooklyn Center Post and an article in the City Manager's newsletter in September soliciting public input into the ordinance amendment. He then recalled that from May 31 to September 1984 the Charter Commission received no inquiries from the public on the proposed amendment and at that time the amendment had been before the public for over a half a year. He pointed out to Councilmembers that the Charter Commission is appointed by a District Court judge and that the Commission represents a variety of interests. Mr. Escher thep reviewed the history of voter turnout for the past decade, and pointed out that voter turnout was substantially lower on election years when only local candidates were on the ballot. He then pointed out that the Charter Commission surveyed ten neighboring cities and that seven of the ten had four year terms for their Councilmembers. He pointed out the Charter Commission held discussions regarding the required extension of terms in order to implement the even year election system and considerable discussion was held regarding the relative merits of making both the Council and Mayor four year terms or keeping the Mayor's term at two years. Mr. Escher pointed out that with the Mayor's term kept at two years the electorate still has the opportunity to change a majority of the Council every other year. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Dave Skeels who explained that he was representing a Task Force of the Citizens for Better Government designated at their August meeting. He added that he is not officially representing the Citizens for Better Government since a quorum of the CBG was not present at the last: meeting. He noted that himself, former Councilman Tony Kuefler, and former Mayor Phil Cohen comprised the Task Force. Mr. Skeels then presented the Council with the Citizens for Better Government position paper on the Charter change proposal regarding City elections as presented to the Brooklyn Center City Council. - He proceeded to review the summary of the Task Force findings on the proposed Charter change contained on page six of the position paper and summarized, that based on the Task Force findings to date, it is the recommendation to the City Council that the Council refer the proposed Charter change back to the Charter Commission for consideration of the findings contained in the position paper and that of other interested groups as well. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Tony Kuefler who reviewed the public debate and discussion section in the Task Force position paper, and suggested that public debate and discussion ought to be solicited from all constituencies when changes to the Charter are being contemplated. He added that perhaps if the Citizens for Better Government would have been more attentive to the work of the Charter ` Commission, the group would have been at their meetings when the issues came up for discussion. For not having done this, he explained that he expresses his apologies to the Commission; However, given the importance of the issue to the citizens perhaps the Commission too could have been more aggressive in soliciting input from the CBG and others. With regard to the cost of off year elections, Mr. Kuefler explained that he believes the right to vote should be addressed in a different manner than other budget items. He concluded his remarks by reviewing page five of the position paper regarding provisions for enacting a Charter change. He stated 1 -28 -85 -8- that research has indicated that there are several avenues from which a Charter change can be initiated but there are really only two basic avenues to enact a Charter change, that being by referendum vote of the people or by unanimous vote of the City Council. He pointed out that it would seem that the unanimous vote of the Council option is intended for use when the proposed Charter change is in reality a housekeeping item, such as maintaining conformance with State statutes, and that the referendum vote option is intended to be used for all changes when the proposed change will result in a change in intent. Mr. Kuefler thanked the Council for their consideration and time in this matter. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Phil Cohen who addressed the Council, and stated that he believes the issue under discussion is as an important an issue as you can have in a community. He reviewed the importance of the local government structure, and reviewed the discussion in 1961 when a proposal for the plan B Council /Manager form of Government was defeated b the e residents mainly due to the citizens concern for being sure that their franchise as voters was protected. He then reviewed the history of the Government Study Committee which was appointed by the City Council in 1962 and which subsequently recommended that the City proceed with establishing a Charter Commission. He pointed out the Charter Commission held its first meeting in 1964 and the Charter was approved in 1966. He explained that during the study of the Charter the issue of dates of election and terms of office were strongly debated and during the public hearings the issue was raised about the terms of office for the Mayor and Council, and it was resolved to keep the terms as they had been previously which are the current terms of office. Mr. Cohen reviewed page three of the Task Force which discussed terms of office for Mayor and Council, and pointed out that it is difficult to understand the logic for extending CouncilmembersI terms to four years while leaving the Mayor's term at two years. He stated that if any terms should be extended it should be the Mayors' and not the Council's because the Mayor is the titular head of the City and that the Mayor is the spokesperson at all official meetings where the City is represented and is looked at as the person who gives policy direction on issues at the County, Metro, State and Federal level as it affects the City. Mr. Cohen then reviewed the issue of the cost of elections and voter turnout in off year elections. He explained that these issues were also debated in the original Charter Commission and that they found they were not good enough reasons to change the election system. Mr. Cohen addressed the question of what the governance issue is in the proposed Charter change. He explained the main issue is that more people vote in the even year elections than in the odd year elections. He added that this was also known and understood when writing and voting on the original Charter in 1966 but was not found to be a good enough reason to eliminate odd year elections. He added that the original Charter Commission was also concerned about having continuity in the City Council while at the same time providing the opportunity every once in awhile to allow for a majority shift in local philosophy. Therefore, Mr. Cohen concluded that the governance question goes begging for an answer and that if there has not been a problem in the governance by the local elected official under the existing Charter, then the justification for a change in the terms of office in election years would appear to have been inadequately addressed. Mr. Cohen thanked the Council for their consideration in hearing his presentation. Councilmember Hawes recalled the 1983 local election and noted that only 582 people turned out to vote. He stated that he believes in an even year election there would be a better crosssection of the community who turned out to vote. Mr. Cohen 1 -28 -85 -9- responded by reviewing the 1981 election results, and pointed out that he believed quite a few people turned out to vote in 1981. He stated that, in his opinion, this does not mean that when people are satisfied with government you should eliminate the choice. Rather the question is whether a contest exists and added that he believes the opportunity should still be there for the voters to choose. He added he believes the current system provides a continuity to local government and the present Charter works well and that a need for a change has not been demonstrated. Councilmember Theis commented that it appears Mr. Cohen is saying that even in an off year election citizens are sending a message to the Council and in addition the opportunity should be there for the voters to cast their votes each year. Mr. Cohen commented that you don't know an election will be uncontested until it actually is and an uncontested election cannot be assumed. He added that the opportunity should be there for the voters and the Charter has worked since 1966 and during that time the City has been well managed and local government has remained nonpartisan. He noted that the potential cost of an uncontested election is not really significant in light of the total City budget. He concluded his remarks by stating that the Task Force is offering information to be shared with the Charter Commission and that the Council's consideration is requested in this matter. Mayor Nyquist again recognized Mr. Donn Escher, Chairman of the Charter Commission. Mr. Escher addressed the Council and stated that he had not received a copy of the documents submitted to the Council this evening and added that he would like the record to show that he was one of the persons who served on the original Charter Commission. He pointed out that he does not equate changing from an every year to even year election system to a change of government over 20 years ago. He explained that times do change and that the trend is to longer terms and even year elections. He pointed out the Charter Commission did discuss four year terms for both the Council and Mayor but the issue of checks and balances was discussed by the Commission, and he pointed out that he believes the new system would allow a change of majority every two years. With regard to the cost issue, Mr. Escher stated that the Commission never really considered this an issue although it was mentioned and briefly discussed by the Commission. He again emphasized that the Charter Commission is comprised of a variety of people and that notices of the meetings are public and that the meetings are public. He explained that the Commission did not solicit input from any specific group but information on the proposed change was public and that the Charter Commission has members who also belong to the Citizens for Better Government group. He concluded his remarks by stating that the Charter Commission will of course respect the vote of the Council but that he believes the Commission did a good job and that the entire issue should be addressed when considering the ordinance amendment. Mayor Nyquist inquired whether there was any discussion in the Charter Commission regarding whether or not the change would be detrimental in any way. Mr. Escher replied that he does not recall any specifics regarding this issue but he did not believe the Commission considered the ordinance detrimental in any way. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak at the hearing. No one else requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending the Brooklyn Center City Charter. 1 -28 -85 -10- Councilmember Theis expressed a concern with the issue of campaigns in odd years versus even year elections, and indicated that he thought perhaps different types of voters would have to be approached in an even year versus an odd year election. He stated he believes there are indeed two distinct groups in odd versus even years and that he believes it is a good thing for a municipality to address and satisfy both groups. He added that every year elections gives an opportunity to the electorate to voice there choices as often as possible. Councilmember Scott stated that in years when presidential or state elections are held local issues often get lost and she believes that people should have the right to choose whether or not they want to vote. The important part, she pointed out, is giving them the opportunity. She added that it is disappointing to see low turnouts but voters should have the right to vote every year. In conclusion, she suggested that perhaps this should be a question at the next City election. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he does in his own mind what he believes is best for the community as a whole and that he also believes the voters will respond if he does wrong and hopefully respond affirmatively if he does right. He stated that he believes the issues discussed this evening are valid and that he also believes the Charter Commission has done their job with regard to recommending the ordinance amendment. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Mayor Nyquist to accept the Charter Commission's recommendations and approve An Ordinance Amending the Brooklyn Center Charter. Upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Nyquist and Councilmember Lhotka. The following voted against: Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. The motion failed. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to refer the ordinance amendment back to the Charter Commission to allow them to review the issues raised at this evening's public hearing and to decide and recommend a course of action after further discussions on the pertinent issues have been conducted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: Councilmember Lhotka. The motion passed. CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIED LICENSE FOR NEIL HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the staff recommendation on the issuance of a mechanical contractor's license requested by Neil Heating and Air Conditioning is that it be denied. Mr. Warren proceeded to review his memorandum of January 25, 1985 regarding a recommendation to deny a mechanical contractor's license for Neil Heating and Air Conditioning. He reviewed the ordinance requirements regarding a mechanical contractor's license, the applicant procedure and the information received by his department regarding Neil Heating and Air Conditioning which led to the recommendation for denial of the license. He informed the Council that the City's ordinance standards for licensing mechanical contractors are very basic, requiring demonstration of an understanding of the laws and regulations and techniques relating to the installation and maintenance of building mechanical systems. He added that the City has no specific tests for such a license but that the determination generally involves a review by the building inspector of an applicant's credentials, if any, and a review of any past problems. He added that if these matters are in order the licenses is recommended for approval. 1 -28 -85 -ll- He added that he believes the information the City has obtained and presented regarding Neil Heating and Air Conditioning indicates quite clearly that his work, in many cases, has not been done in accordance with the state mechanical code and he has obviously not demonstrated an understanding of the laws and regulations and techniques relating to building mechanical systems and, therefore, should not be licensed to do mechanical work within the City of Brooklyn Center. Mr. Warren also stated that the applicant for the license is present this evening and has indicated he has information he wishes to share with the Council. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Neil Olson who identified himself as President of Neil Heating and Air Conditioning. Mr. Olson discussed g the requirements for licensing he has encountered in other cities and gave a list of licenses held in other cities. He stated that just � about every metropolitan city issues licenses and permits at the same time. He noted he has been in the heating nd air conditioning ionin g g for 21 years and 10 years as the owner of a business. He stated he has had thousands of satisfied customers but agrees that mistakes can happen but that he does correct any mistakes. Mr. Olson then submitted to the Deputy City Clerk a copy of a certificate showing his membership in the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers and also a synopsis of his work background and education. Mr. Olson explained that most of the past problems in his business have been with the City of Minneapolis, and pointed out that it is difficult to acquire a license in Minneapolis. Mr. Olson reviewed his past efforts to obtain a license in Minneapolis and reviewed the requirements for licensing, which included a journeyman's competency card, a master's competency card, and the cost of a license which ranges from $175 and up per license. He added that Minneapolis also divides its licenses into various categories, such as heating and refrigeration. He added that the reason given by the City of Minneapolis for denial of his license was that Minneapolis required that an individual work four years under- a local master prior to granting any license. Mr. Olson noted he hired an attorney regarding the licensing matter in Minneapolis. Mr. Olson submitted additional n o al corre s and nc e e to the Deput A p y City Clerk regarding g g his efforts at obtaining license in the City of Minneapolis, and fin Y p , ally commented that he was issued ued a license in St. Paul and eventuall y ed a license in Minneapolis. Mr. Olson indicated that he had a "run in" in 1978 with Mr. Paul Sperry, a Minneapolis inspector, and that all problems related to the City of Minneapolis were being "pushed" by Mr. Paul Sperry. Mr. Olson then submitted a copy of various competency cards which he had in his name. Mr. Olson then addressed the issue stated in Mr. Warren's memorandum regarding the October or November 1984 meeting of the Northstar Chapter of Building Officials when building inspectors were warned of problems associated with Mr. Olson Is company. Mr. Olson explained that all the problems discussed at this meeting derived from Mr. Paul Sperry, an inspector with the City of Minneapolis. Mr. Olson continued to discuss his problems with the City of Minneapolis, and indicated that he had used subcontractors in Minneapolis to do work but they too had been scrutinized by the Minneapolis Inspection Department, and he indicated that their own 'work became scrutinized because of their association with Mr. Olson's company so they discontinued their association with Neil Heating and Air Conditioning. 1 -28 -85 -12- Mr. Olson then reviewed for Councilmembers a letter to Mr. Edward C. Vavreck, Assistant City Attorney for the City of Minneapolis, which addressed several allegations against the City of Minneapolis regarding the treatment and harassment of Mr. Olson's employees and company by Minneapolis building inspectors. On December 14, 1984, Mr.Olson stated that he met with Mr. Andy Alberti of the City inspections department to apply for a license and at that time was told he would not be issued a license due to communications received from other cities regarding his company's work. Councilmember Lhotka left the table at 9:36 p.m. Mr. Olson then submitted to the Deputy City Clerk the letter dated April 21, 1984 addressed to the Assistant City Attorney of Minneapolis regarding a potential lawsuit for harassment. Councilmember Lhotka returned to the table at 9 :40 p.m. Mr. Olson stated that Mr. Warren's memo did not address the cities he had requested him to contact regarding his licensing. He added that Mr. Alberti acknowledged the practice of taking out licenses at the time of taking out the permit. He added that all jobs done in the past years by his company have met state and local codes and where there wer e roblems they were corrected. p Y Mr. Olson then submitted a computer printout of names and addresses of persons he claimed he had done work for in various cities and that all the customers on the list were satisfied customers. He stated that all the jobs passed inspection for the first time and that the list contained jobs he had worked on himself and that it was only a partial list of customers who had been satisfied with his company's work. Mr. Olson then addressed the correspondence received by the City from Mr. John Schirmang, a building official with the City of Edina. He referred to a specific problem with Mr. Steven Reynolds, who was later sued by Neil Heating and Air Conditioning in Hennepin Count Conciliation Court and that 'n Y i this incident Mr. Paul Sperry, a Minneapolis inspector, testified in this matter on behalf of the defendants which involved work done in Edina. He added that his company won a judgment against Mr. Reynolds for nonpayment. Y Mr. Olson then addressed the handout issued to Councilmembers from Mr. Warren at this evening's meeting. Mr. Olson explained that this evening was the first time he was aware of the violations contained in the handout from Mr. Warren. Continuing with his discussion regarding problems he had experienced with the City of Crystal r and City of Edina, he stated that Mr. Schirmang with the City of Edina and Mr. Peterson with the inspection department of the City of Crystal have both been friends with Mr. Sperry of the City of Minneapolis. Mayor Nyquist noted that the computer list of jobs Mr. Olson had submitted to the Council showed that the dates on the jobs were 1980 and that because they were so old he did not see the relevance. Mr. Olson replied that the relevancy is that they are a list of customers his company had done work for and are satisfied and Mr. Olson also cited the fact that Mr. Sperry's report discussed a job his company had done in 1978. In response to the violation report regarding a July 2, 1979 inspection, Mr. Olson stated that there was a work stoppage on the site and that the chimney had been enclosed when his company had returned to complete the work on the chimney. 1 -28 -85 -13- i Councilmember Scott inquired of Mr. Olson how long he has been in business for himself. Mr. Olson replied that he has been in business 11 years. Councilmember Scott then asked whether Mr. Olson applies for a license when he contracts for the work with a customer. Mr. Olson stated that he did. Councilmember Scott expressed a concern that there is evidence that Mr. Olson does work without obtaining a license. Councilmember Scott then inquired about the letter from Mr. Don Peterson, chief building inspector of the City of Crystal, regarding Mr. Olson's failure to obtain a permit for the installation of a gas furnace in the City of Crystal. Mr. Olson stated that this was a furnace installation and that usually these can be done in a few hours and that the licensing and bonding process is quite time consuming. He added that his policy is that wherever possible he would take out a license and permit prior to the job and cited thousands of jobs that he had done well in the past versus a small handful of jobs with problems. Councilmember Theis inquired of Mr. Olson how many cities he actually does work in. Mr. Olson stated that he works from as far as Prior Lake to Ham Lake. Councilmember Theis then inquired as to the location of the majority of the business of his company. Mr. Olson replied that he does the majority of business in the 12 cities that his company is currently licensed in. Councilmember Theis then commented that the copies of the competency cards he had submitted were expired. Mr. Olson replied that most cities did not give competency cards and that most give licenses. He explained that in St. Louis Park he had a current master license effective through December 1984 and that it is currently being renewed. He added that it is not necessary to renew cards for Minneapolis and St. Paul to obtain a license. Councilmember Theis then expressed a concern over the fact that apparently in Edina and Crystal Mr. Olson had failed to obtain a permit to do work in those communities. Councilmember Theis then inquired of Mr. Warren whether or not licenses were issued by mail. The Director of Planning & Inspection replied that the majority of applications are taken over the counter but that many can be renewed by mail. Councilmember Theis then commented that permits are normally taken and issued prior to the beginning of a job, and inquired of Mr. Olson what his procedure was if it is not taken out prior to the work. Mr. Olson replied that it was a common practice in cities to do work without permits. In response to Mr. Olson Is comments, building inspector Andy Alberti stated that a majority of mechanical permits are sent in through the mail and most are applied for prior to the job. Sometimes, he pointed out, there are oversights by contractors and they forget to obtain certain permits for a specific job, particularly when there are a number of permits required for a single job. Mr. Olson stated that in the majority of cases his company makes every effort to get a permit prior to beginning work. At the request of Councilmember Theis, Mr. Olson addressed the allegations of Mr. Don Peterson, chief building official for the City of Crystal. Mr. Olson explained that in this incident he was under the understanding that the bond was in transit but was then called by Mr. Peterson and notified that the license would not be issued to him and that he would have to have a subcontractor complete the work and at that point indicated he would have to go to court. In response to an inquiry by Councilmember Lhotka, building inspector Andy Alberti stated that to his knowledge eight cities are in the process of revoking or denying a license to Mr. Olson and that many cities in the metropolitan area do not require licenses to work. Councilmember Lhotka then inquired whether or not Mr. Alberti spoke with a representative from any of the cities that we received a letter from in regards to Mr. Olson. Mr. Alberti replied that he spoke with all the individuals who had written letters. 0 1 -28 -85 -14 Y � Mayor Nyquist then inquired whether cities such as Maple Grove, New Hope, and Plymouth require licenses. At that point Mr. Olson indicated that he believed licenses were for the primary purpose of obtaining revenue. Mr. Warren stated that licenses are not for obtaining revenue but for assuring that the contractor is capable of performing the work in question and that it is not a revenue producing technique. Councilmember Theis inquired whether Mr. Thomson could tell the Council what authority and responsibility the Council has with regard to their authority to issue or revoke licenses. Mr. Thomson replied that a license is considered a privilege and that the Council has discretion to issue or not issue a license. He added that a revocation of a license may require stricter procedures than not issuing a license in the first place. He added that if you are to follow the staff recommendations he would recommend that the Council direct the staff to prepare a resolution denying the license including the findings. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to direct the staff to prepare a resolution denying a mechanical contractor's license to Neil Heating and Air Conditioning and to return to the Council with the resolution at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING ON -SITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS The City Manager introduced the ordinance and explained that currently the City of Brooklyn Center does not have any criteria for the approval or disapproval of on- site sewage system and that this ordinance is offered for a first reading and would adopt the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency criteria for individual on -site sewage systems. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 4 of the City Ordinances Regarding On -Site Sewage Systems and to to set a public hearing for the ordinance amendment for the regularly scheduled Council meeting on February 25, 1985 at 8 :00 P.M. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION ITEM REGARDING STAFF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY AMENDMENT RELATED TO STREET RECONSTRUCTION The Director of Public Works submitted a handout to Councilmembers showing a comparison of the 1985 proposed versus the 1984 rates for the proposed Lyndale ' Avenue Street Improvement Project. The City Manager noted that in 1984 the project was assessed at the estimated project cost and the 1985 proposal, in light of recent court rulings, is an assessment of the benefit related to the improvement. The Council reviewed and discussed the Director of Public Works submission, and Councilmember Lhotka requested the staff to prepare a similar comparison of another actual project undertaken in the City. PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF WATER MAIN AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION ALONG LYNDALE AVENUE BETWEEN 53RD AND 57TH AVENUES The City Manager explained that the staff first wanted to address a City-wide assessment policy amendment and then if the Council was comfortable with that they would propose the policy for the Lyndale Avenue project. 1 -28 -85 -15- Councilmember Theis requested the staff to prepare additional examples of the assessment policies as they compare on a normal type project other than the Lyndale type project which has some special considerations. The City Manager stated he would provide information to compare the Lyndale and 53rd Avenue projects and one other project. Councilmember Lhotka requested additional examples and the Director of Public Works stated that the staff could return to the Council with three or four approaches to the policy and examples of various types of projects. Councilmember Theis then inquired as to the potential number of projects the City could receive. The Director of Public Works explained that his estimate would be six to ten blocks per year and that this would be a very high estimate of reconstruction type projects. STAFF REPORT AND UPDATE ON COMPARABLE WORTH STUDY Administrative Assistant Bublitz reported on the status of the compensation study being conducted currently by 60 metropolitan and 28 outstate cities in conjunction with Control Data Business Advisors. He explained the City is in the first step in the job evaluation process which is to develop the questionnaires to be used to gather information about what employees do on their job. He noted that workshops were being scheduled to solicit information from employees to develop and refine the questionnaires. The second step in the process would be the completion of the questionnaires by City employees after they had been finalized. He then reviewed the next few steps in the process, and noted that each employee completing a questionnaire will be provided a computer generated position_ description which provides a' listing of tasks performed with the time spent percentages. He noted that the project will involve large groups of employees at various stages of the process, including the fifth step in the process which will assign, values to the tasks being described by employees in the questionnaires. He pointed out that groups of employees, including managers, will rats all tasks about which they are knowledgeable and after that process is completed the results will be combined from the questionnaires with the task values in order to determine the whole job values. He then reviewed the next step which is to analyze and collect wage and benefit data from public and private sector labor markets and to finally analyze the relationships among the job values, current pay rates, and the market data. He pointed out the State law requiring the compensation study also stipulates that cities must report to the Commissioner of Employee Relations on their findings by October 1, 1985. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Authorizing Participation in the Control Data Business Advisors Incorporated Joint Comparable Worth Study. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -24 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE CONTROL DATA BUSINESS ADVISORS, INC. JOINT COMPARABLE WORTH STUDY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded' by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. SENIOR CITIZEN TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM The City Manager explained that the City Manager of New Hope, Crystal, Golden 1- - 28 - 85 16 - { Valley, Brooklyn Center, and Robbinsdale have been studying the need for improved senior citizen transportation services in the five communities. He added that the cities are now requesting that each municipality interested in continuing in the study of senior citizen transportation needs authorize the expenditure of $1,000 per community and establish a Joint Powers Group to investigate the feasibility of establishing a transit program which would serve senior citizens in the five cities. He noted that the program is intended to be a trial program to be set up for a period of one or two years and that any transportation services would be provided through a contract with a transportation vendor. Mayor Nyquist expressed a concern that any program developed for senior citizen transportation should also address and not ignore any intra City transit needs for the elderly. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to join the cities of New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, and Robbinsdale to pursue a senior citizens transportation program and to authorize the expenditure of up to $1 ,000 in order to pay for the services of a staff person to define and implement the program. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Couneilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESIGNATION OF DR. DUANE ORN FROM NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL Mayor Nyquist noted that he had received a letter of resignation from Dr. Orn as the City's representative to the Advisory Commission of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council. He expressed regret at Dr. Orn's retirement g and acknowledged his outstanding service to the City as the City's representative on the Advisory Commission. POLICE DEPARTMENT REMODELING The City Manager reviewed the proposed plans for the remodeling of the Police Department offices authorized in the 1985 budget and also the proposed modifications to the entrance to the Police Department proposed for 1986. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -25 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR REMODELING OF POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Mayor 1 -28 -85 -17- Member introduced the following 74 resolution and move dits adoption. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT NO. 1985 -08, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1985 -E) --------------------------- - - - - -- - - -- -- - - -- WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary to initiate Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project No. 1985 -08; and WHEREAS, it is estimated that the cost to complete the work comprehended under said Improvement Project No. 1985 -08 is $57,200.00: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The following project is hereby established: DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT NO. 1985 -08 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 seven (7) days prior to the date for receipt of bids, and specify the work to be done, state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. on March 14, 1985, at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers at City Hall by the City Clerk and City Engineer, will then be tabulated and will be considered by the City Council at 7:00 P.M. on March 25, 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 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 B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER T0: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: February 8, 1985 RE: Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project No. 1985 -08 The proposed 1985 Diseased Shade Tree Removal Program comprehends an approximate 15% increase of contractural expenditures experienced in 1984. This increase (from $45,000 in 1984 to $52,000 in 1985) is based upon recent discussions with representatives of the University of Minnesota Extension Service and Hennepin County Extension Service. The extension service representatives have stressed two major points which affect beetle infestation: 1. Beetle population reflects the winter conditions experienced 2 years earlier, not the season immediatelypreceeding. As a result of conditions experienced in 1983 -84 (i.e. heavy snow cover providing increased insulation of the tree stump), the infestation rate is again expected to be high. 2. Timely removal of trees during the year will decrease the incidence of secondary infestation in the late summer and fall. Because of the heavy loss rate during 1984, the City's contractor was unable to provide immediate response to each removal order. The attached report shows there was an 80% increase of trees infected in 1984 (288 in 1983 to 517 in 1984). Accordingly, we estimate there will be over 525 positive diseased tree identifications in 1985 (see attached Shade Tree Disease Report) with the majority (estimated at 425 plus or minus) to be removed by the City's contractor. The 1985 program again contemplates 50% City participation in boulevard tree removal costs (both contractural and administrative). The attached resolution establishes the 1985 Diseased Shade Tree Removal Program and directs the staff to accept bids in March. Respectfully submitted, ?4 . ma &t,. MEMO TO: G.G. SPLINTER, CITY MANAGER FROM: Gene Hagel, Director, Parks and Recreatioreartment DATE December 31 , 19 8 4 SUBJECT: Shade Tree Disease Report The following statistical summary shows a comparison of Dutch Elm and Oak Wilt activity for the past twelve years: 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 .1979 1980 1981 1982 1 1 1984 TOTAL Number of Inspections 34 100 88 184 513 943 783 624 584 645 397 362 563 5820 Number Positive DED 5 6 34 47 267 614 712 487 478 583 389 288 517 4427 Number of Positive Oak Wilt 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Others not sampled, dead and removed 0 18 158 65 75 52 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 376 TOTAL TREES REMOVED 5 24 196 112 342 669 712 487 478 583 397 288 517 4810 Number brush piles, logs noted and removed 128 44 58 47 41 45 25 383 Number stumps (blvd) noted and removed 102 6 3 1 18 27 16 173 Number stumps (private) noted and debarked or removed 68 19 13 14 11 2 4 126 Number of trees removed by: BLVD. PRIVATE Contractor .17z 186 City Crew 36 Owner 15 loft lumber of stumps only 'removed by; Contractor 10 2 City Crew 0 0 Owner 6 2 Member introduced the following resolution 7,6 and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST BY NEIL HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING FOR A MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE WHEREAS, Mr. Neil Olson, President of Neil Heating and Air Air Conditioning has applied for a mechanical contractor's license as required by Section 23 -1500 of the City Ordinances; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 23 -003 of the City Ordinances, the license application was submitted to the Director of Planning and Inspection for review and comment; and WHEREAS, following review of the applicant's credentials and the applicant's performance in other municipalities, the Director of Planning and Inspection recommended disapproval of the license request; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 23 -004 of the City Ordinances, the Director of Planning and Inspection in a letter dated January 23, 1985 notified Mr. Olson of the nature of his recommendation to disap- prove the license request; the time and place at which the City Council would consider his application; and Mr. Olson's right to appear before the City Council in support of his application; and WHEREAS, the Council on January 28, 1985 at a duly called City Council meeting heard the report and recommendation of the Director of Planning and _Inspection and also heard Mr. Neil'Olson's comments in support of his application; and WHEREAS, based on the information gathered at the City Council meeting and on the written documents on file with the City, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The City of Edina has denied a license application by Neil Heating and Air Conditioning because of previous improper work involving code deficiencies and doing work without proper licenses and permits 2. The City of Minneapolis is in the process of conduct- ing hearings to revoke the license of Neil Heating and Air Conditioning to do work in the City. The reason for such license revocation hearings is improper work involving code violations and doing work without a proper license or permit. 3. Minnegasco has been called to make corrections for improper installation of a manual damper installed by Neil Heating and Air Conditioning in the City of Fridley. 4. The applicant has performed work in the City of Crystal without obtaining the proper permits and licenses. 5. The applicant has a history of performing work without obtaining the necessary permits and licenses. RESOLUTION N0. 6. The applicant has failed to demonstrate an understand- ing of the laws, regulations, and techniques relating to the installation and maintenance of building mechan- ical systems. 7. The applicant has failed to meet the standard set forth in City Ordinance 23- 1500. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that based on the above findings, the docu- ments submitted by the Applicant, and the information presented to the City Council, the application of Neil Heating and Air Conditioning for a mechanical contractor's license is hereby denied. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof; and the following voted against the same; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted 7c Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1985 GENERAL FUND BUDGET, TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM COUNCIL CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT TO POLICE DEPARTMENT MOBILE EQUIPMENT ACCOUNT NO. 4553 FOR MOBILE COMMAND CENTER WHEREAS, the Police Department has requested authorization for purchase of a Mobile Command Center for use during natural disasters and other emergency situations; and WHEREAS, federal matching funds are available for a portion of the cost of the Mobile Command Center; and WHEREAS, the cost estimates of the Mobile Command Center are as follows: Vehicle - $23,000 Equipment - $30,000 Consultant Services for Selection of Mobile Consultant Services for Selection of Mobile Communication Equipment $6,000; and WHEREAS, the federal share of the cost will be $18,000: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend the 1985 General Fund Budget as follows: 1. Increase the Police Department Capital Outlay Appropriation for Mobile Equipment (Object No. 4553) by $59,000 for the purchase of a Mobile Command Center. 2. Increase the amount of revenue estimated to be received from Federal Civil Defense Reimbursement (Account No. 3312) by $18,000. 3. Reduce the Council Contingency Appropriation (Account No. 4995) in the Unallocated Departmental Expenses Budget by $41,000. 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. MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: January 25, 1985 SUBJECT: Consideration of Alternatives to Police Mobile Command Center The following information is supplemental to an earlier request to you stated in a memorandum dated December 6, 1984 and entitled Justification of Police Mobile Command Center. Described below are two alternatives to purchasing a mobile command center, including use of the discarded fire van and use of the Brooklyn Center Police _Department facility as a staging area. These options are critiqued for their workability in emergency situations. Alternative 1: Discarded Fire Van This option involves the van currently being used by the Fire Department that will be discarded and replaced by the Fire Department's new step van. The discarded van could be equipped with limited radio equipment, but problems would arise if the van were converted to a mobile command center. The discarded van could not provide a staging facility for police personnel or City officials. The vehicle is too small to operate both radio communications and staging operations. There is no head room in the van to allow personnel to stand or move around, and there would be insufficient space to erect a status board for ongoing operations. Installation of a remote power supply in the form of a generator would consume a -great deal of area within the van and create a noise level that would interfere with radio operations. Finally, fuel capacity for long -term operations is inadequate. Because of the potential inefficiencies produced if the discarded van were used, this is not viewed as a viable option. A lternative-2: S t e P t If necessary, the Police Department facility could be used as a staging area for the E.O.0 team or other City personnel. The main radio console would be available for monitoring and managing a situation. As with the other options, several problems are inherent to the use of the Police Department as a staging area. Memo to Gerald Splinter -2- January 25, 1985 The most basic problem, and one of greatest concern, is the distance between the scene of an incident and the police station. This results in an inability to respond quickly because of the lack of proximity to the scene. Response time may be high, particularly if inclement weather conditions exist, and every minute is critical when handling emergency situations. Travel time from the scene back to the department is also a problem, as it may delay planning steps involved in the decision - making process. For example, for intelligence gathering missions, the distance the reconnaissance team must travel and report back would have a bearing on the efficiency of operations. This problem is magnified if the team must return to the scene to gather additional information. Of further concern is the inability to separate communications off of the main dispatch channels. Calls related to an emergency situation must be handled in addition to other unrelated incoming calls. Use of the D.V.P is essential, but better management of an emergency occurs if all emergency calls are handled separately. Another problem is lack of facilities for installing a phone at the scene, which can be essential to dealing with hostage situations or barricaded individuals. Faster resolution of a problem may occur if a negotiator is close to the scene. An additional problem is that coordination between City departments and also support agencies during an emergency • situation often is difficult. A recent case exemplifies the problems related to using the Police Department facility as a staging area. On December 22,`1984, an individual at 5815 Lyndale Avenue North barricaded himself in his home, posing a threat to himself and neighbors. The E.O.U. team was activated and the staging area was established at the Brooklyn Center Police Department. The problem of most concern was the distance between the house and the police station. Travel time delayed the planning steps when two E.O.U. members were sent as a reconnaissance team to the house. Once the two returned to the station, decisions could be made, but not until then. Distance also created a problem when the E.O.U. team negotiator, with the use of a telephone, brought the barricaded individual to a point of willingness to surrender. However, trained E.O.U. personnel could not reach the scene immediately, and as a result, the suspect surrendered to police officers who were not E.O.U. team members, not equipped with the proper body armor, and also not trained to deal specifically with such individuals. Another example reflects difficulties arising when activities must be coordinated away from the scene of an emergency. On Saturday, January 19, 1985 a water main broke in the area of Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th Avenue North. The City's Police Department, Street Department, Public Memo to Gerald Splinter -3- January 25, 1985 Works Department and Fire Department were all actively involved in responding to and dealing with the problems related to the break at one time or another. Support agencies were notified in order to obtain warning lights, signing, Brooklyn Park Police Reserves, and other additional personnel for assistance. Because of the lack of telephone facilities at the scene, Street Department personnel had to make calls for ordering special equipment and assistance from the City Garage. This created some delay in rectifying the problem. The water main break necessitated the City departments to work together, but efforts were not always coordinated. For example, the Police Department was responsible for providing blockades for the area, yet the department did not receive updated information from the Street Department that signing had been ordered and the expected time of arrival of the signing. If a means existed encouraging such communication between departments, a better coordinated effort would have resulted. If no other alternative is available, use of the Police Department as a staging area is the acceptable option. Conclusion As noted, of the two alternatives cited the second option is the only acceptable one. However, I would like to reiterate the request for a mobile command center. Among the examples of activity the vehicle could be used for are severe winter or summer storms, hostage situations, barricaded individuals, homicides, major fires, hazardous materials incidents, drownings, lost children, or water main breaks. Specific examples of recent activity in Brooklyn Center for which a mobile command center could have been used include the Randi Petersen homicide, the Delano Freeman homicide, the LaValle homicide, the Georgetown apartment fire /homicides, the two Howe Fertilizer fires, the Federal Lumber fire, barricaded persons at 58th and Lyndale, 58th and Knox, 67th and Bryant, 67th and Humboldt, and 69th and Drew, the drowning in Shingle Creek, the drownings in Twin Lake, several cases of lost children, the Brookdale 10 fire and subsequent hazardous materials spill on Highway 100, the tanker spill on the Shingle Creek Parkway ramp at I -694, and the water main break at Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th Avenue North. With these specific examples in mind, I believe that having a mobile command center would result in improved management, better resolution of emergency situations, and higher security of information. MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: December 6, 1984 SUBJECT: Justification of Police Mobile Command Center The Police Department is requesting authorization for purchase of a mobile command center for use during natural disasters and other urgent emergency situations that would require any extensive radio coordination and telecommunications. Federal matching funds are available for a specified portion of the costs. The general use of the vehicle would be as a mobile headquarters or staging area for such natural disasters as a tornado or flood. The vehicle would also be used during other emergency situations including a major fire like that experienced at Howe, Inc. in recent years, a drowning such as the case in 1983 when a young child drowned in Shingle Creek, activities involving the department's Emergency Operations Unit, or a homicide, such as the Randi Petersen case. Among the advantages of the mobile command center is the opportunity for improved direction and management of an emergency situation. A communications center on or near the disaster site will improve control of personnel and resources, and will help to focus more on the matter at hand. Another key advantage of the center is the ability to control communications by separating the daily activity from emergency operations. The mobile command center will restrain incoming calls from the general public, leaving lines open for contacting personnel relevant to the disaster scene, such as state and federal government officials or experts in the field who could provide assistance. Use of the mobile command center will also improve confidentiality necessary in handling sometimes delicate situations. Key officials from other levels of government may be contacted directly by phone from the emergency location, thus avoiding communications of confidential information over the police radio. The fear of having the news media monitor all transmissions over the radio waves and misconstrue events is removed. The vehicle itself would be equipped with state of the art radios capable of two -way communication on citizens band, short -wave, public safety, VHF low and high band, and UHF high and low band frequencies. It would have two totally redundant dispatch consoles with telephone capabilities to connect the unit to existing phone lines, and would be operated by either 110 volt power taken from an existing building or by a 4000 watt generator that would make the unit self- contained. Memo to: Gerald G. Splinter -2- December 6, 1984 The costs of the mobile command center include $23,000.00 for the vehicle which will be ( the same as the vehicle .approved for purchase by the Fire Department on December 3 1984 30 000.00 for al ), $ , 0 1 interior equipment, and $6,000.00 for consultant fees, for a total of $59,000.00. The City has received verbal confirmation that the federal government has approved matching funds for all costs, excluding the vehicle exterior. The federal share will be $18,000.00, so the amount requested from the City is $41,000.00. Acquisition of a mobile command center would greatly improve the capability of managing a disaster in progress or the aftermath of one. For the reasons cited above, the police department requests the purchase of the command center. !I Member introduced the following resolution and 7E � moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ONE (1) 14 FOOT ALUMINUM STEP VAN WHEREAS, written quotations were accepted for the purchase of one (1) 14 Foot Aluminum Step Van. WHEREAS, the quotation received was as follows: Bidder Quotation Polar Chevrolet & Mazda $20,737,00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the quotation for One (1) 14 Foot Aluminum Step Van from Polar Chevrolet & Mazda in the amount of $20,737 is hereby accepted and the City Manager is hereby authorized to contract for the purchase of the Step Van in the amount of $20,737 from Polar Chevrolet and Mazda. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the e following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SHORT- ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC. TO CONDUCT A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS RELATING TO RETAIL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN BROOKLYN CENTER AND AMENDING THE 1985 GENERAL FUND BUDGET WHEREAS, the City Council has directed that proposals be accepted for the conduct of a traffic engineering study relating to retail development within Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, such proposals have been received by the City of Brooklyn Center on February 4, 1985 meeting the requirements for the study; and WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a - part of the General Fund Budget, and further provides that the con - tingency appropriation may be transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into an agreement with Short- Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. in the amount of $11,300 to provide a traffic analysis relating to retail development within Brooklyn Center as contained in their February 4, 1985 proposal, with supplement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend the 1985 General Fund Budget as follows: Transfer an appropriation in the amount of $11,300 from the Contingency Account (No. 4995) in the Unallocated Expanses Budget (No. 80) to the Professional Services Account (No. 4310) in the Council Budget (No.11). Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof; and the following voted against the same; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. s MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspectiolh_�a �j Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: February 8, 1985 SUBJECT: Traffic Study Relating to Retail Development Attached is a copy of a January 22, 1985 request for proposal (RFP) involving an engineering study for a traffic analysis relating to retail development within Brooklyn Center. This RFP was sent to two consulting firms, Bennett, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, Gardner, Inc. (BRW) and Short - Elliott - Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH), requesting they submit a concise proposal to provide various engineering consulting services to do a traffic study related to the proposed three month moratorium. The January 22 memo outlines in detail the nature of the study, the information available, the study area, scope of work and the proposed content of the traffic study and requested that the proposal be sub mitted to the City no later than noon on Monday, February 4, 1985. Both BRW and SEH have responded and have submitted proposals meeting the guidelines of our RFP within the required time limit. Both proposals have been reviewed in detail by the staff and followup inquiries have been satisfactorily addressed by each of the consulting firms. Both firms have provided the City with consulting services in the past; BRW with the City's Comprehensive Plan and SEH, as a traffic consultant to the City, provided a variety of traffic analysis over the past few years. We feel that either firm would be able to provide a professionally done and well documented traffic analysis meeting our requirements. However, we give a slight edge to SEH due to the follow- ing reasons: 1. Their more recent involvement in traffic studies for the City. 2. Their proposal appears to more specifically address the City's need for detailed segment -by- segment and intersection -by- intersection evaluation of our local street system, and 3. The lower cost estimate ($11,300 maximum) as opposed to BRW's cost estimate (13,905 maximum). Therefore, it is our recommendation that the City Council, at their February 11, 1985 meeting, adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Short-Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. to conduct a traffic analysis relating to retail development within Brooklyn Center as contained in their February 4, 1985 proposal. CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B ROOKL YN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 CENTER TELEPHONE 561 -5440 TO: Mr. Dick Wolsfeld, Bennett, Ringrose, Wolsfeld FROM: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager DATE: January 22, 1985 RE: Engineering Study for a Traffic Analysis Relating to Retail Development Within Brooklyn Center Gentlemen: The City of Brooklyn Center requests you to submit a concise proposal to provide Engineering Services for a traffic study relating to retail development within the City of Brooklyn Center. Your submittal should be made in accordance with this Request For Proposal (RFP). Five (5) copies should be submitted to Mr. Ron Warren, Director of Planning and Inspections, prior to 12:00 noon on Monday, February 4, 1985. Introduction The City Council is currently considering the adoption of a proposed ordinance which would adopt a moratorium on retail development within the City of Brooklyn Center. Enclosed herewith are the following related documents. - a January 9, 1985 memo to Gerald G. Splinter /City Manager from Ron Warren a January 11, 1985 memo to`the Mayor and City Council from the City Manager Final consideration of the ordinance will occur,on February 11, 1985. If - adopted, the ordinance will become effective on February 23, 1985. In this event, the moratorium will run until May 23, 1985. At that time the City Council could legally adopt a maximum 18 month extension of the moratorium. The City Council has directed that proposals be accepted for the conduct of a traffic engineering study during the first 3 months of the moratorium. In the event this first -phase study indicates a cause for serious concern, the Council will then consider extending the moratorium to allow study and consideration of the other elements of the issue. , •'7le SoHCet�Cicg �Zoae C� " Brooklyn Center System Information Information which is available for purposes of the study includes the following: - the current Comprehensive Plan for City of Brooklyn Center - Miscellaneous maps including basic City maps, zoning maps, etc. - Existing Land -Use data and land -use projects (to be developed by City staff). — Existing Employment statistics kor major employers and community aggregates (to be developed by City staff) - 1980 Census Data Miscelaneous information from the Metropolitan Council - 1984 aerial photo's (scale 1 =800 of the study area - Street design information (construction plans, etc.) - 1980 Traffic study relating to Shingle Creek Parkway, by B.R.W., Inc. 1984 turning movement study at 4 intersections on Shingle Creek Parkway (by City staff) and traffic signal warrant analysis by S.E.H. - 1983 -84 intersection studies at intersections along C.S.A.H. 10 (by Hennepin County) 1984 report from Benshoof Associates regarding traffic generation by proposed Byerly's store - 1985 report by Barton- Aschman, Inc. regarding traffic generation by proposed Target store and attached retail complex Study Area The study area shall consist of all commercial and industrial properties within the area outlined on the enclosed zoning map. Scope of Work In general, the traffic engineering study should evaluate the ability of the existing street and highway systems to accommodate future traffic volumes resulting from the ultimate total development of the City, under- two alternate scenarios, i.e.: Case I - the maximum development (or "worst - case") scenario, wherein it is assumed that all new development, and a great deal of redevelopment within the specified study- area will occur to the maximum extent allowed by the existing codes and ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center. Case II - the modified (or "probable ") scenario, wherein it is assumed that new development and some redevelopment will occur on the basis of predictions which reflect current development trends. ti Under both case studies, the consultant will be required to work with City staff in developing land -use forecasts for every parcel of commercially -zoned or industrially - zoned property within the study area. Based on these land -use forecasts, the consultant shall then prepare the traffic engineering study. The Traffic Engineering study shall provide the following information relating to each of the two development cases as described above: -1. vehicle -trip generation forecasts 2. assignment of trip- generation information to the existing street and highway system within the study area. 3. forecasts of a "Year 2000" (assuming full development within Brooklyn Center) traffic volumes to all collector and arterial streets within the study area.- Such forecasts are to include total traffic on these routes (i.e. - external -to- external, external -to- internal, and internal -to- internal), including direction -of- approach analyses. 4. an analysis of volume -to- capacity on each segment of collector and arterial street within the study area and at each intersection or interchange of collector and arterial streets within the study area. Such analysis shall indicate levels -of- services of each street segment and intersection, and other areas of concern. 5. a description of the improvement(s) which would be required to assure acceptable levels -of- service on all collector and arterial roadways within the study area. 6. such - additional information and recommendations which will serve to help the City of Brooklyn Center evaluate the impacts: of development. 7. the consultant shall review the progress of the study on a periodic basis with City staff; and shall review major study results- with appropriate representatives from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Hennepin County Department of Transportation - to solicit their analysis, comments and recommendations. The final report shall be presented in a format which allows the City to use this study both as a basis for additional studies relating to the moratorium (if such are indicated) and /or as a working source - document for the purpose of monitoring future development' - and redevelopment as it occurs. The consultant will be requested to retain computer programs developed in conjunction with the studty and to cooperate with the City in future applications of such programs. Proposal Contents The following will be considered to be minimum contents of the proposal: (1) a Work plan detailing your proposed scope of services and time schedule l (2) an Identification of the City's participation in the project and the responsibilities expected to be assumed by the City. (3) an Outline of your backgound, personnel, experience and references; specifically as they apply to this proposed study. Also, please identify the Key personnel who would be assigned to this project. Note: If your firm is selected for this study, we ask that no change in your Key personnel assignments be made without the consent of the City Manager. (4) an estimate of labor hours and a cost estimate. Note As a part of your cost estimate, please include the fee, on a "per meeting" basis for attending Planning Commission or City Council meetings.) (5) a brief description of your ability to assist the City in proceeding with subsequent phases of the study (i.e. - revision of the comprehensive plan and /or zoning ordinance, market analyses, etc. - in the event this first -phase traffic engineering study indicates a cause for serious concern and additional evaluation). (6) a description of how the study, and computer programs developed in conjunction with the study, can be used for the purpose of monitoring future development and redevelopment as it occurs. Please include a description of how fees for such follow -up services will be computed. Proposal Evaluation Proposals will be evaluated by City staff. In the event staff determines there is a need to clarify questions relating to your proposal, we will contact you to set a date to meet with us. Staff intends to select and recommend approval of one proposal to the City Council at its meeting on February 11, 1985. If the moratorium ordinance is adopted on that date, it is anticipated that the selected consultant would be directed to proceed immediately and to complete within 60 days, and to submit the final report within 75 days. Should you have any questions concerning this RFP, please contact .Gerald G y ' Splinter, City Manager Enclosures GGS:jn �\ - 11 611NIIN 111 i0 ��� O� � ii ���� �' � p� @�� _ I`�'f 1 �y11111 ■1 IU � .� • .. ii .i S;. �s ri .� �,=i a.�. _ � �/ ry � � ■�... Il 11fffl13#�1 VIII/ X10 :� a� __ _ -•.. III 111111111 1/ � : � : '�•. 1 % � / Q _ �= u1nn11 n ►. u oil, '�k�.'+�.'��11�" .;al.w4z7 unti;ranU - - :�. 0"I, � � � �s • \ �` a •�� "l'i`Aa'GaSO+Ee'GiN�Wlwrs;`. • ry Nom! ' I3 •�, � � � /' �, �� �1 0 Q �� f ��11� � I � �, 1 1 ��� � ' \� ��. w ; / 111111. 1�� ■a■■e21�■fluv � �� � � � � � 111111umen mn eme md1 ■I' � � \� � �11/1//f'11■ ■II / /�IIIM /I 1 1 1 1 111111 l /■I e NI■ m o n N� I oi =Ii 1� i� ai ■ , �. I 1 =� n� iii:i iiiQiiii� 111 1■ I I cY•1L^!'1 f►� •� �® i�■= � III ■ ■■ �� _� ■■ _ !I I/N1111 II�I� I�' �I 1NmN ■I■■ * � �� • � �' , ; �� � ■■ �� - �� �� /Il 11110 =I ■ ■�■ a 1/11111/ 111//111 - \��� l�' '� � "��I�� 9C �� �_ ■10 - ■IIUeI ■ ■I■ 1�1 Ile Ill 111 1 i� -..,._ ,�•�...:�•'wv. ❖' +'.�.' . ■ 1111 I Nr ■ n ������ �p� I 1 ®: � ,s ■ 11 �I��i■ f11 G1� ■�lii ■1137��/t15! ��111111 ... :oo. •:.: 1ry �I ( �I 1 j= =i iS71i 1/ NIIIII i 11 �II1111 �I�Il� ' ' Iiiliiii iiiil, 11i1i =iii °: � ' 1O l � nunni iii ° �� :ii�d1 ►� _ III 1 11 ., �■ II 1 IN 11 IN ■N■ ■Ni11/ INI ■ ■ ■ ■■ . ` 111 1 :• � �1 11N H' _ ■ ■ ■NIU1P ■11NIN= �� ■u" I . 11111/11 /■ /1 / ■■ 11111111 11N1111 �N1R s , :• .q' llll� I1. 11! MINIMUM 0 111C11 /■ .� 1 1 Nu Nut 111111 : N11n 9111 � i 1 it 1 : ..�. : ..:.s M1111 • • IIZ'� '� ill ■w ■ ■ / �NnuiNU■ e� 1111 �i/ :, iN 11 n■mmun .� 11 ■1 1 1 1 w x ■■.. ■■ ., � .I N n �� 1111n �nnas�■m! ;� � =i1S _ !1lI•'!4■11S";elA 1 �im■Ix mules liiiiiii iiiiriii iiiiilii iiiril iiiiil: ; n11 �e� gg nuununll= •: � ::oi• un = , 11ila ■ ■11 III 1111111■ , ■■ ®IIIIE ■.�,,.•...... �� '� ■nn■ 1.111� ■IN,■1 i/ 1�N� �� =i: iiiiii ii i1 iiii ii ii. I■ W Is ■� �1N� x■� 111 N nun■ � ' 1 ..■....■ �! �ar�l�i iri 111 !Illls ;� 1 wnn■unml �� �lu•.�■� . � -. n■■nn �p��� •n■m .r ■ ■■ 111NI■ ®1 111,■ — ■'— 1111111 011111 _�..� ■1/1■ ■ I m 11111 I L1 I ...11. m ■ E11111111um nu■ �■ N npinl I �•* nman n1lII� X11®■■ _ ■ ■ I 1 •11.1= iin11�1 "1I111� � �// � ® � 1 Il•��a �N� � 1 -- � _ _ _ 1111 ' 1� � t1 ■IIII _� 1�1 >. �' �N 1[ ���� •� " 1 1 0 - � _ `�1�1111�1111 ��}k a�� ; ;��5r� PROPPSAL FOR fi h a,r d 499 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS t . C� J 1 r � P � ate ��k'�sl�,� d� �F �, �{ ��.relatin { Y y b 'Y a RPM _44 } r"' ea ! eta p la C s c m h tea a ti + ��� � .. S � m YI iJM R E TAIL DEVELOPMENT r v b �� Y d F x r _ r s� oiled " k u. e k u 2^ w rr .� 4 e� `a r t tt � i F �i : 1"75 gg ii { " f. 1�7< }5, t a m a.+s t E E dt � k # ' s l 'S }i t':, t { �4 ti r ^ x'e , 3f' a lb - :,�bA+} a 5 .. ` G e aka - -}.A 5 ,3 :.� w 8 F4'F �, fr t 1' l�iy # *� " y ys +,��' i i 1 � {�'� J�.A^4;�;f d'��j'� ' , a:i. f 'd ,4�.,+��;. a: ' }.•� � s l tv 7'S 1'�� s' h ��, 4 �;:' a ''A'" �; .; ^'�" 't�.�v.��k €'''�xl,"w n'��"�. %TrrN�9�Fs� =.;+��a, i, fia r= 1 ..�''�- 41.t;. �"t4�• +,� -, d�r;. ,-I sr� h�� r,�! t ntk�a±l 3 # r � i BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA s >•~.� L 1 `{ d x im 1 f f ,n> 1• g ;� .� +ax` i a �+ # >b�tY fi #� a M1. R`� ��i•Q�� ° �.� s. � t i `sSv # r 1 J �� i ; x _ .i �'�k{a{ d ;' y,Jr•y.� § j t -y, ° � { x c n { 5m t a � i at a � i r # .. s{ r s a � ,��•�a � §��I� x � ;{ :^1 { �� � st.� :z "+� ay tt � �� � ,�� '" a E2 ,,- wgg'w'zaas�' w,, ter? a#zNn { rr :)w 3� s'x'"�`„' �4 + �, i •` r, � - o r , FEBRUARY .4 i 1985 `" 1- `• �. ', F � j r . ! .' .:= 9 Y �- ! � e � 1 ^ r . � � 1 � � �; *f" � .g a i � x ,_ x `,�,' � +. 8 � { t ,", �; �' s",'_. k, a Ina w a 3 F� � �. � �' .G r� ,� �� � i"�„.; * 7 =��: ,. y `' , _ ° J ;� i�j„?,� - �q- � w , .t ^ 4�„ �"ra• & 'p'.�=° �:"`"' � , e» mF S H O RT -ELL OTT- E LLIOTT IN ._ r J Y �' CONSULTING ENGINE ER$ �+. t rcm. 'C''^ .�ts.ih ai �� f ♦ ¢ �.'{�" xk `erg { SHORT- ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA CHIPPEWA FALLS WISCONSIN WAUSAU, WISCONSIN February 6, 1985 ti a, s F_ r �7 Mr. Ron Warren, c;4 tE Director of Planning and Inspections�.�1�r f_„ rt City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Warren: This is supplemental information to the proposal for Traffic Analysis Relating to Retail Development, which we submitted on February 4, 1985. This supplement is based on a discussion with you and other staff members on February 6th. Our cost estimate for the work program outlined in our proposal was $11,500. Included in this fee was attendance at two City Council or Planning Commission meetings. The fee without these two meetings would be $11,300. Our attendance at the meetings would be based on a 'fee of $150 per meeting. Based on the work program indicated, we would be pleased to have the fee of $11, 304 constitute a maimum not to be exceeded. If there is any work to be done beyond the work program contained in the proposal, the -NQrk would be done on a fee based on estimated hours for the work times a multiplier plus the actual cost of expenses. - A fee schedule is attached for this type of work. We discussed -two different methods of follow -up work after the report is completed. It is possible that all information, soft -ware and general data can be utilized by the City to update and to analyze any proposed changes to the traffic projections. It is also possible that SEH can continue to provide the services for each analysis. It is estimated that it would take us between 3 and 8 hours for each analysis, depending upon the complexity of it. All that is necessary is that the changes in data be properly inputted to the computer program and that the output be is analyzed and converted to an understandable format 200 GOPHER BUILDING • 222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 • PHONE (612) 4840272 c a Mr. Ron Warren February 6, 1985 Page #2 We appreciate the opportunity to provide this supplemental information and to be considered for the study. We look forward to your continued review of the proposal and to working with you and other staff members in the traffic analysis. Sincerely, -I A J ' (" 4 Glen Van Wormer, Chief Transportation Engineer kmt SNORT- ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ST. PAUL, %1I%NESOTA • CHIPPEWA FALLS, WISCONSIN SCHEDULE HOURLY PAYROLL RATE RANGE BY CLASSIFICATION(l) CLASSIFICATION PAYROLL COST ( 2 )( 3 ). OFFICE STAFF Principal Engineer $38.25 $52.50 Project Manager $20.50 - $32.30 Project Engineer $19.40 - $22.50 Design Engineer $15.25 $18.00 Engineering Technician - II $16,00 - $20.25 Engineering Technician - I $ 9.40 - $11.50 Draftsman $ 9.50 $12.10 Clerical $ 6.25 - $14.50 FIELD STAFF Field Inspector - II $16.25 19.75 Field Inspector - I $ 9.25 - $15.50 Field Survey Crew Chief $13`.50 $19.25 Field Survey Rodman $ 6.50 $12.60 (1) The actual rate charge is dependent upon the hourly rate of the , employee assigned to the project. The rates shown are subject to change. (2) Payroll cost equals the actual amount paid to the employees plus, fringe benefits. The benefits include social security, workmens copensation, hospitalization' insurance, etc. (3) The payroll cost will be multiplied by a factor to cover the cost of administrative overhead and p rofit. 4/13/84 'DO GOPHER BUILDING 222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD ST. PAUL, NAINNFSOTA 55117 • PHONE (012) 484- -0272 SHORT— ELLIOTT— HENDRICKSON, INC. a CONSULTING ENGINEERS ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA • CHIPPEWA FALLS, WISCONSIN WAUSAU, WISCONSIN February 2, 1985 Mr. Ron Warren, Director of Planning & Inspections City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Warren: We are pleased to have the opportunity to respond to your Request for Proposals for a traffic engineering analysis relating to retail development within Brooklyn Center. Through our past work we are very familiar with the area and with the events leading to the need for the traffic analysis. We are very interested in being of assistance in analyzing the concerns of the City and in developing a program which will lead to the orderly and efficient development of this area. This proposal represents an effort by Short-Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc., (SEH), oriented towards meeting Brooklyn Center's specific concerns and °needs in the area. The extensive experience of our firm and our personnel in traffic studies and traffic operations is evident throughout our proposal. Our work plan is documented in the proposal and will provide evidence of our understanding of the needs of the City and the desired final product. The final report will reflect the experience of our firm in providing workable recommendations and solidly based reports. We view our report as a working document to be constantly used and referred to. Our work program also stresses the need for coordination and communication with the City Staff. 200 GOPHER BUILDING • 222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 • PHONE (612) 484 -0272 i l l Mr. Ron Warren February 2, 1985 Page #2 We appreciate the opportunity to have provided services to 1 � the City in this area in the past. We look forward to your review of our proposal and most importantly, we look forward to working with you and other City Staff members in the analysis and development of a traffic plan for the retail area. Respectfully submitted, SHORT ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC. Glen Van Wormer, Chief Transportation Engineer kmt i 7' �,� �It f Ills,�r ,% ) 1 k,, 1 7-, ! AL�,,� y "` ,:.. ! !1,4 I ;,,"l,1': ,. �i .�.l, 311,' , "V.�ir T;j. �II� ' f 5-q�3 } .;�'. k If I y' 1 I a �.:, 1 f �,� .l 9y ri z.r,q YMti�yj,rmv 3H�.Iill I�j�l.. '!�, i%ib , � , �� :,* I- u` { a I: I' I' ( {{ I Y1w: i a ilfl�'fP'il�I sr I�'.� ��lN(f zf`'H�ta Nr 3 t t. I :I -� w r 3 liyt� t !�1LM'd 1'41'' d 44 1 i T>r 3�4.�1.i �I I,:,.":���,;�,�i I:�, lel t f, t I t } I]1C i i I' ! I I i:, ry I I ! s r t t,�f4���`; } >, >�'!Yi�, k�,`,. i I , ( f n ; !s '�I j,; li _i. iF }1E, �" a I r{ h �i:+r 7k ,{l J r! i t a {t aR "t ,I ! :1 ( a. 1 t f I ak ! Ii a l r 1 1 ! 4'14 ; z„�1 6 n S� e( (.u: ! -3;: Ix J i4 yi I ., I �� ����If �I ( I I�g�@t. ��I(tl�{�l1��u�`�a�etlk4!! �"'"i t to s1� Y I I; 1 1 1 + .I I l i 1 '' !il I I (� t ' If I� u ! I' 1� .,I p ! I t ! A I , }'� Ip 1 ! Jl fl iiii i 11IE ! 1"�tffy"i .umu 1 ➢ 1l ' i IL ✓III a Ju ! } I ii II 1 hl6 _ 11�'ii tf♦ nti 111.�T I{t�l m1ll lr}i� q f {y yry ���i°! f 4 i I +Mil~ "�I d" t 1 1 , 4 1 I U NI '� + �2,I ' 7�,1. ,, I A I I l it I' cally it )��.m1 11, t ,i v t I n : # !I .r `d,;,! I i1 ! i I.!I!' f,��i�,t,1j fltfidf 3r4 �r 1'1'�f 41��'111 rI R'I�>f{511 Ii aft yi fl + !� i I 1�1 I !, f,! ,4 , r 1 S I h tjki ,1 11 Ii hf. vlsyl t I !,t, q '"9{I i .6' 1 11 I 1•a f I I , : } al_ 4ia t h i!_Ial J I 1 j a. i q I �{ �.! i 4 M w i:,♦ i� 'il '-:, '.1 !ii 3U: a,f p.+ 14.4 1 r 6 1 1�a 1 'e1!l 7 UI! q 1�1 I 3, {_ ` c w F q (,It dd1U"," }ska �� . A `�, !, d4 T_" ,h h y�7,ryrik} Y t 1�!hI i( U� ,� I - h ! k I1 yi�j} 1 I �lrlll 1h9a1i �!, wx� .v4,> t k nr it 1 f ,a 1 �, A ii I { I�n IIG� '.:,j;-y { ,�,r i ,i i r I !I `'_� 1 1114 tI y li w1�1, a I ! i'�`d''1 AkIA �1i 1�t4� d I 1.9�"yjl,il'r1 �,{F,,` ��(w"k�i� 1. 1,� it ! t r� G:a 'I 3aJ If �r r n 1. !! NI IF I ,�J 1 ! i I,, j {I 1 !i c lh J A I � , {i.i p t I f 1 " �� r - I I rf II f4 11! II a 1 ! u x ,,,t Sa'lgpl.� 14iA �k aa..n k. ��:1 �f :I I , Ij �s ' i {I { I'f �l yak ; ! ', f I I -I ! i( k 1� i, tihl 1 I 1 t r 4 ,1 g i , a.. ,!k>!T'i l>•i ll'ta ! f B >!! t,r „lU}w a I II r�t',!c t Ti. II �.1.�` '.t ,I ! I h:l��l ii� �I^� k i'li; �� f� ;��u '�p,� I#n n� a *�'G� IT, 1�fl. �y a � � ii t t I r'� a 777 I {j;1 $� `t i I� 1 1 Ilia. ,i !If i If i! 711, S , I .I I I. f 1!I Ili9�r F i1'y`4,i l4f j;dt 41,! lylr% 1 ��',a, i kql,�I, e,Ark y -� ! .I I ,' j { fa 3 r { y �� 1 .,m j t�.i i Ili 4.�e C IMi 1 ju �-I Gfri �I € 14� n"�NM{'�1f�IlY i � '� i. LL 11 4 ,! ; a r II h; I :� s 3 5>a, )" 1 x -It.,,�. fir; a 4 b#f�l rt,a iA d 2:11 { } w a4� v _ 7 1 ..:z I ! a t *I i.{ {! .' {M 1" 7''S!'�I ," ,1-'�1 "�j {�L 1�' NIV .-ia '� I ;I I l i,I ly a,'.. ! i a! I !a ' I a t .P !�' w I�� It��{'� >'€ - p1a., 4��,.. ( I i l al �;!o u I h,i' �fli I'I!?I t 1' l' �j1M1 ! i"`i 1 i �,���� 1 l iJ I . �i C�Iq1 dal 4 v I 1,11 11,1 �1, 9 I h" I ,1 ," ! Iwi 4,-1 a Ilrt 1 1 �� ! , 4 1 1 1 r a 6 !1 I ! "° 1 1 J h,1,�'S)1{ I I u, 1 1 �I! (f is ip"'t i=i �I "�n a 4$ f al��i `.,� S. t fl: ! l li: .i u I f!I yllif ��I !"lf�411�.�I+���ak. r ! _ 0 1 1 - .1 ;­j-,j,i"ij�".-- , ,i,1,;' ,{ r r I �11�w. a [t I 1 f tl f -�,if}�, It ' , a i 3"1pv,lx( � .1 is+ � 0 1} (I 1° �I�j ' e, pIG�'�t""" f� I :r I I x ;I ,� .jam i1 1� 1 f y !a I I I r 1 k��"I �I 4 {�h v a I ; i� �!:; �11 l i U I I I.I I r�� 'P�}'i3" } J I.I I 4 a `� - (o-{ s t�: 1 '' f , !rl 11 1{.l J l .� 1M-far*" f ' c 4 -. 1 Its �,ll �i! , r� { Fftti# � I; I { ! t s' 1 3 r i I I I .�. [ r a,I I j IIA �!f In r4{yi e f4y P �)jI {YI (,,F 1 , 1 = 1" 13. I I� �I. 1 . Ilp ! �f - I d; 1 l ,," 1Y"" '4 ;, 4�w '� K 1,Tit nI 1 i� , d a �('prwj �f �I ° `rf - f I I j I I I i'.�i I �; f I k '~t �',F>1 f'i ! ! Iil� �� rd 1-�j >�p N�¢� J'�4th-y '�''I^I'+s 3r�,!I 11 i '" rl I f 16 ! 1 f f a .f t fie, Y �, 1 a!i 'r t Ie }`A ,r{ �'. Cml f. art'1. 3 r I , 4 i ." 8 � p +, I 1.11 . psi �, t drr K I �' �, '' 1 1 I 11 'r. u+I 4 ri 'I ,l'�IiA �N! ;749 rr1 11 11:, ': i `�' �,#, `� ,,. . I I i t 11 `I' r _ ,� w e t; �I i a 1 �a t� J I4 1 r 1 ''i 1 It'tT I it al nla + gg - ! K"f1�f ,a ( rt 'r�'��9 am' 3a"` i I I I I-'4 i`f a �P3 a!'1 'k°{� 4,°1'� a� � S'? 41 r-1m , I - ;,f. ' I _ I _ t a i ��k � >r P a "r t��,,11,a�. a�" a'# n .,P ij "I I I 11 0 t , : ;:i , "". { i kT „{ I i r t ! 1t r �'?r r1�.,s �-• ��5 f>,l 9 1 ,+"y,'"� m r 41 ;, ,a'`� ., f ;r I f .<`I I°�, 'C h I l,,F1i`� '7+ r' as ,�� S r' 'L `'�G:i�. r'� A,t,� " +�6 tm,k p s �11 r 1 r- l _ i . „ 1 1 3 ! 7 ' 1 t p 0 � � I ,.( I d �.� ; I'a s 1 ;I [ s I' y1 V r� t! - ,P r I ..i i' �I r. '�3 r�k �F i� Y, f 1 '� ' , "I 1-1 I Y L S. i It I t ) I2 I ! ! �i 141+ �l Y 1 !i r d ,7 s. _ I ' ,, "w -a `, n - e, a , !�`� !� `•!a ak'a ! 1 I, ' f a 1: t �} r� f r I r ",n ' a��, k } ' h { ,,� f19 L . .z, &' n i t t T 4 a E'! Jf4�Yf.. Y F 4K , 1 V a v ti $a_, t - '2 '^�t ed,�ry1 13t r, ,a ° tf i �. .. ,II - + �,�;f fx,' t — �� { 1r!1J 1 a ,, , `f, _la .,Pf�r'" k �.,�'A w 11 if :111 h1 i a { �t , r SECTION i r P, 1 m,i. e �' o fa —, 1?f 1 Y G {{i a 1 i At r P"aye � ttr I; W F. .�� Fy 11� 'it xr 11� + °�h { 4. �4 fs. r'i '�� '.�",� �s�X �'�-aIh°11`'i�i .L{k �' rtAln,'"„#•M1 i'9'„ 'f 5 "` {` a�k7 '� `� it I 11 ..�,,,. 1 �:1.�'4 +7`5 1 � �, I "I 0 1 �-`-} � t I =aT I it,t 1 + 1 r1 ,�, k , ..'� ,1 ' r �,I '^`$q��k d �;k",k aC r -11 Y5 }� F r d e I i r m a" � ` I �q ra cy f - 3�, n's ,4;, ou e R bu,.,fti t i d mA- J a „'; i t M L9 �Y.s W'Y 'r �� '< s 'r' . K�'w ,b li s4 � ,1#�a.'�1 s t..,u k ,'A r•.h�,L �{i 4a '.: WORK PROGRAM The area to be studied has been undergoing commercial and industrial development for 20 years. Several studies of land use planning and transportation planning have been made in the past. A number of these studies were referenced in the Request for Proposals. The system of streets servin g the area and the several interchanges provide a good basic system. Many of the streets within the area also have been carefully planned and oriented towards the continuing development. The recent developments have been in line with the overall planning. The traffic volumes at certain times are now approaching levels which begin to raise some concerns. The City, very justifiably, wants to pause in this on- going development and review the existing levels of traffic and development and then carefully allot future traffic capacity and development intensity. The City wants to ensure that existing and future developments will continue to have the benefits of reasonable levels of `service of traffic that will continue to make this area one of the most desirable in the northern metropolitan area. The stud requested " '`n- y q is not a broad brush" using general traffic volume . numbers and general traffic directions of approach as outputted from a' computer. It is instead a question of how many vehicles will turn right from a .,particular driveway and then turn left at the intersection, and more importantly, can the intersection absorb the volumes and still operate reasonably. This study requires that the computer generated numbers be intermixed with an excellent understanding of the driving habits and desires of motorists in this particular area. This is the area where SEH excells: a detailed analysis of traffic 'movements and operations and a determination of how to maximized flow in efficiency on a particular street system. A work program was put together to address the art' p icular needs of this area. It is oriented towards providing information relating to the specific number of additional vehicles which can be tolerated on any segment of street or in an intersection within or adjacent to the study area. It is also oriented to provide a final product that can be continually utilized to "test" proposed developments to l make certain that they, plus succeeding developments, will not overload an intersection. The work program begins by collecting all available information. Many of the past studies have been identified in the Request for Proposals and are available through the City. However, the County, Mn /DOT and Met Council will all be searched for additional information and developers who have worked or are planning on working in the area will be queried for information. At the same time, an organizational meeting will be held with the City to finalize the scope of the project and to make certain that individual roles and responsibilities are fully understood. Past assumptions and trends IVill be reviewed and validated. Previous generation reports will be compared to existing results wherever possible. Any deviations will be carefully analyzed to determine the reasons. Previous reports and traffic generation information will all be compared with each other, as well as the existing volumes in an effort to determine in as great detail as possible the specific needs and desires of area traffic. Of prime importance is the interaction between the various developments. Several recent studies in the metropolitan s� area (including one in Brooklyn Center) as well as those in other metropolitan areas will be utilized. At a joint meeting between SEH and the City y staff, both the maximum and the probable developments of each parcel will be determined. This is a very key meeting and key step in the entire process. Past development p proposals, comparison . to land uses in other similar multi -use areas, and any information provided by land owners will all be utilized in an effort to develop this key information. This will enable the development of traffic generation rates to be determined for both scenarios. A study area computerized roadway network can be established and "trip tables" can be developed. The "trip tables" will utilize the "internal to internal ", "internal to external", and "external to external" trips as well as p "interaction" data and the Metropolitan Council "trip desire" information. Existing traffic can then be assigned to the existing network and the computer assigned traffic can be compared to existing turning movement counts, etc. Assignments can then be modified so that the computer program is as accurate as possible. Simultaneously with the traffic assignment work, the existing roadway nextwork will be evaluated and any existing or potential problems will be carefully assessed. Capacities of existing nd g proposed intersections will be determined and methods of improving capacity or efficiency will be evaluated. The information gathered to this point, from both the traffic generation and assignment work and the operations analysis will be subject to a detailed review and meeting with the City staff. At the same or second meeting, the final list of future ultimate development for both maximum development and probable development will be determined. The rates of generation for each parcel will be determined based on past experience and information gathered at other locations.' Future trip desires, for the year 2000, will be reviewed to determine if there are any significant changes from the existing desires. Any changes will be evaluated and rectified. Future traffic trip tables for both options or scenarios will then be developed. f Trips can then be assigned g d to the existing roadway. system. The roadway networks will then be evaluated and any deficiencies will be identified. The previously evaluated intersections and potential methods of improving operations will then be evaluated to determine whether or not any system deficiencies can be corrected. This information will all lead to a finalized list of recommended improvements for each roadway and intersection. Year 2000 traffic can then be assigned to the year 2000 roadway network. The final results can then be evaluated. Throughout the g latter . stages of this work program, there will be a continual re- evaluation to determine the impacts of the different scenarios for land development and to determine the levels of service which will exist with and without the several potential- roadway improvements. It is anticipated that there will be several meetings to discuss the current status of the work program and to review assumptions and findings between SEH and City- staff. Once there is agreement as to the final traffic volume figures, traffic assignments, development densities and roadway systems, a -final report can be prepared to document all of the findings. The results can be presented to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the City Council for their consideration. The final document will also be a "working document" in that it will be designed to permit a series of "what if" questions to be asked. As an example, if a developer desires to change the assigned land use on a particular parcel, the work program and final document should be in a format to allow relative analysis of the impacts of traffic on the various roadway elements. Further, it should allow for evaluation of what other developments might have to be changed to accommodate the proposed development. r The work program required close coordination of efforts between the City and SEH. We anticipate approximately P PP ately eight meetings with the City staff during the program. In addition, we anticipate that there will be a number of phone calls to discuss the details of the various elements in the work program. The Planning Commission and City Council meetings are in addition to the approximate eight City staff meetings. i f t a E I I _. A - +.711 A 1 12 1. ' ' 1 � a_ 1. , � I "; r '-, I „�;: �i 1 a,t11Bp Id i oaf i °� '{�i.l,Ny';41 CI'�$uh� �_y„1ri ' g'� }», ,,;11 R ., F. t Iik ;fs hl,"jMa^rc 1. ii�n .,,. i, i w,i '.wi�w ,a j, �x }t�+ s 1 �� 111 4 Wile& I } , �t II 12 r 9 r iI n, N a r I �' a " 11 I I I 1 1 1 , ! H,y ii it 4, a nl 1 ffip, '.il I "1 7,+: 1 r ;5 r ,}'.1 ,�h A fin``` T�'ngxlq' r ,pv, 91 3 I I i '"� !, ` 1 r fk` � 1 1 11 .�1 4a i ,Z ,n i,, ra r�§rUd i� �' pN� 'Ff�� �,,ii y,i, r I� �t 11` { , J: `� {� rllf nYEyf�», i jk. {"� 4ap 1 t 1 , 1 l i i f ., f „Ir,y 1 '�'P xti{ pN�LrI 4�31 Ill 1 _'i I I ;� 1,;� 1 ! 41� I, , fj llil , ji,:�� 5til jnyAftl�tlt1 ��,11oIj01j11i�i.;1 I f r , ,111',;) !b 1, + 1 {,p I k,Xi r {� ai I t ,,a I I P ) a p1", f I ,. ,i i ,� a , +i,, T 1 f~:, ,.I I , j , 1) n i 1 ) i, , 1 1 f ,{ 'r`j f 6 I T 1 " I ! 1 i 1 i" 7tJ p f, ti i' i f -1 + , f.t a t J 1 I , , i I I Y u I t, a I a1 ti ) �d , 1 If , I l� ,, j,' 11,,14' f�V�, I , t , , p;i ciSili ,i+af col, i i , , : I,,,it i,,, i t i , i - i f � ' ,; + d ja } t ,t r 1`P '� it i4 r�, fr .li, l r,; , fi, h� ,� s, r .f ,: , aiI'�I f ,I §,11 -i11 ;il 1 N,. :l,' f I 1 ',Ali i I�j �,,�,; ,j!M' ;; I I4:1!;1 lltu l,r,„I "I,�� p M.t Yr;l�,1k ,It, �,4,t,t I �' �� �' jq r)�'11, 11.1,1 i 4iN ,1 p ,.1 ,It'.: r r ”; �� lira I X11 III �' I r d jj I j l l Y� '�h 1 4 1.: I I '.1 f 1r r .",,, UI I,1. ® i t „I, 1 i f s i��-i I i"lit ,I'��G',,.,y , ,,.,'pi°Ip h 1 u .1� s"��I! I I-P:„, h,i r Ie��i , rj,S,1•[6 11 r}�ni:r t� �u rn(J�diSy�., (i� ip ® ' l' .I P I I `�� I p Fi�`p f k� I ,�� [ �"I�I"n, .'1 d ,:t ,i - 1' h:; ,y i r .� , tI? fill�i. 115 �,'� .sfiV'n'I^� 7 1 f a 1 .t, � It d ,a�r1,.11, 1 ulI h �,° i ':I 4i'i� f 'j t rlil-1111 tl I. I" t', , l,,It-+ I �� 1171.1111;,�ON!:fl �,�1p114��I,, l�`, 41 hi 1 1,.I ,�III I�{1, f�i , Ij 1 w7 � 9 y �.�tl �IIjrl 1C'I�Ia �raH ' ir pa �,' i ati�IH�i�jpr h i�rti qkp7�,T it ., I ,. ;i { A I .� F ��i l Ail -i A �, (� f,� i �.: . �1 F 1 1 i l !' }n'1 r i�- N d h f, 1 '. 1 1,111 i I ' 4' 1 „ { , [ I ,1 7 X I , �, I, I�rat :a:I)t j i 1,111-, {�� hl:(( I.icy �=„". ,,1 n, 1 j j F' rj 1 u�',. C.,{ t4 Al ' , , ,•� 71 _ h :I I f i',) 1 r �� F, {fi 1 F 1 1 fjl I e,l�•j w r iMj i"rl:,'"'9��I`xlq�� " �! :I 9r a; i �t�`'r 111 l d 1 ,n 1 n �r !l Irk 7�t It ,. f 'pip� r'"nh A ! 1,�"r �,Y�� l I1� l' ',� �• r II '�,, , �IiV I 7 � I f 1, I '�d 1F 4 I � ,� 1 i f 1..{441' h�:� t il r ,I )1, I 1 d- s �, ��1ly i °,, I , , r , x._14; ,.� f 7 1 e r,u„ ( ,}I!`Il,p�fd'r19 rj��N.� � �II�� �j Ix�4fl�I �J�V �d e 1 i : 1 1 ! 1 , 4 , , I , 1{ + I 1 j I,, i t c a h , Ii , :1 a1 N 1. (� I ! , hI , , :llll��l,� 11 �.i �il I .:, ,111 ..1 11 !t II i Ilp { lii N Il:l iI II II '�11�, li�i„`111,1 1 41x. 9,III q;,E, 6k 1 { rt Y It�i.(i I j lJ r,Vh t R I i,4•'. 1 1i ) I �t1 ill I 1'.I i 1 I 1 �1 1 _ .Y( d } s t I 1 , ih ,i:a 1�� jNj�t�lli� jl"Ij I,�,nr,o ���1 I �.,%1p" '11 a 1' I , I I! i I , xli I�YtUa h � I 7 r r t 1 Z n }l r "q 7j�4 + a� i 1” f; . i !�� u,,� �� !, u; ! ()„_ f p1 h � t1. J 1 1 f4a� p,I'll I # , i M,'RII 'ajY� ' � �1 � � �f ,,ii! 1 1 ,1 ii 1 I f 1 1 1 r 5 k'rw 1 ! 1 1 , i 11 111, 1 I i ti, I i'a �I"tI�I 'lf'j f +F.ti '�gg, F''. I it a 1 't I ,?, ;, , 1 1 I �h+ 1; � 1. ' �„ i , ,i, ,I 1�. Ir f'1� a� '.I�p4 � �17 '�/� r`6ta�� I ,t •1� 11 I�tll 11 1 , !i co 111 !, J ,� .,' .1 ""r,1 ,,i '.'I f� "1 ! 1 L°I , 1! 1.;] , , 1- ;Irf,J� I,a1�a�7Gx�lr�l�,r1+r!,,l,: �' .:, ; , L. i ! 1 I I i 1� 4^.j I I' a ,7 1 1 t t 1"f .i ii.t I �.' 1,� t 1 , i :1 i 1 , , �`J tNL� r 1. aY ��y.�tl fi�i i fi,.11 0 a :, a r z. r { i i f 1 r 1 f I ':� } '.@: ,p,. f �� �t �,a3,, , l : ,I"{M t {(, I , 1 g i ��� ' msI /� ` r a l _ d 1 d t,t I I Ihiii�I lk ' j, �fi 7n�7'k>?i4^ii { y f � „ . 1 f f u i �� a I i I I , n �� fi h4�” y�k10I .v C t 1'il� r , f [ a a t I ,', , '.' ;41 a{i 1 - ,s I r.j ` , , ;14"..,., t ;<'u d i�wr,( I d� I, i f; ryI F s,i i 1 ry_ ,1za '�"' r.±< I 1 1 , fr a i.,;�� 4'If'I"i!i 1 1 f �,. t,^I! t I h�. J j o„ I I i a,h j:� ;I�it r'j01MY 7"'�jn ', �a+C,gar" � n o-p . - i I .� 1 9 *I'11 11 s� x rc Lt a c ix;i"'! 1 �,�f;I:„. fit 1 ! nrvr.`:� t I 1 I u.Y i 'ry� j {��' kul ,i<UMa' ij£�t 'thh���� �R a. ,��Syfr,`�A, �:.I .. . I - -I - . „ r,.,r. ,,,,1 h 8, t l^ ' � s r '. i -0, I,Mt ';+. 4'* nin e 11 x I;„ �I ,' p� 1''A I� F a i i r'":t..: sc a�� . a �� i f ,, 1 ,� 1 t V,C I , , 1 ( f i j (S 1 a b {�� 114 t Wi,, I < r �i1 hp6 T, �. I 6 I 1• .fi ,1 a jn - 1 '� 1 `t 1 I , , , ,111, �'�, h r h I .4�� 1p 111 r . F, „• ,;, .., ,. „ ;!r,' - I ?i I n i, v. ,f{ T L, ..,. .. , - ... y. .: - - .. , a;i_ I... r.- I`9 t x , i�9 P,i.,� ,! ,a�i dry, r 1 'I, «.',a +M 'rgy�' �! ,.- . - .. 11,q� I _ ', 1.'�4 P! k”.: �1 "li f I �j 1 ,. I .�' t f 1 ? u ,Mtt,��' i j , T" �N 2^Ili"" :..^ti k 1r _ a< `�;a�fl'r li& r hs w'x ry� rk 1 3 �"y, i -si rt 9; t 7 * t i f a+. •, +W SECTION �w*1� iR .Y x 3+R. r _ x jnto - t r n w: s i N r -4 r Y �_",9; r �' 'i ,n '� ,."e, t u h., ' "w,�d r +`, u *a,fin; f. ' n i 7 fi .. �� ,, � , �11 ... �. LL.y.• 1 ` N- ( Y q .�' > ti trl k �' ,. " ro q• G : .'S wig l. 1, 11 _ _. .avrw c�, Wlllt,h.,a.. „1 ,.� .x�.�a,,r,' . ,,;v" -i�i4m , 4,4,, a.+ �a.� _ " a 1Yac r.v.n l�a�P. 4., `a x � ti,��� 1 a WORK SCHEDULE i6 The work schedule is very important to the process of undertaking the traffic analysis. If the Council adopts the proposed moratorium, it will become effective on February 23, 1985 and expire on May 23, 1985. The Request for Proposals indicates that the .Council will select a consultant to undertake the study on February 11, 1985. SEH would propose the following deadlines. Most work will be completed prior to April 8, 1985 so that a status reports can be made to the Council. All work will be completed by April 22, 1985 so that the Council may, at the option of the staff, have the benefit of a full report. The final report will be completed and published so as to be available to the Council at their May 6th meeting. This will allow the Council to make the proper decisions prior to the May llth expiration date of the moratorium. We would propose to begin the project immediately. We would tan to schedule a meeting p rior to February 15th. P g P Y This meeting would be oriented towards setting the intermediate schedule dates, exchanging of data and determination of the exact steps in the procedure. This would require the City staff to have package of all information put together prior to that meeting. Based on the work �� ��-w d appear that the staff o k program, it oul appe and SEH would be meeting on almost a weekly basis. This should enable the proper amount of communication to be maintained and will help establish intermediate deadlines. Both Bob Byers and Glen Van Wormer are very familiar with y 1 e W ry the past studies and the current operational status of the Shingle Creek Parkway area. The work necessary to carry out the tasks as' outlined in the work program can all be accommodated within their schedule. By having both' involved in the project, one will always be available for meetings, phone calls or other project matters. To be properly done and to be organized so that future questions and changes can also be addressed, it is anticipated that there will be well in excess of 200 hours Of SEH engineering time involved. SEH will commit the necessary man hours to do all tasks as necessary and to meet the time schedule as set. v COST ESTIMATES It is anticipated that the work as outlined in the work program can be accomplished for a fee estimated at $11,500. This will include all of the data collection and analysis, all of the meetings as outlined in the work program, and the set -up of the program so that future development can be both monitored and proposed changes evaluated. The fee is based on estimated hours for each of the work tasks identified in the work program. K I "-.. < i",", w t r !f r r �'f 4;9 na �.il�ry I n,+ny it I 11 I R! 1 v� f N�f r 334 a r- `�`�tFn . . ri,� .,.r , .� ,`lr. „ t ul.,f r 7'r=1' c 3�i,. � .5 11. l �l ' '�d 1 i ! I= w t ii `a 1� f t ,� '1 s�t j '� 'J f�a t �a i U 7 t 'F+4+3' -a I i '-�ii,I i j.,j k C � J rr r,urr�rh�f r u� iqr "`� a of p 7: &. it I 3 it y 'l� .P a a L t1 4i' , . . .0 I i ;I�` t W. kb ;}a> IVk L r?s p i`�y, t !`.'✓� �: 11 I I I I- :1 '��. f { 1'' e r,w�w�" Idl�f °{A'ia° i'k" pq_ r, 'ah, F,11 - r , j y I �s f v�" r •n I 1 i1 i i �,. I f 1 .t W(i : ,M 'd i I E. I>t�`a i� i1 X11 4 rr -t,�ifi I'll Ill I 7 ;t .r ' ! '� t t , ,J � 0 f Y '� � ,J� r _ I i„ r'n i Irs Hu�� iarr 'fflr�iSr ftryr .,;�� Nrk il0 i s `9 F 1-171 I I ( 4Phi.itl"i �t4'" x i,��9 �YA�t �j4 11 ait (4, ft 114 it% I{ IaN is 4r N3 M ,ii f4 1 } _ �[ :� I 1 ! t jl k + ,, .. J fr a. :�� ..)1 rf;+G k f id� r t! "�-k'`�i�� x 1 i^'?k IK I d '' 'a .i, sllk tt,I 'yc. ,y�y ftig r 'p� I r '� K 3+psi i ,, r' Har rur i,Aa'dy�l!��r i , 11 r 1 %+,,'tt rr - 'ltd.p* i�ti3' t'�NF?�ai 4�'°' '��til r k ' +.+ Ir r ai''l�'i£ >n,�'uufrjv y,. i h+ {� F y,ky�r�{ .:,�� (r 5"G"1�,JI i� r '��i3 '�a I t f^9Yri'r a� � i� plwq � i i ,j u i w ' a (. 9 i i q,`. p22�� , t !to``�� i* I✓ y is 1 dl II ll� Y.'l� rv'�Ef.�y4:'� r i!A 1 i '�' ,��r�N } 1 tlu �4lii�Ylr ,,�,�h �Wj�'.I�n�Y if, lil��Ifiri �i ii T A,. I r f r i`m 7 q r� `l7 I hl(?f�h4 r IY ��j�,9 lit nt iJil IN �)E!.r f yl�It��I 2 ' n `�'7,ti' 'Et � ` �� 1 �.r i 1� i.f ,liHjj (l I, 4S ! vH �I if�t{r i a8�� � j 11 11 I t 7 a y I ra �Ii ,14 r l l 1 I ✓ n Xp ll* f t( -,` 9 �. '..: f r f i li"f t i i r - x r 1 r t '� �t,a x a 1 i , 1 na j l� w �°1' I 1 I a y VI �� l„ -10", vC�� �Vi y ry i h{;Idi l � I ��1��i«. °� ,Y a � ,11 �l .i., d°I{ , rl j s r 7ri,Fi{ � uN,>' r rrCpl;o,61;1 Ci�I��Vii'r� 17=I'�'k�� rn�"a�d�` ra ��� f��if.11 t 1 ° v i 1. 'f a ! ,' t �F di I i r i a I I tr, .I r+l 'h a k wi'�aFt' ,a trv't��t �F'r^�i� i a I���fir ii 1, ;.ill r.r I-,FTi v nN Rf l ill��>j I r 3n 'h �a h„�1 1" fi 5,q S f i , �f a na �s �`♦ nri ���`� i L sl g jh d G, .:Ti r 9 > I 6'� h t% �' d>�'i � N i_I�i 71'7?,f of�' I+ r Fjri"fiat v i ({lal�i�,"'$tat itif 'rnr r It I i r t i l i }r f r! ,.7.., x r i r` r I , r{'}�1' y 17 de 4°'�iyeaTtiia ,N- d lu,I", P� + l r f t x r I 'r N t ry n 4 i 4 n dun tit '. ? r t t ar .a I "C i .� 4 a a+-t,f,.. '' �'^i to i '7�'j�T4 .; y �i �F� �wtF� � +f+ :� I a h tt ��I t. n(l i N r a l t r 9� ,11 j e �,,a+,r,,i{ x ++(rls"f ,p 1, I i y G a t r r 11 �1 r +`� ,'T "k%. .V'7 fl`. 1"'1 FS9 i, ,F��rtW f"'I,e'� hii�ljt 'lFR rC�i17�i �1 1�14s t. +: 4r'1 , b t r I I r e9' A elt 4 �A . n - ! r^ c11 .t t. 1 is h4 rF, i ,..I,t1 Ali 1: Al,l.� �� �mr iri }i .:1 I a I 9' ir: #4 { kl s k�p�r�r,ll' `d t d °:. J a t I ,. 17 f 3 a N r t ,��1 1 "hit d ht +(Y 13 6 i r r k ad 1 - - �3 l i J'f}atl 1 1 d i.11 t r h - K �+ 1 i➢I N JI X11 f 1 { �^ ti r Mi j'i a l �,`� i a f rF.i3 r s Y i+, pal«!+, iri'f�" F ` iit ' )/� 3 .11 11 V, - tt "+Ili i t ' §� *j krr 1 :1 +k ax i �'� f.,�' l+}a5� °�7 Pf.;`�4 �a�° 'I 7i � `r,4{�F{�i'� i `�-14 ,y ,( �;� '"� Gill �� _a { i i' Yr ii 1 � � tl rr'�� !'qi r�e'f rr r t7.it it dt�r�^� fls C aA� �' 4 .w ,IF N'R 7 ` 7 1 'E t' - v i I '+rr t I., i 7,11 I 11 ^;1 4, s� ), J+ rah -u I a i I �} i �f u!"-lea a 1 u;;W c 'sign,� 9 a, i:4 '.µ r I, i Ic �,1 lgrr! i�Ft 4JIv' ({ rYI I nF fari' r f 1,}1a �1 Yr't 1I i t 1,I III I l� � r+:9 I� 7 �i 1 j r :M J i ( r I r ri l x tp�lr i t7'f il(r 4 t 7 3 t,i I r k i �t m Z ,. '.11 77 _tr {l� R fi N ' 4 � ¢a' �r1 A a 7 r3 I ly ei 1' d. :xl to a I r I r"'j gPlol l lfl # J fP t f �-J fi i 3 1 11 g A r i. I ,i r. i i a. .r,�t W I. r ) ,�� :� ?�� 1 'l. '�I i� a PAj i r� �� � 1 f ft '�r�;,� 1 ill 11 � s r f'. , ti r 17 ,al f 1 6H r ! s 11 r F f °9� i i I , r I t i # {i { ,,iiX1 AP Vtidll1 ; � t... f t a 3M�,n� t 'i..it,.,J rt �{ + y Iii 1 I rip Vi 1 f^�ir t7 �a ..i-11 7'. i r i 4� ��,°I 'r ,h6F -,'' r s I t� I r f i p x a KI 1 2 t o y 4.y�j. .{'i r j}yra 7.'' f1„' � ' 5 a d ry�� _ill' 'F i� I s 1'- I s ' ,ta r r p ;`.'- i. �, y"`�rN' 1 y ii ,. '.� 1 r I 1 t 7 ' r � r 1 i I r t r i '�^� ,a r f ii r 1 ' y s a �. I'. 1 f� i ``h a i. a fi I U^`rt �#i��'3rr l`'` P :F r r r p i i t' i : i r� 1 IN i r t lryJi lr c �illiriN �^� �I tl 1;} 5` i-1 ft if ' 1,.i i ��i y' i t n i7.,. I qp; 7 t 4 r rhdriIil ri rw r�epri r AIr rjl�rl�l >! i.. 9) 3. I i1r: x21 f�7` ( r r � ! Iz Iu 1 i}�sf }� '.i r`1 ily �/�13 r ,. A i , li 1 'I t i ri 47 aN 1Aiki�Ia }�'N r W ! d - ,i� n!f i d ,:r I r r l r 1rl 1 P,�W l u pig,r,41 r _ I # ;j ys{ v , ll Fr j < I a f r ci 'f s a a „t N I'll 7 S d x rM'}f gym z re �� 7"f ­- 1V i r 'k �h 34 i .0 rl ft rYt f.�Gt,�Ftti fy.�y S3 �,!'aJ '!3 f �. I h { � a t � 1 2 e i .tt rj-I cf �� r ]r 71:;j,}i ! ��Vi Ia r p 8#a1k o- i x I f I. � j . '� 1 I m hi yc ��jiii .l r r. , J. �; - 4718 , a I.r r` a .I _ 'r a i x:ir�r, itN ri ar 4 a�La4 9F tit m, J". 7.. - r` 3 • F ��Lt7N 4 F I R al9 II' Fr 11 v, r h 'r i i p �, r 1 { ari F ld 'y 9^ Ic'l I NIP, �jai 1-1<� 1 II 'M d n I is i 7`'f .',li 7>•a �"h I'h�N' 4 F 1 �� ..l i � � i uar 1 �A1 f,' r 4; F, {� +'rN� �11 i `,'' . rf« h} i I , 1 N 'i ll • dwYl`sf- e f t� �wr �9 _ ;, , �fi� i- r I�F n°i I-�rat �'Jm it�r f a r,.r�t l!NI ,i $� ` "' I, r f If t s t It 1 '�4�� F k"h - .k�0.>fi r 'M"ti a1' �� , ��� x 'i i. t r F r 11 I �, is - 7 - ' ` ✓.,I r:N �h :+ *`C flit +, �r �.o *- 741�,#'•.�I' '` gyp"_ s: r r �. ; � I .1 -r r t a41 z; ...; q ?:`1. t, dk � . a n It. a � t ..y a a� e tri �n� Y�T r �t '�'2."'di W /�1°lid t ry �1. ' is I - . , �,,, !����__ � - I I 1 l., t Ga�Nf K K Fan °a7 e �, e :1 C �a� � rr � x SELT��N.na^�� �11 li�7!'4 ,Y i rc r f tnia J IA4 mR,Y Y s ftv, I . 11 t rr ii I > > �a o- q }�d jr i =1a dJ 3f: .. - ii ,i f '-- y'c �",{'^ l a c i- �t r4�°q ''�3„��kj '°+zee+ �'ii y'.h.,7 4 a li�t"f 4 ', 1�I y . d:� �.. '. t, ,' I " u c i n t i � 't '"� f wsi d J, �! ✓ 'I' K�� *--f ,. 11 �d, 4:r } N r�ri4e si#I � '*a c 4o a s y 4 $ }r w e ti �b "' tC:WSu. Ai > ,.� '-a'A+„z, �.. L ..,. ;..+.hN_t+ _ -o< ,w7..:n:5 t3tf.>�:. x>t1u�'Sf„' -s,,.t 'r'd.f k.,,rc.�X_.KaPF.,.. ' 3w, '3�. .N r STAFF ASSIGNMENTS GLEN VAN WORMER Glen Van Wormer would serve as project manager of the Retail Area Traffic Analysis Study. Glen has an educational background with degrees in civil engineering and city planning which will provide a solid basis for the Brooklyn Center study. He has 20 years experience in transportation planning and traffic engineering and has worked with many municipalities on comprehensive transportation planning, traffic operations and parking. Glen was employed at the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) for 14 years, the last 10 as District Traffic Engineer in the east metropolitan district. While at Mn/DOT, he was responsible for traffic signs, traffic signals, streetlights, safety improvement programs, intersection roadway design, traffic analysis, and traffic generation. He was also responsible for transportation planning and a considerable amount of community and Mn/DOT cooperation. Glen has prepared transportation plans for portions of a number of communities within District 9 of Mn/DOT and for a number of communities served by SEH. Comprehensive transportation plans were prepared for Frederic and Reedsburg in Wisconsin and Faribault, Northfield, White Bear Lake, Stillwater, Bayport and Worthington in Minnesota. Specific examples of SEH transportation plans include setting up state-aid street systems , 'for Rosemount and Lino Lakes, revising the systems in Stillwater and Oakdale and updating system needs in Arden Hills. Glen established downtown traffic circulation patterns for Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin and Anoka, Virginia, Willmar, Ortonville, Mora, Sauk Rapids and many other - Minnesota communities. Other transportation planning activities included development of industrial connector roads in South St. Paul, revision of transportation P plan for Oakdale, establishment of area transportation networks for Fridley, evaluation of needs for bypasses in Marshall and downtown Willmar and setting up truck routes in Reedsburg, Faribault and Newport. All the transportation plans involved determination of thru streets, intersection controls throughout the entire city, sidewalks, all traffic signs and ordinances. In conjunction with the comprehensive plan, traffic operational studies were made of the existing movement of traffic in each community. A comprehensive pedestrian safety study was made in eight Minnesota communities, including St. Cloud, Winona, Red Wing and Mankato. Mn/DOT activities included the establishment of through streets as part of a major highway development for the cities of Farmington, Lindstrom, North Branch and White Bear Lake. SEH, through Glen, also has an extensive traffic operational experience and expertise.p SEH .staff members have designed or been responsible for the design of more than 1704 traffic signals. They have undertaken sign inventories in a number of municipalities including the cities of Duluth, Faribault and Northfield. SEH ' has also made a number of studies for municipalities. These have ranged from a small study of -�pkn individual intersection or street to analyzing major operating problems such as freeway detours related to construction or major traffic generators. Glen has been project manager on a 9 number of traffic studies, primarily relating to proposed - development. Virtually all studies included a total analysis from the number of vehicles which would be generated from the development down to the details of operations of intersections and streets adjacent to the development. The size of the studies range from individual small shopping centers to major metropolitan area horse racing facilities. All involved a blend of planning and operations oriented towards providing realistic answers and, where necessary, recommendations for solutions to the potential traffic problems. ROBERT BYERS Also in the transportation staff at SEH is Robert Byers. Bob's educational and experience background includes computer applications, traffic engineering and transportation planning. In Bob' s 8 years of experience, he has undertaken a number of traffic studies and surveys. One of his prime responsibilities at SEH is computer applications for transportation planning and forecasting . Bob has done a considerable amount of traffic forecasting for the St. Cloud Area Planning Organization. He has also done traffic forecasts in a number of Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan municipalities including Oakdale, Coon Rapids, Brooklyn Center, Arden Hills, Fridley, Faribault and Northfield. Bob is presently doing transportation planning work for the Fargo-Moorhead and St. Cloud area planning organizations. Bob' s dual role in transportation planning and computer applications has permitted him to become very familiar and utilize computer planning packages such as PLAN PAC and IRAP (Interactive Routing Assignment Package) . He is also familiar with a number of other similar transportation planning programs. HAROLD J. MASEM Hal Masem' s extensive experience in preliminary and detail design will be utilized primarily for concept design, preliminary layouts and cost estimates for any potential street or intersection changes in the Brooklyn Center Retail Area. Hal was employed at the Minnesota Department of Transportation for 19 years, has been employed at SEH since 1983 and has worked on many studies and transportation plans converting concept sketches into engineering drawings. The feasibility of a specific project or concept is best evaluated in the early stage to determine if it is operational and feasible. s f t I". ( �d,Lr.x, ... , r1 "=�'Ia d �{". yW,yl� 1 ; ;1 :0 d �'�� �IM�I''" � 4r °;djNk1 :yS1aN���I �dl�rlY mwi�° s r�: 1 �.� n !t , Il e f�l' 6 M ai, 1 fit, 1 I 11 1 I,' � t d 1� r'�{t I��IN i ,J N M1 l�t �} ) i I f� '�' dw 4"k 1 `q _ y ',1 i '1w r i F� N .ii 11A!,t 11 .-1 H ��k �1 p I ii; I Ar ��IN �( . . � t I1 .11� ��rMl 1 1 a t ,� 4 �� x 11 3; U ; _ 11i�� +1, F t I.�+{ :1 li �1 i lrtti 'nay t 14 I !�i wlins a i^'� I w n ii I i I .' IV'� ���r��,l��°GGu�1� i,}n ICI ,I � I� t t. � � ''k "1, yy ¢ e�- t 1 s Ixr,; � _ mf ��Ilil� �'ii,p�ii*A "a �'' (u, ''i , t�{j ��N [ I d ' X&(J1 li, , gyp b ` ��'�'° �,j��.r n li ^,r 1 g"1{�I�t fi -1G&i 4 'G C gy �'iY n�'t'A� Y j r i�Ir i,� I 1 I II i lGpy q�e�'i S.k ?�7, 1 r � N ..0 3 as I a I M !6, �.r� ��i ¢G rG� '�" - �'' a '+ �zfiu " Ix a 1 au I 1 t tr �� 5 V ,, .III + " I lip'., a1 if. �,, I � nLg'""��� pia�Ir�r,._S Iw �Rl{�'I"��"�'1", °yt$ � ,a;-, �,� �'ns �td�T� xx��1 f �r� ' i' 'M i� i �; =' 11 1 13 I +M �i to rc r N ". N � 1 nl°i 1 1 I i 'i m�r; + � i X5,1 x va a. �, i 1 '1 �' 9 ,, � i J 4` ! rr I ;? , { 9 Q ` u q �1 GII G .:: 1i J 1, to ll) laylV.; fi'Wi 4 u I�y-)% gla ti�l ,!i 1 "µl i �� �i ` ' -r Stu1 p a+r ir.jtPr4N� 'I � +� I i t t I °j t �� I i t I GI 1 �� "I � !?��� i#Ii 1 I 1 Io f i I' "I 7' 'G Y a u i�,�,�{ if I 1 I P; i 'q�. i 7 { i��1�'.y ���; iA' ��� I'iGl Ei,I,f A 11 I• ,� !i 1. IY I I}! 1 rl,7n 1{ .I Gf 1" �P R hf n iIV 'f 1 fi `�b 1 7 �Wk ! (4 'f�i jG ink- NN a �, �, x 1,�, ,Y :: r1 ,'r m p ��� kt 'C, ,�'r'l" . r�`�_ '°'k" wl j �,' 1 !i q g } h ��111.1.f ' 1 t- 1 ��N I i 1 '" 1 r I. x I`� IN. ';i 11 il'.. i rl 'lu 'I 7�, 1 1 44, I } 7 III I�� Ir I. ,Iil tl { a�. II J t Nt+14i " " I'.: t .I� ^z rir r { I 5 1 `ll'�, f + P,iei J I x + ;.1 I �I 3K d'� 11 l e1 '$,�l a i .� T 'i.�k J i r� Y J. y �. s� l I i l s;. I I .i l u ;a j l ' F'I�+ 1 i N p t ,:fpa -1. 'Y raG �1 H � ,,i I r �]N ua +r' i i tiI, �,A r� r, ff f I•+i 3�1 5�d liA1 ldWk 'taus Y " ' w1,'�" iIG,� -1 !f fi l 1 ,'A J , I 1, {r,' t r 4 N7I:.'�: 'N. :.:f�1 IJ�I 9lji��� 1'{f4� 41 �iAI IN 1 �}.��.tb'kGl 4ti-yd�nl Gl�f�l idl��ll�.�r�i� I�IlBI If�iG.`' i`N�I'n'� �,W ,y,{�{K-y'_icy I i N�,�,� �ln.rl, 'y�1 e°-.:, 9,d„9,. l N IP �t II �:S � - ,4,t b il, IAlll �d 4, ,1,}P,!;Ii �4r81�Y Jd!i a1 ^TJ'�� y`: y� ' A! lSh !'.i � J 11 r 1 1 1 7 r ; Ire `" 1 i Nr h �� m a fit �,! t 4 y M i }G ^ IJr Y r {g , W 1, I t , w,�IS tu.Sr 1 1u,t:wil"��� ` � FI�It =�+�„r�NN����h�y�mlf 'tl,.l ti���,fxq�4"lI�"' ,n:,:.l i�F'li(��i*!��°L �G��" LJI+ti ,G ,. .I '�1r 1I 6' ..iu:q i, II. r r + I rr r :rd i a y 1 r:11 G G r :u[ rd,r ',nI r hI j r 1 u�' i dx I qr{ � X11 tt'" � ;;�x r a ", ��1,�1 w,lL � �` .;�`��r�rr,.iw �a 'rFFn t4 sl pl 1� a ,3� w { �,°_. S� fi ;, s; I .-'� tG a ii it t?, t'� y APGq Ij�-`u�!, *'S.1 I '�. 1 b �Id "e�1LIt":i3�1 d'.a1 nt y' t rmN . .. �A 3 i'7,d t+rh `� s, �j�,x,,?� rT; U r� r f f G i�f + �,pp r t r ..0 t ;{- 1 1. ,:1 +n i r S"t 'c I e- itaj "i rg 1 9�,'1 5k,1��f 'w``�s " No-'' ti' ... i j r rrr11 t ! 3 t j �� t d.-'n w x 1 Yf 'f? ro P,y* f t d,�1��T ry' it'' .. I'i I 77i a'd 3 t t a t I� k t i ?{ 1 ''♦ j�je';�`* . ; ff ,-. r ( �r ;i i I r ! t l 5�tid}`r oily, "nl fit' {� eM,t y, t� 4 ''hf—I;; ` il-A ��} f l �`j:i.ai Yy�� 1 d�I Ir d i { s I[i�+. t Y r l 1 .1 r 1 a �� I j I i r uML 1 f t 1`l rl i'Ir r p{ iy�ur'` 'i I 1. 1 r ` �1 1'b 7 I 4 I! ",j `I I I U�9A-+4 i; fl I 'I :� 5 d :�:1:1 1 5�,' k yid" .'t+F�e 5 i is,�� iG j Intl A.r�l V'u li,�w�e-'e,e:G� i I r n+, rI R;Iy r I J I! Ui u °1 I N G. I "a r! v 1 I'l� 1,t.I rFN If1+�I r4;�l�lij��n�l 'rr �3 �I," r�4, roi ', ; a t`��i�£�4 �'���d '"� �� +�I :1 ail t{ t +rl 1 .. r t a yf.-'gg ?�J �,a.t11,�1 ,�"d d,tI`, ,.�,, eta I:"�� tr '� `(Ii� 'pt 1 " ' �I�� I�ili�Fir- �Iti`II�t �Ilrk, �i�j�uISJ14 .1 � a 1,' I u s l.: I It, t"tir 4 n � 1�,! 1� AI 1.$zl rtf �:+�'�" �i �, I r rt `�j ,ii r'1 l r J d 7t III " I x 1 rG I} I u ., u'�,,,� �I l l a if I� -: t I ''r i r } i A p `..r 2- i a '' 4 1 ry, 1/\ ` r I ` FYI t 1 1 iiM I r Ia IyM III}. 1 � rli ,l 5�t I1I}II . IIil Wpj L,--� { 7 iev �', ( ?t� °�Nd it III,1 a ti) "�1h w bled x rr t�+ �4r 'I; �� , } r y l 1 h P �' 'A a }l�5i ilY r� 1 t -I f l 1 i a a r .,I r r F,�".� h'+C �Nlhr'�,I d r r G i ,r 7 a �' r T{t r I i {I r rI� r T fi7" 1 f n li I ) r� r I' t n tw'e.. tt u I 5 J, rt f ) � rtl j i f y"tvi$ P.19 W r 11,{{{ 1 d k f 1 7 l 'l� I r Y14 J Ai} -;t� ! `'a l r r rl' 1 - 1 Il"th" v l h 1r r 1 r10 1 ni n c, add 11 itw I �l W 1 r t i � �� lnt tt� ,f air a(.F r'� 1 7 r IND � ,; �! l i I ���r.� i I II! L^,:' I t ,i� 1 I j I �:!>� 1 '�'°f+°��. �I�U Ii�1 1 'I NPI�I�' -:I?f Gd ti 1773 ;S ,i 1 r,:t I a I�y9r i i j?, 1 �1 .h II I I,. .t'I,.�, dt'( �'� } �Ila li I .4 y cif{ I Inl 9ih� 1: t'� I. r� I I� i,(�r �1� l„ a .:� 4j i i' � .,i4 1 >pr � V�,= itnt� "`l" 1 t-0 ar rPd y l § ; I 1I Gln l bti 11 a ,i1 ;11 ii1 I(��r S�,rN 4�+l i4ry-:� : :�I 4 .'L.I� i}a a d �,�A 9 ii��,I rl 'i a H', II�1,�N{* 11 F l 4 *, t� II I r I�, ' i_ 4 1 {a ,� I'r'41 w 17 f{"� r't �kk'n3, l�I f * R Jt: 4 t 1 Get 'F ' a', 0.i yj��t �1 a 1 I r } I ; 4dr"dk9i�i Ii{l Ililtli re s.,[ car t" �Lx �y , i�� ?+.} leaver In 4 " .r } $n 3H, +, gl i/ . 1 H� r' i a ' 3sq t t" o q R. yi N't i u .� yr� ,� �4 l9 a et r k� 1 i" y 1� ; �r ,' 1 it 1 .� , 1 Ifa tl 1'iG t I, A ..{ 9,it, 'T_ � ,�i ..;iY _I'll t1:-,1 !I ( i i ppII'� I�.iI J .j,, it �r71i;;l` „i r,;a,11 ja,,,�(' iwru,.1rnl A aF rl ,zii a � t ri,N "i' ,yJJ 1 !i� ,�. U j,I I 7 ��, I i��fFh I 1 : ) ��i F y� yA 1 !� "� PI "1 1i I I r , r r i J' Pr I" Ir 1 r r' C yr t4A�� e 1 r1 r� R.jl ii I1r Sa �� i u n r I r l r t ,M 1 f� '. ! i I 1.y +r r t i r r r ru ) r,a a r I r� I r in t t., ui s . ' ,,I{.,;'s .�.., " -1 :- ,j i:;! .�j �rrl�fdW Iii :ry 1 l���iq��l!I r�h n t i }., �Ct t 'lr r�.�H �.,-1, .f 1 �i�M1 7d.. ,1,"� fl n�.I i t n a ii x ^'R7 1 v r. " w s r r � , fi '�! r` I ' � F�' `�I ���'.�t`' , "-r u 'Y� _I T.� r l i d 1 1 i .+ pp 0 . : a IR 'I9 -; �f J I ! y�. t I➢,1'.. I{4 7` ,N' +�Tye �' P 1 rr f,ro �d Ftj '�» x.. J 't I� z a P� lY�' In j '» �ti {ptl,r ll91F I ��}�t G4"p1� ;,it ,, '� �} .. ,i! !� 1 .i .� 4 i,,w� a aa,�� 1�. r�r�I�v r 1 iu .�� r Ir tGa�r 1pH ti o.U`!a,'r�l" , Jt"" ',� Irr �� 1 1. r V 1 i u F I ��" i �y �, r 4 ,r<tr ?' ( G '4 �1 I T �'o i G ''+. i�r 1�4 r'i� hvt.�l r�"+�f1GI i41- t >y I7¢ ;, .a �' v'" '� .j i. tK,.¢ u, ,11{� ,,IA 1 ���� €i+'a°s py'fir '4:vid II I., ��3� ' !,. i 11 � �dl n r 1'. + @ rr 1, ,,, I . 1 1�.1 ��F• x.� r t I _ t4.p r�Ya I yir. 1 IJ aYr+*�1 "�h f� ) � .,j: 11 ," F I �°r t t 4 a�• i r, '� ulli r }� ,. ! ICI ^�AMI pp. 1 i i r t 1!'�I r 4 I?rII"lIfi r _ G 'N fi 1 I,"I �_t 9 t III r 1. r N l+ ,t(Iip 1 , ." 1 Y �.i r'1 1 4,J Ii} 'i C,�� j ��"N 4 1. r 1 1 It1,.I, ,w � x r� I�d `tt� 1 r i.r "r.G r r kt �,. ` 1, of .N'r '�£- 1 '41 a� '�t �'ri tl Wr ik�r i, � 1�"M M' �t 1 t I l�4 . - i. ' ri I 1 9 µW� �. N r , r }rf I =, �. NG� j J r w. ,1 r ,ova'-err . �, x aye , is? *G fi'1r"4 �,, Tk^ .�'r Y d .t'7'ras � 9 ,, xra14 *' ,- i "i �'r+ "�, ,,- r a ,; �� *ti'°T}�d rk �i� 1 t h } `��p g�-+ SECTION !V jo 1. a F-". *,rl b ,kfz kff'�'+1 rPS �' �. P,u ���. �: ,I'll x n s - - c h F r r!a li' x :. n y� r= a IC I:1tt� i�a� d 'Ab F }RL a. n,! yr _ a$!,a`i.!1 , r ;:wed..+ :xf '^:+s ras,'.-,r-;a!' "` z � :-„�,.;"” a7.. r� k�. 1 ;F# ,G,y t,l "Na*r rt I A,.t' .ik �+ �k+l'.r Ar' +1 t. i`p��,x1 r ` arc'`ii P EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS SEH has a significant amount of specific traffic and transportation engineering and planning experiences which can applied directly to the Brooklyn Center project. Some of the experience is directly related to other Brooklyn Center projects, some to very similar projects and other experience, general in nature, which would be very valuable to Brooklyn Center. SEH has served as Traffic Engineer to Brooklyn Center for several years. Much of the work has been done in the retail area and along Shingle Creek Parkway. In 1979, SEH was hired to update the traffic study for the Earle Brown farm area, originally prepared by BRW in 1976. In the 1979 study, SEH provided detailed traffic forecasts including turning volume forecasts for each of several intersections in the area. i SEH also did a detailed study of the proposed designs for Shingle Creek Parkway. Included in the designs were recommendations for turn lane lengths, median openings and closings, changes in intersection designs such as at 69th Avenue, and details of intersection designs such as near the MTC garage. Recently, SEH completed a study of the need for signalization at several intersections. SEH- has also designed ' esi ned ' pedestrian bri d ges and traffic signals within the City near the development area. The firm also reviewed construction plans for revisions to Interstate 94 and 694, involving both construction staging and design. In addition to working for the City, SEH has undertaken traffic studies_ for Lombard Properties and Rvan Construction, both in relationship to proposed developments along Shingle Creek Parkway. As a result of all this work, SEH is very familiar with the details of traffic movements in the retail development area. Vehicle volumes, desired motorist paths, and levels of congestion and/or efficiency are well known. Because of this intimate knowledge of the details of traffic flow, SEH can very easily identify potential problems and concerns and present a very workable and easily understood final report. In addition to the Brooklyn Center work, SEH has worked in a number of other similar situations. SEH was recently hired to re-evaluate a number of previous traffic reports in the Ridgedale area in Minnetonka. Other current projects of a similar nature include a traffic analysis, road design and bridge design for the Roseville Redevelopment Area, near the Rosedale Shopping Center; the Highway 65 and Interstate 694 proposed redevelopment in Fridley; and an analysis of streets and traffic near the Burnsville Center for the City of Burnsville. One of the specialities of SEH is downtown traffic and parking studies and downtown redevelopment. These are very similar in many ways to the retail analysis of the Brooklyn Center area. Each downtown study requires close attention to each parcel, a very clear understandin g of the traffic generated by each, and also a clear understanding of the interaction of the various bu'si-ness types. To date SEH has been involved in 24 downtown traffic and parking studies and these are listed in the Support Data section. i The most important element of SEH projects is the satisfaction of the community with the final project. In the Support Data section is a listing of many . of the communities we have worked for. We would invite the City staff to call on any of the references that are listed or to call individuals in any of the communities that are j�, listed as clients. Our present clients are our best resource. r -79 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF VIRGINIA SWANSON WHEREAS, Virginia Swanson has served the City of Brooklyn Center as an employee in the Department of Civil Defense and the Department of Finance for more than sixteen years from December 2, 1968 to February 28, 1985; and WHEREAS, she will retire from public service on February 28, 1985; and WHEREAS, her devotion to the tasks and responsiblities of her position should be recognized. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the dedicated public service of Virginia Swanson is recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center and that the City wishes her a long and happy retirement. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following, voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF DIANE LEMKE WHEREAS, Diane Lemke served as a member of the Brooklyn Center Human_ Rights Commission from February 1978 through December 1984; and WHEREAS, her devotion to the tasks and responsibilities of the Commission contributed substantially to the sound progress and development of the City; and WHEREAS, her public service and civic effort for the betterment of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that her service to the community should be recognized and expressed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the dedicated public service of Diane Lemke as a member of the Human Rights Commission is hereby recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION w JANUARY 31 , 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Nancy,Manson, Lowell Ainas,, Mike Nelson and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioner Molly Malecki had called to say that she would be unable to attend the evening's meeting and was excused. He stated he was not sure where Commissioner Sandstrom was. APPROVAL OF MINUTES _ January 17, 1985 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to approve the minutes of the January 17, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Manson, Ainas, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 84036 (City of Brooklyn Park) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request by the City of Brooklyn Park for special use permit approval to conduct a ditch dredging project in the flood plain within the Crystal Airport property, south of 62nd Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the Planning staff report and referred the Commission's attention to the report of the Director of Public Works which explained the project in greater detail. He pointed out the location of the project on an overhead transparency and reviewed the factors relevant to this application contained in Section 35-2184 of the Zoning Ordinance.` He concluded by saying that the staff feel that these factors are met and that the application can be approved. The Director of Public Works then showed the Planning Commission the location of the entire project on a map of Brooklyn Center and surrounding areas. He pointed out that the ditch dredging project would begin at 63rd Avenue North and continue southeast to a point somewhere in the Environmental Preserve in Crystal north of Bass Lake Road. The Director of Public Works explained that the ditch dredging project would cause more water to arrive at an earlier time downstream and that this would have an effect of raising the flood levels slightly in Twin Lakes and in Ryan Lake. He traced the flow of water from the ditch into Twin Lakes, Ryan Lake, and eventually into Shingle Creek. The Director of Public Works stated that the primary staff concern was regarding the impact on the Twin Lakes area. He stated that staff had initially suggested that a holding pond be built on the airport property to allow better drainage in Brooklyn Park without increasing flood levels downstream. He explained that this option was rejected by the Metropolitan Airports Commission as an unsafe feature at the airport. He stated that the staff then suggested a minimimum ditch with a flatter 1-31-65 _i.. grade from 63rd Avenue North to the Environmental Preserve. Brooklyn Park rejected this option, he stated, because of potential maintenance problems with a backup of silt in the drainage ditch. The Director of Public Works explained that he had asked for a hydrologic analysis of the project and that he had received reports prepared by the U. S. Geological Service and also by Barr Engineering, He explained that the U.S.G.S report concluded that the rise in flood level in Twin Lake would be less than .1 of a foot. He pointed out that the Barr Engineering study was more detailed and concluded that the effect would be a rise of less than .01 of a foot. He stated that the Planning Commission would have to consider this effect and determine whether it was an acceptable increase in flood level. He stated that it was acceptable to him, but that if the increase in the flood level had been closer to .1 of a foot; he would have serious concerns about the project, considering the problems with flooding that have been experienced in the Twin Lake area. Commissioner Bernards asked what time period the 1/8 inch rise would be over. The Director of Public Works explained that a five year flood would raise the level of Twin Lakes by two to three feet. He pointed out that the project would add 1/8 of an inch to this rise in the level of Twin Lakes. He stated that it was, therefore, a fairly insignificant effect on downstream flood levels. The Director of Public Works then pointed out the Environmental Preserve on an aerial photograph and noted the existence of a boardwalk from Brooklyn Center into Crystal. He stated that the project should end north of this boardwalk, but recommended a condition that would require the construction of a pedestrian bridge by the City of Brooklyn Park if the project continues past the location of the boardwalk. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the project would cause problems in the Environmental Preserve. The Director of Public Works explained that the main problem from the ditch dredging project would be siltation if the ditch is too flat. He reviewed with the Commission a centerline profile of the ditch project. In response to a question from Chairman Lucht, the Secretary explained that the spoils from the ditch dredging project would be spread alternately on each side of the bank, but would be contained within the airport property. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. George Calebaugh, representing the City of Brooklyn Park, stated that he had nothing to add to the report. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 84036) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. George Nass of 5313 62nd Avenue North stated that he had lived in the area for some years and pointed out that he has a fence along the side of his property that may have to be raised if the project is done and ground levels are raised. He stated that replacement of the fence should be paid for by the City of Brooklyn Park since they are doing the project. The Director of Public Works explained that the plan for the project calls for lowering the grade, not raising it. He suggested, however, that a condition could be added that,if fences adjacent to the project are adversely affected, the applicant will pay for their replacement. Commissioner Manson asked whether the ditch would be wide enough so that the spoils 1-.31-85 -2- will be below the existing grade. The Director of Public Works stated that the grade immediately next to the ditch would have to be raised in order to lower the bottom of the ditch, but that alternating the placement of the spoils should prevent any dyking from occurring. Mr. Walt Walker of 6133 Scott Avenue North asked how deep the ditch would be. The Director of Public Works answered that it would be about two feet deep. Mr; Walker asked when the project would be started and completed. Mr. Calebaugh answered that Brooklyn Park hopes to start the project by March 1 in order to finish while there is still frost in the ground. Mr. Walker explained that the area is a wildlife habitat and that ducks come to nest as early as March and added that he preferred an early completion to the project. Mr. Jack Kelly of 6129 Scott Avenue North asked about a fencing project around the airport. The Secretary answered that it is the staff's understanding that nothing will be done on that fencing project until the ditch project is done. He explained that the fence would have to be kept back behind setback lines if it is higher than four feet and that the fence may not be placed on the northeast side of the ditch anyway. He explained that barbed wire is not prohibited and added that there would be problems with the Flood Plain Ordinance if the airport fence did cross the ditch. Mr. George Nass asked whether there would be notice given before the fence was erected. The Secretary explained that there is no formal mechanism for notifying property owners regarding the erection of the fence. He stated that the airport has the right to put up a fence as much as any property owner. He added, however, that if the City is informed about the project, that it would let residents know. Mr. Walker asked how long the project would take. Mr. Calebaugh stated that it would be about three weeks. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Hearing no further comments, Chairman Lucht called for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 814036 (Brooklyn Park) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend approval of Application No. 84036, subject to the following conditions: 1 . If the project results in construction of a ditch crossing under the existing boardwalk which crosses the "Environmental Preserve" area, Brooklyn Park shall construct a- pedestrian bridge meeting the approval of the Brooklyn Center Director of Public Works ks a d the Crystal City Engineer at no cost to the City Y g y of Brooklyn Center or to the City of Crystal. 2. Upon completion of the project, the City of Brooklyn Park shall submit to the Brooklyn Center Director of Public Works a center line profile along the route of the constructed channel, showing an "as built" profile of the bottom of the ditch after construction. 3• The expiration date for the permit shall be April 1, 1986. 1-31-85 -3- f i 4. Any damage to existing fences adjacent to the project caused by the ditch dredging project will be repaired at the expense of the City of Brooklyn Park. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Manson, Ainas, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. There followed a brief discussion of upcoming business items for the February 14, 1985 meeting. Commissioner Manson stated that she would be unable to attend the February 14 meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Chairman 1-31-85 -4- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 84036 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Park Location: Crystal Airport Property Request: Flood Plain Special Use Permit The City of Brooklyn Park requests special use permit approval to alter the contour of the floodway on the Crystal Airport property south of 63rd Avenue North. The project would involve dredging of the ditch in this area and placement of spoil alternately on either bank of the ditch. The purpose of the project is to facilitate drainage in the area in Brooklyn Park between 63rd Avenue North and the I-94 freeway. Depositing fill or the spoils from dredgingis a special use in the floodway zone. An engineering analysis of the project is contained in a memo from Director of Public Works, Sy Knapp (attached) Floodway special uses are subject to procedures set forth in Section 35-2184 and to standards or requirements set forth in Section 35-2140 (see both sections attached). Many of these provisions relate to structures or development associated with struc- tures rather than with alteration of the flood plain contours themselves. The provisions that correspond most with the "standards for .a special use permit," found in Section 35-220, are the "Factors Upon Which the Decision . . . shall be Based" in subsection 4 of 35-2184. Subsections a, b, e, i , and k seem to be relevant to the proposed project. The primary concern of staff is that the proposed ditch dredging will allow drainage to flow faster thus leading to higher flood levels downstream in Brooklyn Center and Robbinsdale. The conclusion of the hydrologic analysis by Barr Engineering is that these effects will be minimal . Accordingly, stuff recommend that the special use permit a pp lication submitted by the City of Brooklyn Park be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the memo of Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, dated January 22, 1985. 1-31-85 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER i Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 11th of F01)ruary , 1985 at 8:00 at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the City Charter. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING HOLIDAY LEAVE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . Chapter 17 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: SECTION 17-117 HOLIDAY LEAVE. 1 . Holidays Defined. Holiday leave shall be granted for the following holidays: New Year's Day January 1 Washington's & Lincoln's Birthdays Third Monday n February Y Memorial Day Last Monday in May Independence Day July 4 Labor Day First Monday in September Christopher Columbus Day Second Monday in October Veteran's Day November 11 Thanksgiving Day Fourth Thursday in November Post-Thanksgiving Day Friday after Fourth Thursday in November Christmas December 25 Floating Holiday Scheduled with permission of employees' supervisor. Floating holidays must be taken within the calendar year; they cannot be accumulated 2. Major Holidays. When New Year's Day, Independence Day, Veteran's Day or Christmas Day fall on Sunday, the following day shall be observed as a holiday. When they fall on Saturday, the preceding day shall be observed as a holiday. Employees absent from work on the day following or the day preceding such a three-day holiday weekend without the express authorization of the City Manager shall forfeit their rights to holiday pay for that holiday. ORDINANCE NO. 3. Premium Pay. Employees who work a Monday through Friday workweek who are required to be on duty on any holiday as set out in paragraph 1 as qualified in paragraph 2, shall be paid time and one-half for the hours worked in addition to the holiday pay, Land Police Department Clerk-Dispatchers who are required to be on duty on the day shift on Thanksgiving, the midshift on Christmas Eve, the next succeeding night shift, and the next succeeding day shift on Christmas Day, the mid shift on New Year's Eve, the next succeeding night shift, and the next succeeding day shift on New Year's Day shall be paid time and one-half for the hours worked in addition to the holiday pay.] Time and one-half pay in addition to straight compensatory time off shall be granted to Police Clerk/Dispatchers for hours worked on Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and New Year's Day. 4. Irregular Work Schedules. In the case of those employees whose work function involves working schedules other than a Monday through Friday workweek, compensation for holidays shall be as follows: a. Compensatory time off shall be granted for each of the earned and accrued holidays defined in paragraph 1 . Each time off shall be taken as soon as practicable after the holiday for which it is accrued and as approved by the Employer. b. Except as provided in paragraph 3 of this section and paragraphs c and d below, premium pay shall not be authorized to those persons working irregular shifts for hours worked on holidays when such work is part of the planned schedule. c. Compensation for holidays in the form of premium time and one-half pay in addition to holiday pay may be authorized for employees working irregular shifts only when the City Manager deems it imperative that such compensatory time as may be accrued be waived, with the employee's consent, in the best interests of the City. d. Time and one-half pay in addition to straight compensatory time off shall be granted to those persons working irregular shifts for hours worked on Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and New Year's Day. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) T CI .Y OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the llt-h of 1985 e 8:00 p.m. at the City Hall , 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding -he location of day care centers in commercial zoning districts. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDI±NG CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE LOCATION OF GROUP DAY.CARE _FACILJTIES IN` 'CONMMERC1AL ZONING:DISTRIt Ts THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 35-320 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brook.lvn Center is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Section 35-320. C1 SERUICE/OFFICE DISTRICT 3. Special Uses b. Group day rare facilities provided they are not located on the same propertVas or adjacent to a iise Whim is not perr�itted to abuC R1,—R2, R3 zoned a� nd a-nd pro��ided that such dev_eToo- ments, in each specific ease, are demonstrated to be.: 1. Compatible with existing adjacent lane, uses as well as those uses_permitted in the Cl district 2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to those uses permitted in the C1 district genera i.r_ 3. Of comoarabl.e intensity to permitt-d Cl district land uses with.respect to actives 4. Planned and designed to assure that r=enerated traffic will ne ,WiFfhin thethe capacity of avai ab e public faci i�hies and evilT not have an adverse impact upon thhose faci hies, the _i Mediate ned+ nborhood, or the covirna'nit4J. -- 5. Traffic gen .rated by other uses on the site will not pose a aanger tocnTren served—_ y tht�day care use. and further provided that the special recu_ireri-ients sat fort,; in Section 35 1 are adhered to. a Section 2. S -:.,ct i on 35-322 of the C i tv Ordinances of the City of Broo. Iyn center is iier + ,r' "ended by the addition of the following: Section- 315-322. COMMERCE DISTRICT i Spec i_lYUses Group day care facilities rovic`d tho--/ are net 10 —d on one iT e prop as or,a.', acent to a11y se which is not permitter to alaL!t_R1, R2., or R3 z 0 cu prep r_F_ and ^rovi are r,Ot located in a retail- s-5o :�inq "e:it�er; and provided that such dove Iopments n each specific case, arc aemonstraj-- to be:- �` ------- _�__. �_ ORDINANCE NO Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as - ��_-___.._- witP1 t;�ose uses-permitted in the G2 distr�ct_IeneraT1y,.i 2. Complementary to existine adjacent land uses as well as with those uses perm %fed in tFse C2 district g _nera >,. 31 Of comparable intensity to permitted C2 district land uses with respect to activity: levels. 4. Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be �,Tit o the capacity of availaEe p- u5'i-ic faci1i�ties aril vifl not have an adverse impact a onth_ose faciliti`e's, the immediate neighborhood, or the community. 55.. Traffic generated by other uses on the site will not dose a dancer to children served by the day care use. Furthermore, group day care facilities shall be subject to the special re,au i r`ments set Torth in Section 35-412. Section 3. Section 35-411 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Section 35-4111 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN C1. AND CIA DISTRICTS 6. In the case of group day care facilities, outside recreational faciliyies _s-� be appropriate y separated from the parking and driving areas by a wood fence not ess than four feet in height; cr a Cor�ciT aroved s�abstitut shy` Ue dcated contiu� oils to the day care f- acil-ity; sha_ not ,"_ o�cated in any yard aooµtting a major thoroughfare unless -buff-tired by a device set forte in Section 35-400, Fcotnote�TO; si1�n`ot-have n impervious surfaco_fcr more than half the playground area; and shall extend at—least 60 feel from the waTT-�of the i ul wing or to an adjacent property _ line, whichever is less, or shadT ' be bounded on not more than t°f,!c sices by parking and driving areas. - Section 4. Section 35-412 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended b the addition f l y o the following: u Section 35-412. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN C2 DIS?RIGTS 7. In the case of group day care facilities, outside recreational facilities sna ; ap2_ro riate�y separa ed frora the parkirig and dr1�%ininf' areas by a •,rood fence—no t_leTss Tthan- four feet height; or f ounciT opj�roveo s?;bsii�t�!te; shaTT oe iocated contigu- ous to the. day care faci�iity; soap o oeV ocate_d inlany yard a�uttinr, a major inrorcugiofara unless buffered_ by a device set fortis in Section 35•-40 , Fcotnote_ I0; shalkI not_have_an iimpervious surfac° for ;or^ than iia�f--ihe pla;P?ro��nd area ; and snaII extend at east _ _ _.. e from the wa of he o! i lcir.g or to ciri adj4cenL Ti.orlerz� Tine, l chev_r_ i S -less ar_sha lobe bounded on not EiIOrC. Lhu' .ti�1 S1GeS bL' � dr',1 I r1 C' rl � l i!e': are.F ORDINANCE w0 :action 5. Section 35•-900 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended by the addition of the following Section 35-900. DEFINITIONS. The language set forth in the text' of this zoning ordinance sha I be interpreted in accordance with the following defini- tion. Words used in the present tense shall include the future; viords used in the singular include the plural and the plural includes the singular. Group day care facility: A facility licensed by the Minnesota Department of P'-.�blic 'We re tc ercvidd chM care for six�or more c_T„iTdr. at ore lime This term also 7n_cludes, bu i s not invited to, faciliti 39i��1t; .programs ror cr iIdren kno°sin as nursery schoofi, day nurseries, chFIrd — care centers, i—)T �r groiap_s, day care centers, cooperative day care centers and Head Start prograM s.- Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30)days following, its legal publi ation. Adcr ed this Y dray of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted) . CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 11th day of February at 8:00 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Thapters 3, 15 and 35 of the City Ordinances establishing a moratorium on development of certain commercially zoned land within the City of Brooklyn Center. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN COMMERCIALLY ZONED LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF EROOKLYN CENTER THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapters 3, 15 and 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center regulating construction and land development are amended as described herein. Finding of Facts. The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center finds that it has authorized a study to be conducted which would analyze and determine future commercial needs within the community and make recommendations regarding possible Comprehensive Plan amendments and amendments to its official controls. The City Council further finds that in order to protect the Planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the City of Brooklyn Center, an Interim Ordinance regulating, restricting and prohibiting certain kinds of land development within the City is necessary. _ Moratorium Established. A moratorium is hereby established regulating g land development as hereinafter set forth from the period beginning upon the effective date of this ordinance, and ending three months hence. Land Development Prohibited. No .plans shall be considered or approved by the City of Brooklyn Center involving new construction and development proposals comprehended by uses listed in Section 35-322, Subdivision 1a, 1c, 3e and 3f of the City Ordinances on all currently undeveloped land containing no principal or accessory use within the C2 and I-1 zoning districts in the City of Brooklyn Center. Plan Approvals Prohibited. No application for approval of any preliminary plat, special use ep rmit, plan approval, variance or building permit shall be accepted or approved by the City of Brooklyn Center for new retail construction or development on currently undeveloped C2 or I-1 zoned land during this period of moratorium. Penalties. Violation of the provisions of this ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements shall constitute a misdemeanor. Any person who violates this ordinance or fails to comply with any of its requirements shall, upon conviction thereof by lawful authority, be fined not more than $700.00 or imprisoned for not more than 90 days, or both, and in addition, shall pay all costsand expenses of prosecution. Each day such violation continues shall be considered a separate offense. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. ORDINANCE NO. Adopted this day of lg Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted). Member introduced the following resolution IVA14 and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION AMENDING ASSESSMENT POLICY RELATING TO STREET RECONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, on February 10, 1964, the Brooklyn Center City Council adopted the Brooklyn Center Assessment Procedure Manual as a guideline for the special assessment of costs related to public improvements; and WHEREAS, a current report prepared by the Director of Public Works indicates that the benefit received from the installation of concrete curb and gutter and related street paving improvements is most equitably levied on a residential unit basis as opposed to the frontage basis; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the best interests of the City to amend existing special assessment policies to reflect the residential unit basis of assessment related to such street improvement projects: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center that the following special assessment policy be established for street reconstruction projects in residentially-zoned areas, which consist of the installation of concrete curb and gutter and related street paving improvements paced under contract in 1985: 1. for residential properties, zoned or used as single-family sites, which are not subdividable under the City's Subdivision Ordinance, the unit rate of assessment shall be $1,200.00. 2. for properties in R-2 zoned districts, which are not used as single-family sites, the equivalent rate shall be $16.00 per front foot, with a minimum assessment of $1,200.00. 3. for properties in R-3 zoned districts the assessment rate per residential unit shall be established by the following formula: Assessable frontage x $16.00 Num er o rest ential units 4. the assessment rates in R-4, R-S, R-6, and R-7 zoned districts shall be individually established based on an evaluation of project costs and project benefits. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk 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. CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYNBROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561-5440 C EN-TER TO : Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: February 8 , 1985 RE: Supplemental Analysis - Proposed Amendment of Special Assessment Policy for Street Reconstruction This report is submitted in response to the City Council's request for additional information and evaluation of the effects of the proposed new policy for special assessments for street reconstruction projects (see memo dated 1/23/85 - corrected copy attached) . On the attached sheets , four past projects and one possible 1985 project are analyzed to show the effects of existing policy vs . the proposed policy. In addition, a separate memo relating to the proposed Lyndale Avenue street improvement between 53rd Avenue and 57th Avenue is being submitted to show the effects of the recommended policy change on a parcel-by-parcel basis . Res ectfully submitted, S tnapp Y Director of Public Works SK: jn 55�makW5� Mau 00" Project No. 1 - Reconstruction of 53rd Avenue North between I-94 and Penn Avenue North Explanation: This�.s project was initiated by City Council action in 1979 and construction was completed in 1980 . Because 53rd Avenue is a Municipal State Aid street, and because special assessments had previously been levied (during the 1950 ' s and early 19601s) the special assessment rates which were applied to this project were those established by the "Equity schedule" as contained in the current Assessment Policy for Municipal State Aid Street Improvements . Under that policy, the assessments levied were calculated at the following rates : - for concrete curb $ gutter =$ 8. 00/front foot for pavement improvements = $ 7. 60/front foot TOTAL = $15 . 60/front foot Effect of Proposed Policy Change on Assessments If adjusted to reflect 1985 construction costs , those assessment rates under existing policy would be : for concrete curb & gutter = $11. 68/front foot for pavement improvements = $12 . 29/front foot TOTAL = $23. 97/front foot Application of those rates to four typical properties along 53rd Avenue would result in the following assessment comparisons : Total Assessment Total Assessment Under Existing Under Proposed Typical Property Policy (1985- rates) Policy (1985) 50 L. F. with Parking 50 x $23.97 = $1198.50 $1200.00 50 L. F. without Parking 50 x $23':97 = $1198.50 $ 900.00 75 L .F. with Parking 75 x $23.97 = $1797.75 $1200.00 75 L.F. without Parking 75 x $23.97 = $1797.75 $_ 900.00 Effect of Proposed Policy Change on Project Cost Distribution The following tabulation shows the actual cost distribution for the 1979 project, that same distribution updated to reflect 1985 costs, and the cost distribution which would result from application of the proposed policy: Estimated Actual 1985 Total Cost Total Cost Total Cost Distribution Distribution Distribution with Existing with Proposed 1979 Policy Policy (1985) Total Cost $388,000 $8452000 $845 , 000 Special Assessment 43 , 000 94,000 57,000 City Share 34-5,000 751 ,000 788 , 000 Project No. 2 - Relocation and Reconstruction of Lyndale Avenue from 59th to 62nd Avenue North Explanation: This 1977 Y Y J ro 'ect was initiated b the City Council p in cooperation with MN/DOT, in conjunction with the construction of I-94 . MN/DOT agreed to pay for relocation costs , but the City, through a special assessment levy, paid the "betterment" costs Special assessment rates reflected these costs as follows : - for concrete curb & gutter = $ 6. 00/front foot - for street improvement = $ 7 . 25/front foot Total = $13 . 25/front foot Effect of Proposed Policy Change on Assessments If adjusted to reflect 1985 construction costs , these assessment rates would be: - for concrete curb & gutter = $11 . 68/front foot - for street improvements = $14 . 11/front foot Total = $,25. 79/front foot Application of these rates to typical properties along the project would result in the following assessment comparisons : Actual Total Assessment Total Assessment Assessment under Existing under Proposed Typical Property. 1977 Policy (1985 rates) Policy (1985) 75 foot lot $ 993.75 $ 1,934.25 $ 1,200.00 80 foot lot $1,060.00 $ 2,063.20 $ 1,200.00 Project No. 3 - Reconstruction of Halifax Avenue from 70th to 71st Avenue and 70th Avenue from Halifax Avenue to June Avenue Explanation: This 1984 project was initiated jointly by the Brooklyn Center City Council and by petition of the St. Alphonsus Church. The basic project included widening of the "church side" of these streets and installation of concrete curb and gutter on that side. Accordingly, the assessment rate levied against church property (approximately $38 . 50 per front foot) reflected the costs for widening the street as well as the costs for curb and gutter and normal residential street reconstruction. It is noted, however, that a parallel .effort was made to determine the interest of those private property owners who lived across the street from the church, in getting street improvements at the same time . Based on existing policy and 1984 construction costs , we estimated those costs at $35 . 00 per foot. Because only one private property owner expressed approval , this proposal was dropped and the project proceeded only on the "church side" of these streets . Project No. 4 - Installation of Water Main on Lee and Major Avenues between 69th and 70th Avenues Explanation: In 1984 property o wn ers in i tia ted a petition to install water mains on Lee and Major Avenues between 69th and 70th .Avenues . In conjunction with that petition, we also prepared a report showing that , if concrete curb and gutter were to be installed at the same time , substantial cost savings could be realized (as compared to the costs for such installation under a separate project) . Accordingly, a parallel petition was circulated to determine interest in the installation of concrete curb and gutter in conjunction with the water main project - with an estimated rate of' $20 . 00/front foot for the street improvement (resulting in a typical assessment of 75x$20 = $1500 for the street, improvement) . Because 14 of the 24 property owners signed the petition asking for water main installation, while only 5 owners signed the petition asking for the street improvements, the water main project was installed without the street improvements . I believe this example shows that , while an assessment of $1500 per household is closer to being acceptable to property owners than the $24. 00 to $35. 00/front foot rates normally charged under existing policy, it still didn' t "sell" on this project. However, a reduction to $1200/household (as suggested by the proposed policy) might have made the proposal acceptable to more property owners . I Project No. 5 - Installation of concrete curb and gutter and bituminous overlay of the following streets: Drew Avenue from 67th to 69th Avenue Ewing Avenue from 67th to 69th Avenue 67th Avenue from Drew to Ewing Avenue 68th Avenue from Drew to Ewing Avenue Explanation: A property owner in this area has expressed his desire to circulate a petition requesting these improvements in 1985 . Based on our cost estimates, this project would cost $140 ,000 (0 . 62 miles at $225,000/mile) . Under existing policy, the total costs would be levied against the abutting frontage, resulting in an assessment rate of $28 . 00/front foot. Application of this rate to two typical properties within the project area would result in the following assessment comparisons : Total Assessment Total Assessment Under Existing Under Proposed Typical'Property Policy Policy Mid-block lot $2P240 $1 , 2 0 0 80 feet wide Corner lot $3,360 $1, 2 0 0 80 feet wide (assessable frontage 80' + 120/3 = 1201) Effect of Proposed Policy Change on Cost Distribution The following tabulation shows the toal cost distribution based on existing policy vs . total cost distribution under the proposed policy: Cost Cost Distribution Distribution Under Under Source Existing Policy Proposed Policy Special Assessments $125 ,800* $ 72 ,000 City Share $ 14 ,200* $ 68 , 000 Total $ 140 ,000 $140 ,000 *Note: City share under "Existing Policy" reflects City' s ownership of frontage on 67th Avenue. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: IQb j: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING LYNDALE AVENUE WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985-04, STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985-05, AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985-06 AND CALLING FOR A HEARING THEREON WHEREAS, the City Council has received a report for the City Engineer regarding the feasibility of providing for installation of water main, construction of street improvements, and construction of sidewalk along Lyndale Avenue between 53rd and 57th Avenues in conjunction with the jurisdictional turnback of authority by the Minnesota Department of Transportation at costs estimated as follows: Water Main Improvement Project No. 1985-04 $ 74, 660. 00 Street Improvement Project No. 1985-05 $346,530. 00 Sidewalk Improvement Project No. 1985-06 $ 45, 660.. 00 WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary and in the best interests of the City to complete said improvements: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The City Engineer's Report is hereby accepted. 2 . The following improvements are hereby established: LYNDALE AVENUE WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985-04 LYNDALE AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985-05 LYNDALE AVENUE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985-06 3 . The Council will consider the improvements in accordance with the report and the assessment of benefited property for all or a portion of the _costs of Improvement Project Nos. 1985-04 and 1985-05 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at estimated total improvement costs of: Project No. 1985-04 $ 74, 660. 00 Project No. 1985-05 $346,530.00 RESOLUTION NO. 4 . A public hearing shall be held on proposed Improvement Project Nos. 1985-04 and 1985-05 on the llth day of March, 1985, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 8: 00 P.M. local time, and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notices of such hearing and improvement as required by law. 5. The assessment district for Improvement Projects Nos. 1985-04 and 1985-05 shall be: All benefited properties abutting Lyndale Avenue between 53rd and 57th Avenues North. 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 ROOKLYNBROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561-5440 CENTER 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 „ale Samal X&te ,. 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. 1 Adequate street right-of-way exists, or the requesting property owner provides required easements at no cost to the City. 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 area. 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 the subject area and again recommends 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 structure if that site is presently supporting a single 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 Proiect 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 Ordinances (i.e. those properties lying 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, 660 • 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 = $ 45,660 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 ent A ainst Y�► g Previous Capital P Expenditures for Mai n 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 22,850 TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING $346,530 6 C. sidewalk Improvement Project 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. G rube City Engineer Recommended for Approval, Vin a;p�p Director of Public Works 7 Note to City Council: 40 If this report meets with your approval, we recommend the follow- ing 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 1st Start construction September lst Complete project 8 ve1� Ifb__ RIIt ulEias/ U7tN(�FY GROwa.K. R. • �i i�DROr 4v u m"R om Lo&f --40UA c.Ode expo 11W *c*WA x.i 161m t G[q'bmg ediD MW�IT ?D BMGWPAC�ti L*K�t,(i;ADO 6Ki{K*i ATI N MISSISSIPPI RIVER LIFT SSTATI N �H W, IK'Fl-�P. ` VlEvrr OF tai/ �aa 54" �+aa axa Ate rwm I?IHAtE�1��Srl�1(� ��� WhfN ivRWROUND PI.Nd(INmb 1f�lR 'THt, rmcq4cvr� NJ ulo'( =101 N *Wb ?p i�4w PIAM H&IC p. W11H GAHoPY imixt (ty 4Ef s�GIOoC) W VI I P 1 CIO �2BG�TIi CONCEPT SHEET 4 of 7 DATE, JANUAR„W,,98B . r LYNDALE AVENUE LANDSCAPE PLAN ? opoa, 53rd to 57th AVENUESo¢6a�¢� t � CITY OF um.cw. BROOKLYN CENTER, MN. L � . , ; '13 4a 4 MISSISSIPPI RIVER vNeurfaet '. tAN( Mh(k k9tz 'T. •�ov-- FxF � \\ r�e'rrr�vto Lawµ vFxq�t. LYNDALE AVE. hIMP" #• Of SIVH SuP"Kir NFVactI"'fl� • WAbL KM I1AAKWAY U V-T • IhfAl5L.ItpK 414Al-A4169 '(D JH& eo=ItaDIC • rKab & vlfWri Op fHfl f-4\)M • AE(Y • '(RO fl(, AND F*V*6 KWN •t;w4) tow-04A., ■MDWIMb �.. SHEET 3 of 7 DATE --- S JANUARY 10,1N95 R 6 REV.� LYNDALE AVENUE LANDSCAPE PLAN o ; ' 53rd to 57th AVENUES ® C� Do `� g �� CITY :!s- OF OKLYN BRO , , OC�QtQ� �+ CENTER, . f_ �� MkvgeppWl,kk 56419 701.8806 i � 59TH AVE. N. CO ONO 0 1 58TH AVE. N. AVE. N. A ., 57TH AVE. N. Z z a a CC a ZII ` 56TH AVE. N. Q Z aj1 w � -� 9 4 c� m all J11 V � 55TH AVE. N. BELLVUE PARK 54TH AVE.N. 53RD AVE. N. MAP OF PROJECT LOCATION—AND .- SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. Watermain Imp Project 1985-04 Street Imp Project" 1985-05 Sidewalk Imp roject 198 p 1 506 EXHIBIT A LYNDALE AVENUE WATER MAIN SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 1985 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RATE = $2,484 ( INCLUDES SERVICE LINE TO PROPERTY LINE) 1985' MULTI-FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL RATE $25 ,43/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% 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 SCHEDIJLE, OF- PAYMENTS FOR- SINGLE-F:AM-ILY- RESIDENCE ANNUAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT = $2 ,4.84 20 = $124.20/YEAR 1ST INTEREST PAYMENT (FOR AN ESTIMATED 15 MONTH PERIOD) $2,484 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 $14242 x .12 = $149.04 ESTIMATED TOTAL, 11TH PAYMENT $273.24 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 f 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 = $187.20 6TH INTEREST PAYMENT $450 x 12 = $54, 00 ESTIMATED TOTAL, 6TH PAYMENT = $144 .00 1OTH INTEREST PAYMENT $90 x ,12 = $10 .80 ESTIMATED TOTAL FINAL PAYMENT = $100 .80 • EXHIBIT B-2 LYNDALE AVENUE STREET ESTIMATED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS (CONTINUED) TYPICAL SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS FOR $1,200 TOTAL ASSESSMENT ANNUAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT = $1,200 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 10TH INTEREST PAYMENT $120 x ,12 - $14 .40 ESTIMATED TOTAL FINAL PAYMENT = $134 ,40 EXHIBIT C LYNDALE AVENUE STREET ASSESSMENT COMPARISON TOTAL ASSESSMENTS# (NOT 'INCLUDING DRIVEWAY COSTS) 1984 PROPOSAL 1955 PROPOSAL PARCEL (ADJUSTED TO UNDER PROPOSED NO. DESCRIPTION FOOTAGE 1985 RATES) POLICY CHANGE 1 MN/DOT PROPERTY TO BE SOLD FOR 147.0 $ 4j995 .06 $ 1,764 .00 DEVELOPMENT 2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS)* 77. 6 2,636.85 900 .00 3 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 78 .0(E) 2,650.44) DOUBLE FRONTAGE 78.0(W) 2,650,44)5300,80 900.00 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 *7 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 65.6 2,229.09 900 .00 8 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (S)## 194. 5 6,609 ,11 2,334 .00 9 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 10317(E) 3,523 73) DOUBLE FRONTAGE 103.7(2) 3,523.73)7047.46 900 . 00 10 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 62 .0(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 3,330.04 900.00 14 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 103. 7 3"-1'523'*.73 900'.00 15 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 103 .7 3,523.73 900 .00 16 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 100 . 6 3J418 ,39 900 . 00 17 MULTIPLE FAMILY STRUCTURE 103 .7 310523.73 1,244 .40 18 MULTIPLE FAMILY STRUCTURE 103. 7 31 523 .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 DRIVEWAY COSTS) • 1984 PROPOSAL 1985 PROPOSAL PARCEL (ADJUSTED TO UNDER PROPOSED NOS DESCRIPTION FOOTAGE 1985 RATES) POLIC CHANGE 19 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 103 , 72 3, 524 , 41 900.00 20 MULTIPLE FAMILY STRUCTURE 101.7 3 1, 220 , 40 21 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 62.0 2,106.76 900.00 22 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 78.72 2 900.00 23 MN /DOT PROPERTY TO BE 65 , 0 2,208.70 780 .00 SOLD FOR 103-3 7 3 523 , 73 1, 244. 40 DEVELOPMENT 103.7 ` 3 523.73 1, 244 , 40 PURPOSES 60.0 2, 038 80 720.00 24 UNDEVELOPABLE PARCEL - EASTS IDE 133.6(E) 4, 539 . 73 0 , 00 25 UNDEVELOPABLE PARCEL EASTSIDE 77."6(E) 2, 636 , 85 0.00 26 UNDEVELOPABLE PARCEL -EASTS IDE 78. 0 (E) 2, 650.44 , 0.00 7 UNDEVELOPABLE PARCEL -EASTS IDE 65.6(E) 2, 229.09 0.00 28 UNDEVELOPABLE PARCEL - EASTS IDE 65, 6 (E) 2'.J229.09 0.00 , 29 UNDEVELOPABLE PARCEL - EASTS IDE 194.5 (E) 6 609 ,11 0.00 30 UNDEVELOPABLE PARCEL -EASTS IDE 275. 94 (E) 9, 376 , 44 0.00 31 CITY PROPERTY 26.3 893.67 315.60 32 CITY PROPERTY 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 5,285 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, 524, 41 900.00 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 84'. 95 2,886 60 900.00 PAGE 2 LYNDALE AVENUE STREET ASSESSMENT COMPARISON TOTAL ASSESSMENTS* (NOT INCLUDING DRIVEWAY COSTS) 1984 PROPOSAL 1985 PROPOSAL PARCEL ADJUSTED TO UNDER PROPOSED N0. DESCR IPTION F O O TAGE 19$5 RATES) POLICY CHANGE 41 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (NS) 74.95 2 546.80 900.00 42 COMMERCIAL PROPERTY 215.42 7, 319 , 97 3,446.72 43 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 103.7 31 523 73 900.00 44 UNDEVELOPABLE MN/DOT PROPERTY 0.0 0.00 O , 00 PAGE 3 POLICY COMPARISON 1984 PROPOSAL (ADJUSTED TO 1985 RATES) ASSESSABLE No OF UNIT TOTAL UNI UNI RAT ASSE SSMENT FRONT FOOTAGE 4,847,37 $33,98 /FOOT $164,714 (ALL PROPERTIES) 1985 PROPOSAL (WITH PROPOSED NEW POLICY) ASS SSABLE 0. OF UNIT TOTAL 6 NIT . NITS R ATE ASS ESSMENT SINGLE- FAMILY PARCEL 25 $900 /EACH $22, 5OO (NOT SUBDIVIDABLE) FRONT FOOTAGE 1, 070'.47' $12 , 00 /FOOT# 12.#850* (ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES) FRONT FOOTAGE ' 215.42' $16.00 /FOOT 3J450 (COMMERCIALLY- USED PROPERTY, WITH ON-STREET PARKING PROVISIONS) TOTAL $38,800 * 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 OTAL PROJECT COST DISTRIBUTION THE FOLLOWING TABULATION SHOWS TOTAL COST DISTRIBUTION UNDER THE TWO PROPOSALS. SOUR 198 PROPOSAL 1985 P SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS $ 164,710 $ 38,800 CITY SHARE 117,500 307,730 TOTAL $ 282,210 $346,530# *N TOTAL COSTS FOR THE 1985 PROPOSAL INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS (NOT INCLUDED IN THE 1984 PROPOSAL) 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: January 29, 1985 SUBJECT: New On -Sale Wine and On- Sale 3.2 Beer License for Denny's Restaurant Denny's Restaurant notified us that they were having a major transference of stock during 1985. In accordance with our City Ordinance, we notified them that this would require a new license to be issued. In order for their sales to be continuous, they did go ahead and apply for a renewal of their old license for 1985. At this time the closing of the sale of stocks will be finalized and we have done a background investigation of the new board members and the manager for issuance of a new license Investigator Cathy Hennessy did a background including records checks of all of the individuals involved and found nothing of a criminal nature. The manager is the same one that has been there since 1978 and they have no plans to change the management policy under the new ownership. Also, they will keep the Denny's corporate name and there should be no signi- ficant changes in the operation. Based on this information, I would recommend that a new On -Sale Wine and On -Sale 3.2 Beer license be issued to Denny's, Inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. S plinter, p City Manager FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police�v� DATE: February 8, 1985 S�9JECT: Knights of Columbus, Council 6772, in Application for a Class B Gambling License Attached please find the completed police investigation of Council 6772 of the Knights of Columbus, Lawrence Anthony Stoner, Executive Officer and Gambling Manager, in application for a Class B gambling license. Investigator Monteen's resume lists nothing which would pre clude Council 6772, or Stoner, from receiving such a license. In addition to the application for a Class B amblin license g g the Knights of Columbus have requested a waiver of the fidelity bond as provided in the City Ordinance. Also, the Knights did pay their seventy-five dollar ($75.00) fee in advance. Because of the State Statute change which grants authority for gambling licenses to the State as of March 1, 1985, this license will expire on February 28, 1985. This means that the license will only be in existance for approximately three weeks. We did check with the Knights of Columbus Executive Officer and Gambling Manager to see if they had an event scheduled in February or if they could wait until March 1. He did inform us that they do have an event scheduled in February and would require a license. I am recommending that because of the short term, the seventy- five dollar ($75.00) fee be returned to them. The City Council must act on the following three matters: 1. An application for a Class B gambling license. This requires a majority vote of the City Council to pass. 2. The waiver of the $10,000 fidelity bond. This requires the unanimous vote of the City Council to pass. 3. Return of - the seventy -five dollar ($75.00) fee. Resume by A. Paul MONTEEN Case File #85 -01982 Page 2 According to the application for a Gambling License, Part III, the Or- ganizational Information, Father Donald SCHUMAKER, Council 6772, Knight's of Columbus, was incorporated on February 29, 1976, and has a current membership of approximately 350. Lawrence Anthony STONER is listed in the application as an Officer and Gambling Manager for the Council. Mr. STONER is an employee of the Gresen Manufacturing Company located at 6000 Hoover Avenue Northeast. Mr. STONER has been so employed since April of 1963 and has worked his way up to a middle management position with the company.. Mr. STONER and his wife reside at 6517 75h Avenue in Brooklyn Park and have lived there since 1973. In checking with the Brooklyn Park Police Depart- ment, Investigator Monteen can find no criminal history in the name of Lawrence E_ithony STONER. Brooklyn Park did indicate, however, that he reported a ' from his automobile in 1978. The records c,' the Hennepin County Sheriff's Warrant Division and Jail Records have n,2 record in the name of Lawrence Anthony STONER. Like- wise, STONER is clear with NCIC and MINCIS files. STONER has no record with the Brooklyn Center Police Department other than his activities with the Knight's of Columbus. STONER holds a VALID, Class C driver's license which indicates no violations. During the course of the year, the Knights's of Columbus hold two (2) major fund raising drives and participates in the St. Alphonsus Fun Fair operating games of skill and chance. The dispersement of the funds go to various benevolent causes of the Knight'.s of Columbus in- cluding Youth Sports, scholastic scholarships and functions of the church school. During the years 1979 through 1984, the Knight's of Columbus have made application for and received a Class B Gambling Lic- ense from the City of Brooklyn Center. It should be noted that the Knight's of Columbus have complied with the reporting requirements of the City Ordinance and�State Statute. In addition to the application for a Class B Gambling License, the Knight's of Columbus have made application for a waiver of the $10,000 fidelity bond as required by the City Ordinance. Investigator MONTEEN finds nothing which would preclude Council 6772 of the Knight's of Columbus nor Lawrence Anthony STONER from receiving a Gambling License as applied for. The City Council must act on the following two (2) matters: , The application for a Class B Gambling License which requires a majority vote of the City Council to pass. Secondly, a waiver of the $10,000 fidelity bond which requires the unanimous vote of the City Council to pass. The following is a resume of the investigation of the Brooklyn Center Police Department case file 85- 01982, the application of Council 6772 of the Knight's of Columbus for a Class B Gambling License as issued by the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota. This in- vestigation has been conducted by A. Paul Monteen and this resume is transcribed and typewritten by Pat Swanson, clerk /typist, for the Brooklyn Center Police Department. APPLICANT Father Donald SCHUMAKER, Council 6772 Knight's of Columbus 7025 Halifax Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Telephone: 561 -5100 Lawrence Anthony STONER Executive Officer and Gambling Manager 6517 75 Avenue North Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 Telephone: 561 -4315 INVESTIGATION MATERIALS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FILE An application for a Gambling License. An application for a Gambling License, Part 2, in the name of Lawrence Anthony STONER. An application for a Gambling License, Part 3, organizational in- formation. A letter requesting waiver of a $10,000 fidelity bond. Father Donald SCHUMAKER, Council 6772, Knight's of Columbus, is operated under the auspices of the Knight's of Columbus and is located at St. Alphonsus Catholic Church, 7025 Halifax Avneue North, Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota. This property is the outright possession of St. Alphonsus Catholic Church and is available to the Knight's of Col- umbus on a regular basis for any and all of their functions. The Council is operated under the auspices of its elected officials as follows: A Grand Knight, Deputy Grand Knight, Chancellor, Recorder, Treasurer, Ad- vocate, Warden, Inside and Outside Guard, as well as a Board of Trustees. These officers are elected by the popular vote of the membership in good standing who have been initiated into the first three (3) degrees of the order. According to the Treasury Department, the Knight's of Columbus operates as a bonafide religious fraternal organization and is, therefore, exempt from filing Form 990 or 990T. Likewise, the State of Minnesota Commerce Department recognizes that a bonafide religious organization of this nature is not required to file an annual charities report under Section 309.53 of the State Statutes. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on February 11, 1985 BULK VENDING LICENSE / Brooklyn Center Lions 7131 Knox Ave. �/� K -Mart 3600 63rd Ave. N. ). Sanitarian �p ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Orchard Lane 6201 Noble Ave. N. Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Air Conditioning Associates 689 Pierce Butler Rte. Anderson Mechanical 3551 Emerson Ave. N. Buildi49 Official NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE A & J Enterprises 6843 Washington Ave. S. Ault 1600 Freeway Blvd Bob Ryan Oldsmobile 6700 Brooklyn Blvd. ARA Services 2830 N. Fairview Northwestern Bell 5910 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Open Systems 2700 Freeway Blvd. Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. Bond Tool & Die Company 6840 SHingle Cr. Pkwy. Canteen Company 6200 Penn Ave. S. FMC 1800 Freeway Blvd. Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. MTC 6845 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Medtronics 6700 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Cook Paint 4800 N. Lilac Drive D.L. - Service Co. 2516 83rd Ave. N. Lowell's Auto 6211 Brooklyn Blvd. Dale Tile Co. 4825 France Ave. N. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Interstate United Corporation 1091 Pierce Butler Rte. Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N. State Farm 5930 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Iten Leasing 4301 68th Ave. N. Jimmy Jingle, Inc. 1304 E. Lake St. Johnson Control 1801 67th Ave. N. K -Mart 3600 63rd Ave. N. Malmborg's Inc. 5120 N. Lilac Dr. Midwest Screw 3501 48th Ave. N. Pilgrim Dry Cleaners, Inc. 5748 Morgan Ave. N. Servomation 7490 Central Ave. NE Dayton's Brookdale Center Donaldson's Brookdale Center Graco 6820 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Onan Tech Center Theisen Vending 3804 Nicollet Ave. Thrifty Scot 6445 James Circle Bill West Union 76 2000 57th Ave. N. Twin Lake North Apts. 4539 58th Ave. N. Sanitarian PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE A & J Enterprises 6843 Washington Ave. S. Ault Inc. 1600 Freeway Blvd. Bob Ryan Oldsmobile 6700 Brooklyn Blvd. ARA Services 2830 N. Fairview Northwestern Bell 5910 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Canteen Company 6300 Penn Ave. S. FMC 1800 Freeway Blvd. Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. MTC 6845 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Medtronics 6700 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Interstate United Corporation 1091 Pierce Butler Rte. Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N. State Farm 5930 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Servomation 7490 Central Ave. NE Dayton's Brookdale Center Donaldson's Brookdale Center Graco 6820 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Onan Tech Center 4.4 Sanitarian FV READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE American Bakeries Co. 4215 69th Ave. N. Sanitarian SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING LICENSE Fun Services, Inca 3701 50th Ave. N. European Health Spa 2920 County Rd. 10 Gift Shop Too 1501 Freeway Blvd. Ideal Drug Store 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. Snyder Brothers Brookdale Center Total Petroleum Inc. 6830 Brooklyn Blvd. .r�►_- Sanitarian GENERAL APPROVAL: era d G. alinter, City Clerk