The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1985 06-10 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JUNE 10, 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 - May 20, 1985 - Regular Session *7. Performance Bond Reduction: a. The Pond's, Plat 5; 72nd Circle and Unity Avenue North *8. Final Plat: 7100 Corporate Plaza (Planning Commission Application No. 85012) -This plat provides for the combination of the various parcels which + comprised the former city hall site along Brooklyn Boulevard. 9• Resolutions: *a. Recognizing the Achievement of Mary Rebecca Vonderharr *b. Recognizing the Achievement of Bill Donelson c. Calling a Public Hearing on the Establishment of a Redevelopment Project and a Tax Increment Financing District d. Establishing the Date for a Public Hearing on a Proposed Housing Program Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, and Authorizing Publication of Notice Therefor -This item sets a public hearing for a multifamily housing bond on Brookwood Condominiums. *e. Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for One 14' Step Van f. Authorizing the Execution of a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Crystal . g. Authorizing the Transfer of Funds from the Contingency Fund to the Playground Program *h. Accepting Work under Contract 1984 -B (Lift Station Improvement Project No. 1983 -09) -This project provided for construction of emergency power transfer cabinets (including the installation of alarm telemetry units) to provide auxiliary power to eight of the City's nine lift stations. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2 June 10, 1985 *i. Establishing West Palmer Lake Park Trail Improvement Project No. 1985 -18 and Accepting Proposal for Construction Thereof -This project provides for construction of a trail connection between the City's regional trail system and the West Palmer Lake Park parking lot. It is recommended that the proposal of Shafer Contracting Company, Inc. in the amount of $5,650 be accepted. *j. Establishing Central Park Plaza Improvement Project No. 1984 -10, Phase II and Accepting Proposal for Construction Thereof -This project provides for installation of a manual sprinkling system for maintenance of annual planting beds in the plaza area. *k. Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with Short - Elliott - Hendrickson, Inc. for the design of Traffic Control Signal Systems on Shingle Creek Parkway at John Martin Drive and at Summit Avenue *1. Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into an Agrement with Orr- Schelen- Mayeron and Associates, Inc. for the Design of a Water Utility Control System 10. Ordinances: (7 :30 p.m.) a. An Ordinance Vacating Irving Avenue North as Platted within the Hellsted Addition -This ordinance is offered for a first reading and provides for vacation of a platted, but never - developed 30 foot wide street right - of -way, i.e. Irving Avenue North from 69th Avenue North to its dead end approximately 490 feet south of 69th Avenue North. b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances Regarding Liquor Licenses -This ordinance was first read on May 6, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on May 16, 1985, and is offered this evening for a second reading. The ordinance provides an additional class of liquor license (Class D) to the ordinance. The ordinance also addresses miscellaneous housekeeping changes and corrections to the City liquor ordinance. C. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances Regarding On- Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Fees -This ordinance was first read on May 6, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on May 16, 1985, and is offered this evening for a second reading. This ordinance establishes the license fee for the Class D liquor license. d. An Ordinance Amending the City Ordinance Relating to the Regulating, the Operating, Parking, Storing, Repairing, Servicing, and Maintaining of Vehicles -This ordinance was first read on May 6, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on May 16, 1985, and is offered this evening for a second reading. This ordinance addresses the issue of vehicles stored on private property which had been previously classified as junk vehicles. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- June 10, 1985 11. Planning Commission Items: (7:45 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 85014 submitted by Silver Lake Leasing, requesting special use permit approval to operate a car leasing office in the commercial building at 4315 70th Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 85014 at its May 23, 1985 meeting. 12. Public Hearings (8:00 p.m.) a. Ewing Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -10 - Notice of the hearing has been published in the official newspaper and all affected property owners have received written notice of the hearing. 1. Resolution Acting upon Ewing Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -10 (Alternate resolutions either approving this project or terminating these proceedings are provided for consideration by the City Council) b. Drew Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -11 - Notice of the hearing as been published in the official newspaper g p c and all affected property owners have received written notice of the hearing. 1. Resolution Acting upon Drew Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -11 (Alternate resolutions either approving this project or terminating these proceedings are provided for consideration by the City Council) c. Dallas Road Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -12 - Notice of the hearing has been published in the official newspaper and all affected property owners have received written notice of the hearing. 1. Resolution Acting upon Dallas Road Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -12 (Alternate resolutions either approving this project or terminating these proceedings are provided for consideration by the City Council) d. Wingard Lane Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -13 - Notice of the hearing has been published in the official newspaper and all affected property owners have received written notice of the hearing. 1. Resolution Acting upon Wingard Lane Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -13 F CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- June 10, 1985 (Alternate resolutions either approving this project or terminating these proceedings are provided for consideration by the City Council.) Note: This public rearing has been called to receive input from affected property owners. No special assessment levy is proposed for this project. e. 65th Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -14 - Notice of the hearing has been published in the official newspaper and all affected property owners have received written notice of the hearing.- 1. Resolution Acting upon 65th Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -14 (Alternate resolutions either approving this project or terminating these proceedings are provided for consideration by the City Council.) 13. Discussion Items: a. Civil Defense Warning Sirens Proposals -The staff will be prepared to discuss the alternatives available for installation of civil defense warning sirens. 1. Resolution Authorizing Transfer of Funds from the Contingency Fund to Emergency Preparedness Capital Outlay b. Proposed Municipal Golf Course Cost Analysis and Financing Plan -The staff will be prepared to discuss this item at the meeting. *14. Licenses 15. Adjournment M 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 MAY 20, 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 an Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, and Administrative Assistant Brad Hoffman. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Rich Theis. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the Open Forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any of the Councilmembers requested any items removed from the Consent Agenda. None of the Councilmembers requested any items removed from the Consent Agenda and the Mayor continued with the regular agenda items. Mayor Nyquist introduced the next agenda item recognizing Dr. Duane Orn for services on the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission. Mayor Nyquist presented a plaque to Dr. Orn and expressed the City's gratitude for his service. Dr. Orn thanked the Council and indicated that while he was resigning from the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, that he would still be active in other capacities serving the community. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 6, 1985 There was 'a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of May 5, 1985 as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 85 -81 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION, RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING 65TH AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -14, AND CALLING FOR A HEARING THEREON 5 -20 -85 -1- v The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -82 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING JUNE 26 THROUGH 30 AS BROOKLYN CENTER EARLE BRO4m DAYS 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. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -83 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DISPATCH AND USE OF CITY EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES BY CITY MANAGER IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS 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. 0 PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS The City Manager introduced the next agenda item that being the Traffic Moratorium Study. He briefly reviewed the study and indicated that it was a staff recommendation that the moratorium not be extended. He also suggested that, in light of the findings of the study, the staff be directed to refrain from issuing special use permits in industrial and commercial zones without a traffic analysis of the proposed use and that the staff be directed to review the special use permit section of the zoning ordinance for possible modification. Following the City Manager's presentation, Councilmember Theis inquired if such traffic analysis would be done in- house. The City Manager provided that such analysis would not done in -house but rather be done by an outside consulting agency. He also indicated that those requesting special use permit would be required to pay for the traffic analysis. He estimated that such analysis would run between $500 and $1,000. A brief discussion then ensued relative to the study. Councilmember Lhotka made a motion and seconded by Councilmember Scott directing the staff to research possible modifications of the zoning ordinance relative to special use permits and that the Engineering Department pursue and study recommended traffic signalization within the traffic study area. Voting for the motion: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NOS. 85001 AND 85003 SUBMITTED BY RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR A SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR SHINGLE CREEK CENTER -' 0 5 -20 -85 -2- The City Manager pointed out that both planning commission items were reviewed and approval was recommended by the Planning Commission at their February 14, 1985 meeting. He also indicated that Planning Commission No. 85002 submitted by Ryan Construction for an auto service center at the proposed Target Center had been withdrawn. The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Councilmembers pages one through five of the minutes of the February 14, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. He noted that Planning Commission Application No. 85001 was a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 105,000 sq. ft. Target Store and a 34,160 sq. ft. attached retail center on land east of Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin Drive and Summit Drive. The Secretary then reviewed details of the site plan that had been negotiated with Target and Ryan Construction Company. He also reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 85003 submitted by Ryan Construction for preliminary plat approval to combine six lots and resubdivide into two of the land east of Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin and Summit Drive. The Planning Director noted that Application No. 85001 had been recommended contingent upon 17 conditions as noted in the minutes and that Application No. 85003 had been recommended by the Planning Commission contingent on six conditions. The Director read those conditions from the minutes of the February 14th Planning Commission meeting. Following the Planning Director's presentation, Mayor Nyquist called a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 85003 to order. There being no public comment, there was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the Application No. 85001 subject to the following conditions: I. Plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of building permits. 3• A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 5 -20 -85 -? -- 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas, including parking lot islands. 9. The replat of the property shall receive final approval by the City Council and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. Plan approval excludes the restaurant portion of the project which is subject to future review and approval. 11. An outside storage in the garden center area shall be effectively screened from view by an opaque masonry wall. Excepted from this condition are the tops of tree seedlings. However, no packaged merchandise shall be visible from outside the garden center. There shall be no outside storage of semitrailers on the site with the exception of trailers parked at the loading docks. 12. Plan approval acknowledges a proof -of- parking which meets the minimum requirement of the City Ordinances for 880 spaces. The applicant (Target and Ryan Construction) shall acknowledge in writing that, if the City deems it necessary, they shall install parking as required by City Ordinances (up to 880 spaces). 13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to install all on- site traffic control signs as approved by the Director of Public Works. 14. The landscape plan shall be modified prior to the issuance of building permits, to include or acknowledge the following: a. The relocation of shrubs for the island areas to other appropriate locations on the site. b. Additional shade trees at the southeast portion of the site in the greenstrip between the LaBelle's property and the proposed shopping center. 15. That exterior modifications to the Target building, such as rounded corners, be included on the site plan prior to issuance of building permits. 16. The applicant is encouraged to continue negotiations with LaBelle's for the purpose of providing a common loading area. Voting for the motion: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against the same: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Planning Application No. 85003 subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 5 -20 -85 -4- 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3• The plat shall be modified to include sidewalk easements in accordance with the recommendations of the Director of Public Works. 4. The applicant shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the City stipulating responsibility for and assessment of costs for certain improvements to public facilities within the public right -of -way, including, but not limited to: a. potential installation of traffic signals at John Martin Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway and at Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive. b. installation of deceleration lanes serving accesses on Shingle Creek Parkway and on Summit Drive. c. relocation of public sidewalks as necessary. 5. The applicant shall execute cross easements for access and parking between Lots 1 and 2 prior to final approval by the City Council. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to give final approval to Shingle Creek Center plat Planning Commission Application No. 85003• Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -84 Member Rich is introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR SHINGLE CREEK CENTER 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 Director of Planning & Inspection introduced the next agenda item, Planning Commission Application No. 85010 submitted by Lawn Weum for special use permit approval to operate a nursery school in the basement of the Brooklyn United Methodist Church at 7200 Brooklyn Boulevard. He noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Commission Application No. 85010 at its May 9, 1985 meeting. The Director of Planning then reviewed pages one and two of the May 9 Planning Commission meeting. He noted that the proposal was in actuality a continuation of an operation which has existed for the last ten years and 5 -20 -85 -5- represented a change in ownership. The Planning Commission recommended approval subject to six conditions. Mayor Nyquist then called a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 85010. There being no public comment, a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Planning Commission Application No. 85010 subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. The hours of operation shall be: 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday and 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., Friday. 4. The applicant shall submit a current copy of her state operator's license to be kept on file at the City offices prior to issuance of the special use permit. 5. Permit approval acknowledges 30 parking spaces to the rear of the church as adequate for handling traffic of parents dropping off and picking up children at the nursery school. 6. The permit is subject to compliance with orders of the Building Inspector and the Fire Marshal. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 85011 and Planning Commission Application No. 85012 submitted by Uhde /Nelson, Inc. for site and building plan and special use permit approval and preliminary plat approval on the old City Hall property at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard respectively. The Planning Director then reviewed pages three through seven of the May 9, 1985 minutes. He noted the Planning Commission commented on the computability of various proposed office developments with the comprehensive plan recommendations for that area of the boulevard. He also noted that the neighbors in the area commented when the old City Hall building burned down by stating their preference for an office development. He explained that the property was sold to Uhde /Nelson, Inc. on the basis of the concept for the office development. The Secretary then reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 85012, a request for a preliminary plat approval and to a single lot for the parcels of land that made up the old City Hall site at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard. He noted that a boundary discrepancy had been indicated, although, such discrepancies were not uncommon when platting property. He suggested that the proposed plat be reviewed by the County land surveyor and possibly commented on by the City Attorney. Following the Secretary's presentation, Mayor Nyquist called a public hearing on 5 -20 -85 -6- Planning Commission Application No. 85011. There being no public comment, there was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Planning Commission Application No. 85011 subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3• Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of building permits. Specifically, the applicant should comply with the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of May 2, 1985 to the Director of Planning and Inspection and other conditions as imposed by the City Engineer. 4. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 7. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 8. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 9. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided - )und all parking and driving areas. 10. The plat for the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to issuance of building permits. 11. Plan approval acknowledges the existing cedar hedge along the north and east property lines as providing appropriate screening from neighboring residential uses as required by City ordinance. If this landscape screening fails, it shall be replaced by comparable landscaping or by a minimum 4' high opaque fence. The cedar hedge shall be extended westward to completely screen the residences to the north from all parking on the subject property. 5 -20 -85 -7- 12. Absent change in the utility plans acceptable to the City Engineer, the applicant shall provide the City with a copy of a utility easement over the neighboring Boulevard Plaza property prior to the issuance of building permits. 13• The applicant shall provide a $1,000 cash guarantee to insure proper and timely replacement of the sidewalk along Brooklyn Boulevard. 14. Utility "as- built" information shall be provided to the City prior to release of the performance guarantee cited in Condition No. 4. 15. The applicant shall enter into a standard utility maintenance agreement prior to the issuance of building permits. 16. The site and building plans shall be certified by a registered architect prior to the issuance of building permits. 17. Plan approval acknowledges phased development of the property. If construction does not begin within one year of initiation of the project, the second phase area shall be graded and seeded and permanent improvements shall be deferred for a period of up to three years. The bond for the project shall not be released until all permanent improvements have been installed. 18. Approval of the second building is subject to further review and approval of the building plans. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist then called a public hearing together on Planning Commission Application No. 85012. There being no public comment, there was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to close the public hearing on Planning Commission No. 85012. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council-members Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Planning Commission Application No. 85012 subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The preliminary plat shall be modified in accordance with the City Engineer's memo of May 2, 1985• 4. The plat shall be subject to approval by the Hennepin County land surveyor with respect to the proper location of property monuments. 5 -20 -85 -8- 5. The City Attorney shall submit an opinion as to the validity of the plat surveyor's practices in locating property corners prior to final plat approval. 6. The final plat shall be approved by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County prior to the issuance of building permits for the building proposed under Planning Commission Application No. 85011. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager then introduced Planning Commission Application No. 85013 submitted by Uhde /Nelson, Inc. for site and building plan approval to construct a two -story office building on the vacant parcel of land between the Girl Scout offices and the Brooklyn Law Center building in the 5600 block of Brooklyn Boulevard. He noted the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application at its May 9, 1985 meeting. The Planning Director then reviewed the minutes of the May 9 Planning Commission meeting, specifically pages one and two. He noted the proposed office building was a two -story 8,900 sq. ft. office building. He specifically noted that the access to the site would be from the Brooklyn Boulevard frontage road. He noted that because the site fronts on a service road, are the normal 35' and 15' respectively, rather than the greater requirements for developments adjacent to a major thoroughfare (50'setback and 35' setback). He then reviewed the ordinance change with the Council that made such setbacks possible. A general discussion then ensued relative to the setbacks of the building relative to the adjacent buildings. The Planning Director reviewed the drawing illustrating the setback lines for the proposed building. Councilmember Lhotka requested opportunity to review the plans. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Planning Commission Application No. 85013 subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 5 -20 -85 -9- 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The site and building plans shall be certified by a registered architect prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. Plan approval acknowledges proof -of- parking for one parallel stall west of the building. The applicant shall agree in writing to install this additional space upon a determination by the City that insufficient parking exists on the site. 11. The building will be situated on the site so as to minimize the setback difference with the adjacent buildings. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The City Council recessed from 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:21 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS EXIT RAMP BETWEEN I -694 TO T.H. 252 The City Manager introduced the first discussion item calling for a redesign of the exit ramp for westbound traffic on I -694 to T. H. 252. The City Engineer reviewed the proposed design noting that there is currently a conflict with people exiting I- 694 to T. H. 252 and then taking a left turn onto 66th Avenue North. He noted that the distance is too short and that it was a hazardous move. He then displayed a redesign that appeared to solve the problem. He noted that it would require the acquisition of right -of -away involving several parcels east of T. H. 252 and south of 66th Avenue North. He noted that the highway department would be willing to include the change but would require the City to acquire the property in question and provide for part of the cost of the construction. Councilmember Lhotka indicated his displeasure with MN /DOT indicating that he felt that the City had given the highway department ample time and opportunity to design such an interchange. He indicated he felt that the City was again getting the short end of the stick from MN /DOT. The Director of Public Works concurred with Councilmember Lhotka, and noted that MN /DOT did not have the funds for the project and that the timing was too short to go through their process to acquire necessary funds. He also noted that MN /DOT had been informed of the problem over two years ago and was not just now responding to the problem. Following the general discussion of the concept, there was a consensus of the Council that staff be directed to pursue feasibility of the project and report back to the Council. 5 -20 -85 -10- RECOMMENDATION NOT TO PURCHASE UMBRELLA INSURANCE POLICY The City Manager introduced the next agenda item by indicating that it was staff recommendation that the City not purchase Umbrella Insurance Policy. The Director of Finance reviewed the current situation relative to general liability and property coverages concurred by the City. He noted that our current carrier for the Umbrella coverage, Integrity Insurance Company, has notified us that they will not renew our Umbrella coverage as of May 19, 1985. Now we are currently paying an annual remium of p $10,000 for five million dollars insurance coverage all Ci Y risks. He noted that our insurance agent has tried to place our coverage with other companies but to date had not been successful. We received one proposal that would provide one million dollars in coverage for $45,000. It was the opinion of the Finance Director that the potential liability did not warrant the excessive cost of the insurance. The Finance Director recommended that the Council not purchase additional insurance. Following a general discussion, there was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to not approve the purchase of additional Umbrella Insurance. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT The City Manager introduced the next agenda item indicating that the proposed Joint Powers Agreement before the Council would provide for transportation service for the seniors age 60 and up. For the most part, the service would be a variable fixed route. In the beginning people will be transported from known areas of high senior concentration such as apartment complexes, to recreation activities, congregate dining and shopping areas. The City Manager noted that the City would have the opportunity to opt out of the program at the end of each year. Councilmember Theis inquired as to the type of report the City would get back. The City Manager indicated that the City of New Hope is taking the lead and that the City would receive information relative to the usage, cost and number of people using the service of people. He also indicated there would be some opportunity to design the report as needed by the City. Councilmember Theis inquired if such a report would be available prior to the six budget meetings. The City Manager indicated that information would not be available because the system would not be up and running at that point in time. Following a general discussion, there was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the proposed Joint Powers Agreement. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the following list of licenses: CATERING FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE Bridgeman's 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. CIGARETTE LICENSE Video Review 5810 Xerxes Ave. N. 5 -20 -85 -11- FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE $ridgeman's Brookdale Center B. C. American Little League 6800 France Ave. N. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops Brookdale Center Good Earth Restaurant Westbrook Mall Hickory Farms Brookdale Center 1 Potato 2 Brookdale Center Perkins Cake & Steak 5915 John Martin Dr. Rocky Rococo Brookdale Center T. J. Applebee's Brookdale Center Uncle Bob's Quick 6 6600 West River Road MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Hayes Contractor's Inc. 1010 Currie Ave. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Coca Cola Bottling 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd. Ganto's Brookdale Center Royal Crown Beverage Co. P.O. Box 43466 American Bakeries 4215 69th Ave. Ansari Abrasives 4811 Dusharme Dr. Denne's Market 6912 Brooklyn Blvd. Eye Works 5900 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. Industrial Metal Fab. 2255 49th Ave. N. Kruger Galleries 6045 Brooklyn Blvd. Lutheran Church of the Master 1200 69th Ave. N. Marksman Metal 6801 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Northport Elementary 5421 Brooklyn Blvd. North Star Dodge 6800 Brooklyn Blvd. g y Poly Optics 6800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Red Owl Country Store 3600 63rd Ave. N. Twin City Hose 2700 Freeway Blvd. RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Renewal: Anna May Turnacliff 6507 Ewing Ave. N. Mike Sonnack 6637 Humboldt Ave. N. Jerry Fischer 4700, 04 Lakeview Ave. Tracy Rice 6907 Morgan Ave. N. Lawrence R. Florian 857, 861 70th Ave. N. Robert W. Rode 869 70th Ave. N. S. Richard Silverness 873, 877 70th Ave. N. James R. Hokanson 881, 885 70th Ave. N. SWIMMING POOL LICENSE Lyn River Apartments 201 65th Ave. N. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to 5 -20 -85 -12- adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection FROM: Gary Shallcross, Planner RE: Performance Guarantee DATE: June 5, 1985 The following performance guarantee is recommended for reduction as specified: 1. The Ponds, Plat 5 72nd Circle and Unity Avenue North Planning Commission Application No. 79031 Amount of Guarantee: $50,000.00 Obligor: Meadow Corporation Utilities, private streets and curbing have been completed for some time. A dam to control water elevation in the Ponds development has been completed. The landscaping is about 80% complete and appears viable. Recommend reducing bond from $50,000.00 to $10,000.00. Approv by � Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection TO: Sy Knapp, S Director of Public Works • FROM: Jim Grube, City Engineer DATE: June 6, 1985 RE: Final Plat - 7100 Corporate Plaza (Planning Commission Application No. 85012) Mr. Dave Nelson, of Uhde /Nelson, Inc. has petitioned the City council to approve the final plat of 7100 Corporate Plaza, the combination of the various parcels which comprised the former City Hall site along Brooklyn Boulevard. Conditions placed on the plat by the City Council at its May 20, 1985, meeting include: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The preliminary plat shall be modified in accordance with the City Engineer's memo of May 2, 1985. 4. The plat shall be subject to approval by the Hennepin County land surveyor with respect to the proper location of property monuments. 5. The City Attorney shall submit an opinion as to the validity of the plat surveyor's practices in locating property corners prior to final plat approval. 6. The final plat shall be approved by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County prior to the issuance of building permits for the building proposed under Planning Commission Application No. 85011. The developer has met the conditions stated above, and in addition staff has reviewed conditions 4 and 5 with the County Surveyor's office and City Attorney's office. Both conditions relate to an apparent error in field measurement committed in the platting of abutting properties in 1956 and 1957. As a result of the field measurement error, the properties abutting properties lying northerly of the site appear to have encroached upon the site between 0 and 6 inches. The County Surveyor's office has assured the staff that the documentation (i.e. existing legal descriptions, etc.) is correct, but that the field measurement was in error. The County has recommended, and staff concurs, that the property be platted in accordance with the legal description of record. In so doing, the developer's surveyor may complete the platting subject to final review and approval of the County Surveyor. Such review and approval is the sole responsibility of the County Surveyor. June 6, 1985 - 7100 Corporate Center Page 2 In consideration of the above, staff recommends that the final plat of 7100 Corporate Center be approved contingent upon receipt of a title opinion of the City Attorney to confirm the appropriate parties responsible to sign the plat, and modification of condition 6 above as follows: "The final plat shall be approved by the County Surveyor and filed by Hennepin County prior to issuance of building permits for the building proposed under Planning Commission Application No. 85011." Respectfully submitted, Jim Grube City Engineer JNG : j n 71®0 CORPORATE PLAZA, rop e � /nv. BS TaP B4 f.B5 -.. , ti: � \ — S(o I.00 - ' — — �• _ i wd� 8b� d•m �� L..T J J Q� 7�O / 0 BO Q Te.6 O _F6nlcc � Carla ^5 ' C o � O �O ON �.�- ` -' -- - —_ —_f 'e•°,t1 .,G^ ak _ �q) . 3910 Nor � u � No.57 /ne of'Lof4AudSub tsj� '•o6 =Fs,v� 1 N Sov /hegst \ W SW Corn r of {/e x Y4 \� W Co nErL�f 7 so, x p ✓i ✓c / / Q NW oog,{� .IWYq. _ 0 1 � WES i..• �A Z GNE' A3 MONVMENT�cp /,y 1 PLAZl 1 Ub 3 Pte• 6 � - �!E MES INC. o �_os' SW CoRNEq Ma.•f. NO/PN!€5` `K � 03c -' r � Z `• is i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF MARY REBECCA VONDERHARR WHEREAS, over a four and one -half year period, Mary Rebecca Vonderharr, 8225 June Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, has swam 500 miles in the Brooklyn Center pool; and WHEREAS, this achievement reflects the dedication, skill and persever- ance, of Ms. Vonderharr; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that the City Council recognizes her accomplishment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the achievement of Mary Rebecca Vonderharr is recognized and she is hereby congratulated by the Brooklyn Center City Council. I 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. b Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF BILL DONELSON WHEREAS, over a four and one -half year period, Bill Donelson, 11159 - 73rd Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, has swam 500 miles in the Brooklyn Center pool; and WHEREAS, this achievement reflects the dedication, skill and persever- ance_of Mr. Donelson; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that the City Council recognizes his accomplishment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the achievement of Bill Donelson is recognized and he is hereby congratulated by the Brooklyn Center City Council. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO.' RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.411, et seq. to establish a Redevelopment Project in the City to provide an impetus for new development, and the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71 to 273.78, inclusive, to establish a Tax Increment Financing District; and WHEREAS, the City Council has investigated the facts and has determined that it is necessary and desirable to the economic development of the City of Brooklyn Center to establish a Redevelopment Project and a Tax Increment Financing District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A Redevelopment Project Plan and a Tax Increment Financing Plan shall be prepared. 2. The Tax Increment Financing Plan shall be referred to Independent School District No. 286 and Hennepin County for 4 1 review and comment. 3. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing on the establishment of the Redevelopment Project and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan at 7:30 p.m. on July 8, 1985, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of the hearing in the official newspaper at least 10 but not less than 30 days prior to July 8th. 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. [DRAFT] NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center will meet in the City Hall in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, at 7:30 p.m. on July 8, 1985 to conduct a public hearing on the adoption of a Redevelopment Project Plan and on the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan by the City. The boundaries of the proposed Redevelopment Project are described generally as follows: (Insert here general boundaries by street name or other easily recognizable features.) The boundaries of the proposed Tax Increment Financing District are described generally as follows: (Insert here general boundaries by street name or other easily recognizable features.) Legal descriptions of the boundaries of the Project and District are contained in the Redevelopment Project Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan, draft copies of which are available for public inspection at the office of the City Clerk. Any person wishing to express a view or opinion on the matters to be considered at the public hearing will be heard orally or in writing. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL City Clerk City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota DATED: � t EARLE BROWN FARM REDEVELOPMENT PLAN STATUTORY AUTHORITY The statutory authority for the activities proposed in the Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment Plan is conferred upon the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) by the Minnesota Housing and Redevelopment Authority Act, M.S. 462.411. More specifically, M.S. 462.515 establishes the requirement that a redevelopment plan be prepared by an HRA prior to undertaking property acquisition, relocation, and redevelopment. LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND MAP OF THE PROJECT AREA The Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment Area is illustrated by Figure 1. The Property Identification Numbers of the parcels contained within the Project area are as follows: 02- 118 -21 -11 -0001 02- 118 -21 -21 -0003 0002 35- 119 -21 -43 -0002 02- 118 -21 -12 -0001 0004 0002 0005 0003 0006 0004 0007 0005 35- 119 -21 -44 -0001 0006 0007 0007 Beginning at the Northwest corner of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1300, thence North 50 degrees 26 minutes 13 seconds West along the Westerly extension of the Southerly right of way line of John Martin Drive to its intersection with the Westerly right of way line of Shingle Creek Parkway, thence Northeasterly along said Westerly right of way line to a point of intersection with the Westerly extension of the Northerly boundary line of Lot 1, Block 2, Brookdale Corporate Center, thence Easterly along waid extension of said Northerly boundary line of said Lot 1, Block 2 to the Northeast corner of said Lot 1, Block 2, thence South 87 degrees 14 minutes 38 seconds East a distance of 704.75 feet, thence South 4 degrees 05 minutes 50 seconds West a distance of 16.90 feet to the Northerly right of way line of Earle Brown Drive, thence Southerly and Westerly along the Easterly and Southerly right of way line of said Earle Brown Drive, extended across Summit Avenue North, continuing and to the most Westerly corner of Tract M, Registered Land Survey No. 1325, thence continuing Southwesterly along the extension of said right of way line of said Earle Brown Drive to the Southwesterly right of way line of John Martin Drive, thence Northwesterly along said right of way line of said John Martin Drive to the point of beginning. -1- - FIGURE I %CENTRAL � PARK CENTER CITY I T Y \ \k HALL 4 W Y � � SUMMIT o 07 < i /i !' \ HENN. O.LIBRARYQ D 4 3536 GOVT SERV.CENTE Z 2'1 2 E C GRANDVIEW B PARK \ S ,� a P � P G D � Earle Brown Farm NO. 10 Redevelopment District -2- -- t PUBLIC PURPOSE The Brooklyn Center City Council has determined that public intervention is necessary in the Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment District in order to remedy conditions of economic obsolescence, physical blight, under utilization of land and extensive soil corrections which the private sector has not been willing or able to accomplish. Numerous traffic hazards and pedestrian conflicts exist and need correction. The Earle Brown Farm, a state historical site, is in dire need of extensive restoration work in order to preserve it as a functional, economically viable development for future generations. A survey conducted by Ms. Sharon Schmickle of the University of Minnesota in 1981 for the City of Brooklyn Center indicates that 77.9 percent of those Brooklyn Center residents surveyed favored the preservation of the Earle Brown Farm site. Further, 75.24 percent of those surveyed favored the City of Brooklyn Center taking an active role in preserving the farm buildings and 51.5 percent favored the use of tax dollars to preserve those buildings. SOCIAL, PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES GOALS AND OBJECTIVES — Goal A: To provide decent, safe and sanitary housing for persons of low and moderate income. Objective A -1: Promote development of 269 rental units A -2: Promote availability of 20% of new units for low and moderate income persons Goal B: To provide governmental assistance to eliminte slum and blight to include: inadequate street layout, incompatible use or land use relationships, overcroding of buildings on the land, excessive dwelling unit density, obsolete buildings not suitable for improvement or conversion, or other identified hazards to the health safety and general well being of the community. Objective B -1: Physically rehabilitate the Earle Brown Farm buildings B -2: Arrange buildings and uses on the Farm site so as to preserve "Mall" area which is an architecturally significant space within the Farm site B -3: Seek a re- use(s) of the Farm site that will, to the extent possible be consistent with other goals, preserve the interior spaces and character of the buildings B -14: Preserve on the site historic memorabilia and provide informational display(s) explaining the history of the site. i V III -3- i Goal C: Provide an on -going benefit to the residents of Brooklyn Center and those who may frequent the area. Objective C -1: Seek a re -use of the Farm buildings that will maximize access and /or use by the general public C -2: Program activities (tours, cultural events, etc.) at the site that will be open to the general public. Insure by covenant that any private owner of the site will allow such publicly programmed activities if not provided by the owner C -3: Allow, as necessary, off -site directional signery for the Earle Brown Farm to increase public awareness of the Farm's location and historic character. Goal D: Arrive at development on and adjacent to the Farm site that is appropriate to the locational setting of the Farm site. Objective D -1: Seek well- designed development on land adjacent to the Earle Brown Farm that will preserve important sight lines leading to and from the Farm site D -2: Seek through land covenant and /or official controls an appropriate scale of development adjacent to the Earle Brown Farm site • D -3: Seek development on and adjacent to the Farm site that will bring about land uses compatible with other land uses in the area D -4: Seek development that will meet regional as well as local needs and demands thereby drawing a wider segment of the public to the Farm site and to adjacent businesses. Goal E: Arrive at a rehabilitation and re -use of the Earle Brown Farm site that is economically viable and /or accomplishes public goals at minimum public expense. Objective E -1: Solicit proposals from metropolitan developers that provide designs and uses consistent with public goals and enumerate project costs and public financial participation in a manner that can be readily compared E -2: Select a design and development proposal that maximizes public benefits for the least public cost E -3: Select means of financing that minimize dependence on the property tax increment generated within the district. i -4- r Goal F: Improve the aesthetic character of the district for both automobile travelers and pedestrians. Objective F -1: Install streetscape improvements such as decorative lighting, trees, sidewalks, benches, planters, signals, etc., that will enhance the visual experience of those traveling within the public right -of -way F -2: Provide low - interest loans to area businesses for rehabilitation of deteriorated buildings and sites within the tax increment financing district F -3: Seek through land covenants, official controls, site plan reviews, and financial incentives, the highest quality of building design and landscaping with new developments in the district. Goal G: Increase the amount of land available for high density residential development. Objective G -1: Consider proposals for the Earle Brown Farm property that may include high density residential development. Goal H: Traffic Considerations DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES . The following development and redevelopment program would be anticipated and would be supportive of the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. Retail Development 200,00 square feet of gross retail space 1,200 parking spaces * Housing for the Elderly 269 units 269 parking spaces * Redevelopment Earle Brown Farm as a Senior Community Center and /or other public use PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN The following physical improvements will be made in the Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment Area by the City of Brooklyn Center to support private construction activities, improve traffic circulation, encourage better land use, create an aesthetically pleasing environment, and foster the social objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan. -5- t f FIGURE II ) ' - - Taf IMGENEMi Du^ .... GRl' HALV COMMUNITY CENTER i r EAALE BROWN FARM - LRIRAAY 1 i ODE/ENTRY - ._- _ siY+un o• f IOPTYONAL D RESIDENTIAL NODE `.I PROPOSED CORE BLOCK RES DENTIAL NODE NODE/ENTRY y r • - NODE/ENTRY SOTN ♦vf. w. 1 f o f i lfTN •vE. w. ENTRY i 0 ENTRY °] i CSEN S)TN Ev[. w. S>sl�i� TEi 1w CPEw FJST Oi5iA1Gi fOYwDAwi i pD ` OP s a 01 on E)IISTINO SWEWALA PROPOSED SIDEWALK • Earle Brown Farm Street Scape "E TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT STUDY CITY OF '^ BROOKLYN CENTER. MN. �� t • 1. Street Improvements A. Traffic Signals a. Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Avenue b. Shingle Creek Parkway and John Martin Drive c. Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive East d. Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive West e. John Martin Drive and Earle Brown Drive B. Road Improvements a. Bituminous Resurfacing of Shingle Creek Parkway between I -94 and John Martin Drive. C. Water System Improvements D. Sanitary Sewer System a. Sanitary Sewer System Evaluation study of all sanitary sewers within the district. E. Streetscaping and Sidewalk (See Figure II) F. Earle Brown Farm Renovation a. Renovation and preservation of the Earle Brown Farm with the Barn and Hippodrome being used as a Senior Community Center. LAND USE • The Redevelopment Plan would not change the land use pattern in the Tax Increment Financing District except that the Earle Brown Farm site would be rehabilitated and used in a manner more intense than its present underutilized state. No street relocations are contemplated. Development of most remaining vacant parcels is expected to be of a commercial nature, either retail or high -rise office. There is also the potential of high -rise residential development adjacent to the Earle Brown Farm site on land which is presently zoned I -1 and designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan for high -rise office. The Earle Brown Farm historic site, as described in the state register of historic places, is contained on an 11.5 acre parcel. An office building of approximate 1920's vintage that was used by Earle Brown is located on an adjacent 3.5 acre parcel. These parcels are being acquired by the City for redevelopment. In addition to the historic Earle Brown Farm site, there is excess land area which will be sold for private development. Any private development on these parcels will be in appropriate aesthetic and functional relationship to the rehabilitated Earle Brown Farm site, whether the overall land use be of a commercial or residential nature. To better insure that the land use in the vicinity of the Earle Brown Farm site is compatible with the rehabilitation of the Farm and with surrounding developments, the City will solicit proposals for redevelopment of the Farm site. These proposals should set forth various uses that could occupy each of the existing farm buildings. Such proposals should also specify site improvements on a site and landscape plan and the cost of all building and site improvements. An evaluation of • the land use as well as other aspects to these proposals will be made by the Planning Commission and the Earle Brown Farm Task Force advisory to the City Council. -7- i ® Evaluation of development /redevelopment proposals will be made in light of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Plan presently recommends high -rise office use on the land where the Earle Brown Farm site presently exists and on adjacent property north of Summit Drive. Proposals which involve alternate uses, if chosen, will have to contain a land use analysis justifying an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. One such land use has been obtained from Bennett, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, Gardner (BRW). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The environmental impact of the proposed redevelopment activities is expected to be minimal and, on balance, positive. Beneficial effects of the redevelopment project include: - Restoration and re -use of a historic site listed on the Minnesota Register of Historic Places - Aesthetic enhancement of public rights -of -way within the district - Pedestrian traffic in the district will be better accommodated -Land with unstable soil will be improved to make it buildable for high density housing - Preservation of wetlands adjacent to development Possible adverse effects resulting from redevelopment activities include: - Potential development of land not in accordance with the City's current Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that the City does not intend to • approve such development without a review and amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. ACQUISITION, RELOCATION AND CLEARANCE ACTIVITIES It is the intent of the HRA to acquire the Earle Brown Farm in order to assure its renovation and preservation. Professional property appraisers will recommend a fair market value for the property, and the owner will have a right to obtain independent appraisals. No condemnation will take place. Businesses and residents whose property is acquired and are dislocated because of such acquisition will be assisted with their relocation. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION The Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment Project will be administered by Mr. Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager, under the direction of the HRA. REHABILITATION PROGRAM It is proposed that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center assist in the rehabilitation of deteriorated commercial structures within the District. Financial assistance may be provided in the form of low interest loans and possibly matching grants. All rehabilitation performed under this program will meet the requirements of state and local building codes. -8- z . RELOCATION PROGRAM All relocation activities of the Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment Project will be in conformance with the Minnesota Uniform Relocation Act (M.S. 117.50-.56) and a relocation plan will be provided. MAINTENANCE OF THE PROJECT AREA Activities proposed for the Earle Brown Redevelopment Project Area will be maintained by the City of Brooklyn Center and the Brooklyn Center HRA through the use of Tax Increment Financing, Community Development Block Grant funds, Municipal State Aid Roadway funds, special assessments and other sources of revenue. -9- i i EARLE BROWN FARM TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Earle Brown Farm Tax Increment Financing District is a Redevelopment District. The proposed District meets the qualifications set forth for a Redevelopment District in M.S. 273.73, Subd. 10(2). That the following conditions are reasonably distributed throughout the District. a. One hundred (100) percent of the Parcels within the Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements. b. At least twenty (20) percent of the buildings are structurally substandard as defined by M.S. 273.73, Subd. 10(5)(6). Eight (8) of the sixteen buildings within the district are determined to be substandard. c. At least another thirty (30) percent of the buildings are in need of substantial renovation or clearance in order to remove existing conditions such as inadequate street layout, vehicular and pedestrian safety hazards, parking inadequacies, incompatible land uses or land use relationships, overcrowding of buildings on the land, obsolete buildings not suitable for improvement or conversion, or other identified hazards to the health, safety, and general well being of the community. Specifically, five (5) buildings, or 31 percent of all buildings in the district are in need of substantial renovation. Determinations were made by on site inspections and subject to a structural analysis report. • The Earle Brown Farm Complex is in need -of immediate renovation in order to assure its preservation. The preservation of this historic site has been given a high priority by the residents of Brooklyn Center according to the 1981 Brooklyn Center Resident Survey. Certain properties maybe unsuitable for development without public assistance because of the need for extensive soil corrections. Vacant buildings occupy other parcels. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The objective of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center for the improvement of the Earle Brown Farm Tax Increment District are set forth in the accompanying Redevelopment Plan. PROPERTIES TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT The Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment Area is illustrated by Figure III. The Property Identification Numbers of the parcels contained within the Project area are as follows: 02- 118 -21 -11 -0001 02- 118 -21 -21 -0003 0002 35- 119 -21 -43 -0002 02- 118 -21 -12 -0001 0004 0002 0005 0003 0006 0004 0007 0005 35- 119 -21 -44 -0001 0006 0007 0007 -10- ty FIGURE III %CENTRAL PARK civic \, CENTER r ' X ` �., CITY HALL A SUMMIT o I' HENN.C D LIBRARY Q 35 +36 GOVT SERV.CENTE Z 2 1 O Q GRANDVIEW E PARK /L\ S v i Earle Brown Farm No. 10 Redevelopment District -11- _ - -- Beginning at the Northwest corner of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1300, thence North 50 degrees 26 minutes 13 seconds West along the Westerly extension of the Southerly right of way line of John Martin Drive to its intersection with the • Westerly right of way line of Shingle Creek Parkway, thence Northeasterly along said Westerly right of way line to a point of intersection with the Westerly extension of the Northerly boundary line of Lot 1 � p Block 2 Brookdale Corporate Center, thence Easterly along waid extension of said Northerly boundary line of said Lot 1, Block 2 to the Northeast corner of said Lot 1 , Block 2, thence South 87 degrees 14 minutes 38 j seconds East a distance of 704.75 feet, thence South 4 degrees 05 minutes 50 seconds West a distance of 16.90 feet to the Northerly right of way line of Earle Brown Drive, thence Southerly and Westerly along the Easterly and Southerly right of way line of said Earle Brown Drive, extended across Summit Avenue North, continuing and to the most Westerly corner of Tract M, Registered Land Survey No. 1325, thence continuing Southwesterly along the extension of said right of way line of said Earle Brown Drive to the Southwesterly right of way line of John Martin Drive, thence Northwesterly along said right of way line of said John Martin Drive to the point of beginning. ACQUISITION PLAN Property will be acquired within the Earle Brown Farm in order to accomplish the renovation objectives set forth in the Redevelopment ment Plan. Properties to be acquired include 35- 119 -21 -44 -0001 and 35- 119 -21 -44 -0002. All acquisition activities will be according to applicable state and federal regulations. A professional appraiser will recommend fair market value for each property to be acquired and owners will have the right to obtain independent appraisals and contest the offer in a Court of Law. RELOCATION PLAN No relocation activites are anticipated during the proposed project. Should relocation become necessary, it will be done in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform Relocation Act. One (1) business and one (1) resident are located within the boundaries to be acquired. TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT FINANCE PLAN The financial feasibility of the proposed redevelopment program described earlier, utilizing a Tax Increment Financing Program will be analyzed in this section. Tax increment financing will be used for the acquisition and renovation of the Earle Brown Farm, its maintenance, the streetscaping plan, and necessary soil corrections. ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS The estimated project costs are based soley upon those projects involving expenditures on the part of either the City or HRA. Table I represents the total redevelopment costs including the e cost of acquiring all privately g q g p Y held land within the district. The costs also include interim finance costs based upon assumptions outlined in this section under "Revenue Sources ". ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT 1. Construction of 130,000 square feet of retail (Target) is anticipated along Shingle Creek Parkway between the intersection of Summit Drive on the north and John Martin Drive on the south. Current zoning is C -2. It is anticipated that construction will begin in the summer of 1985. See Figure IV. -12- y Q , FIGURE IV - CENTRAL PARK %V "�.Y� civic \ �;s CENTER CITY CITY s \ \k HALL \ f A , ; LLJ Y w,. SUMMIT i ENN. CO. L! BRARY Q AND 35.36 �_ GOVT. SERV. CENTE �� 2 1 1� I O � 0 � v � � o GRANDVIEW E PARK \ L v J � lye 10 Target Site -13- i 2. Construction of 269 units of senior apartments. The project is to be constructed on the Earle Brown Farm site. The land is presently zoned I -1 • and will necessitate a rezoning to R -7. Construction to start in the spring of 1987. See Figure V. 3. Construction of 67,000 square feet of retail on the parcels located on Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive. Present zoning is C -2. Construction to begin in 1988. See Figure VI. 4. Construction of 135 multi - family rental units on the Earle Brown Farm site. Present zoning is I -1 and will require rezoning to R -7. Construction start is anticipated in 1990. See Figure VII. 5. Renovation of the Earle Brown Farm. Acquisition is anticipated b the q P Y summer of 1985. Renovation of the existing building will start in the spring of 1986. See Figure VIII. 6. Traffic Light Installation. See Figure IX. TABLE I ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 1. Earle Brown Farm Acquisition $2,250,000 Redevelopment 2,000,000 Maintenance Fund 500,000 Administration (5 %) 239,000 Consultants /Legal 30,000 Contingency 501,900 subtotal $5,520,900 2. Area Wide Streetscaping $ 500,000 3. Area Wide Public Improvements $1,300,000 4. Financing Costs Issuance $ 30,000 Capitalized Interest 1,127,928 Discount (3 %) 215,365 subtotal $1,373,293 TOTAL $8,694,193 REVENUE SOURCES The primary revenue source for the acquisition and redevelopment of the Earle Brown Farm and the streetscaping plan for the District will be tax increment financed bonds. Also available for the acquisition of the Earle Brown Farm are Community • Development Block Grant Funds and land sales. -14- ty < i FIGURE V � k PARK � C IVIC CENTER T Y �\ HALL \ t A _> SUM MIT i r J' HENN.C�O.LIBRARY�Q 35 36 GOVT SERV.CENTE Z 2'1 � 3 o ' i v a � i Q GRANDVIEW � E PARK S v o ° —� NU 10 Residential Development Site -15- ty cr_ i c FIGURE VI , CENTRAL PARK V -A � << c i vic 1 ; \� \CENTER Xx CITY HALL Lu SUMMIT HENN. CO. LI BRARY q AND O 35136 GOVT SERV.CENTE: 3 2 1 0 2 0 i Q GRANDVIEW E PARK \ � P C+ �v v t a. D o� N0. 10 Commercial Retail Site -16- - n C FIGURE VII C ENTRAL PARK �;' , <` l ; \ CENTER ` �CiT�y ;. \ \k HALL Memo __ r _> SUMMIT i HENN. CO. LI BRARY AND �, 35,36 GOVT SERV.CENTEr 3 2 1 � r O e� Q GRANDVIEW E PARK J N0. 10 Future Residential /Office Site -17- n r- FIGURE VIII C ENTRAL PARK civic \ l ; � \CENTER CITY \ \k HALL � A p SUMMIT i HENN.CO.LIBRARY Q AND Q 35.36 GOVT. SERV. CENTE Z 2 1 3 O e� Q GRANDVIEW E PARK < 0 4' J NO. 10 Earle Brown Farm Historic Site -18- - FIGURE IX C ENTRAL PARK c i v i c l ; CENTER HALL A SUMMIT o 4. � � F !' HENN.CO.LIBRARY Q 3538 AND GOVT. SERV. C ENTE Z 2 ' 1 i Q GRANDVIEW E PARK \ 4 � v \ P �v J N0. 10 Traffic Signal Site �!. -19- The primary revenue source for other public projects will be special assessments, Municipal State -Aid Roadway Funds and local roadway funds. Possible future redevelopment loans and soil correction projects would be funded with tax increment dollars but such projects would not be bonded for. For the acquisition of the Earle Brown Farm, it is anticipated that $680,000 in Community Development Block Grant Funds would be available. Land sales for the development of elderly rental units are estimated at $650,000. The estimated captured value is based upon development completed and fully assessed by 1991. In addition to the capture of the increment from new development, it is anticipated that additional increment will be obtained from increased values, both new and existing development, during the life of the district. It is assumed that assessed values will increase at three (3) percent annually. Based upon the estimated assessed value captured (see Table II) within the district a bond issue for twenty (20) years at ten ( 10) percent with four (4) years of interest payment only would result in a maximum bond issue of $7.4 million. While the Tax Increment and Redevelopment District is established for a maximum period of twenty -five (25) years, it is the desire and intent of both the City and the HRA to terminate this District at such time when reserve funds are of a sufficient amount to assure the completion of the project and the retirement of all indebtedness associated with the project. It is our estimate that the duration of the District will be approximately ten (10) years. (See Addendum B - Cash FLow Analysis). _ IMPACT ON TAXING JURISDICTION The mill rates for all authorities collecting taxes within the Earle Brown Farm Tax Increment District are listed on Table III. School District 286 accounts for almost half of the total mill rate. See Table III. TABLE II MILL RATES - ALL AFFECTED ENTITIES JURISDICTION 1985 MILL RATE City of Brooklyn Center 16.506 Hennepin County 29.262 Brooklyn Center School District 286 49.332 Vocational Tech 1.490 Miscellaneous 5.181 Hennepin County Park Hennepin Regional Railroad Authority Metro Council Metro Transit Mosquito Control Park Museum TOTAL 101.771 -20- i • TABLE III ASSESSOR'S ESTIMATED VALUE. FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT Estimated Year Fully Market Assessed Estimated Current Capture Assessed Component Value Value Tax Tax Increment 1988 Elderly Rental $ 7,609,000 $2,587,000 $213,600 $ 62,301 $151,299 1988 Retail $ 7,034,000 $3,025,000 $313,500 $ 52,000 $261,500 Target - 130,000 square feet 1990 Retail $ 3,685,000 $1,585,000 $163,900 $ 28,475 $135,425 i 67,000 N N 1993 Market Rent $ 3,790,000 $1,289,000 $106,400 $ 31,150 $ 75,250 133 Units $22,118,000 $8,486,000 $ 797,400 $173,926 $623,474 ADDENDUM A "s �/ of f ,• c ��- T![MC:(YtMT cm HALL/ COMMUNITY CENTER `ems I o e 4 - I EAIILE BROW FARM LMRARY 1 i ODE/ENTRY I — I siY.wn o, 'ornoNAL a RESIDENTIAL NODE � PROPOSED CORE BLOCK RESIDENTIAL NODE ti NODE/ENTRY - M1 r • - NODE/ENTRY s •ve. w. f t i t saTw Ave. w ` �onrww•T Dn. J ENTRY CR cs•w siTw .ve. w. TAA IwCMEYE1ii OiSi11KT •OOwD•IIT i at fit a�COw 0. EXISTING SIDEWA PROPOSED SIDEWALK • Earle Brown Farm Street Scape ""°' NpRTI{ TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT STUDY CITY OF '^ BROOKLYN CENTER. MN. �� >� J o, a W • o , _ -- BOLLARDS - till III � i I . ~ f 1 ' i - PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING' R.O.W. + SIDEWALK 1 i I i tr' 1 rte B ERIC H E S T- PLANTINGS, • SPECIAL PAVING - - (BRICK. RED) CURB TREE & TREE taRATE TYPICAL NODE PLAN 1 INCH - 1 FEET (WITHOUT WALLS r r E NGINEERING PLANNING & TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT ENGINEERING COMPANY BROOKLYN , MN. -24- 7415WAYZATA BOULEVARD, MINNEAPOLIS. MN. 55420J612)5460155 - TREE GRATES REES 13 SPECIAL PAVING cc 0 DRIVEWAY _ o � � BE CH Q BENCH S EL ER F] LIGHTS SPE IAL PAVING m 3 _ r m m ° 3 �ci ° - ,cc ul _. CORNER NODE PLAN PARKING LOT BERM BUS STOP PLAN PLANS 1 INCH — 20 PERSPECTIVE - CORNER NODE TYPICAL STREET FURNISHINGS WITH WALL TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT —25— 1 WESTWOOD PLANNING 3 �.� taz w.Cw(Y[v(blTwKl.WYp�w( CT/ MALL/ COMMUNT/ CENTS i r EAAE BROW11 FARM LIBRARY s f ODE/ENTRY = {{ 1 i OR7ONA RESIDENTIAL NODE PROPOSED CORE BLOCK 5D �r ODE NODE/ENTRY NODE /ENTR ' ENTRY ENTRY cz.w fTTw .re. w. ' T4 -XIT� -O `J c • .t EXISTING SA]EWALX PROPOSED S°EWALK • BOULEVARD TREIE� - -- -- -- �M.Ra1Msft �T TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT STUDY CITY OF -r ='' BROOKLYN CENTER. MN. —26 i t +." `"C' '�„,., , '^..0 '+�''� x7E ww^rn-x.* » -•q vwm r- tw.."r..*^- T....� W ESTW 00 D .. ,._..._ . . ,,...... . .. _ ,_ ......, w_ ..�....z. >....ra�..h.....,. �. x— ..s,a.:...�...,.a...�.. a.�_.._. • PLANNING & ENGINEERING COMPANY EARLE BROWN FARM STREETSCAPE — TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT STUDY BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA MARCH 11, 1985 I. BRIEF ANALYSIS A. The Earle Brown Farm is presently and should continue to be the focal point of the area. B. Development around the farm can generally be described by the following: 1. Free standing commercial, public services, and residential uses generating much vehicular and pedestrian movement resulting in high visibility of entire area. 2. Relatively large structures, on large lots, with expansive parking lots. O 3. Wide green strips between the street curbs and private parking lots which have been dealt with by a variety of berming and planting treatments. 4. Automobile orientation with a lack of pedestrian accomodations. Existing sidewalks in the area are not well connected. Several commercial uses and services in the area are not serviced by sidewalk. Existing sidewalks are dimly lit and lack benches or visual amenities. 5. Several uses in area that will generate pedestrian traffic, ie., two residential developments, City Hall /Community Center, library, movie theatre, Earle Brown Farm, Pizza shop, etc. II. GOALS A. Create a continous pedestrian system link major pedestrian generators, which will include physical and visual amenities, ie., lighting, benches, ornamental plantings, and shade trees. B. Develop a visual identity serving to unify and distinguish the area. C. Establish an image of high quality development serving to benefit entire area. 7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5542E (612) 5460155 —27— • { March 11, 1985 Page 2. III. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Additional sidewalks as shown on plan. 1. Connecting existing sidewalks and servicing new areas. 2. The block bounded by Summit Drive, John Martin Drive, Shingle Creek Parkway, and Earle Brown Drive has been treated as a core block of the area with sidewalks on both sides of the street. B. The pedestrian system could be punctuated at important nodes and entry points by means of special amenities (see 8'1/2 x 11" typical node plan). 1. Special amenities could include benches, special paving, trees, tree grates, bollards, pedestrian scale lighting, and ornamental plantings. 2. Expanding on the character of the Earle Brown Farm, the use of brick red paving coloration and white street furnishings is recommended. 3. For purposes of economy, the number of pedestrian lights is proposed to be most dense at nodes and entry points. The lighting at the Earle Brown Farm should match rest of area. 4. Boulevard trees should be planted at a 50 foot minimum planting interval. 5. The use of textured concrete retaining walls for the dual purpose of berming and seating. -28- sM C ® ®� WESTW 7777 zlil OOD PLANNING & ENGINEERING COMPANY • STREETSCAPE - PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE EARLE BROWN FARM TAX INCREMENT FINANCING STUDY Based on the concepts of: A. 18 roughly similiar "nodes" of improvements, each including 1,200 square feet Q of special al (red) paving, p 10 bollards of precast concrete, 6 pedestrian scale decorative lights, 2 decorative trees grates, 4 precast concrete benches, seating /retaining walls and 32 shrubs. B. Street trees on R.O.W. through out, at approximately 50' on center. C. New 5' sidewalks (10,500 lineal feet). D. Design fee's, legal, financing and contingency. The following breakdown provided: 1. Special avin P P g 135 60 . $ 0 00 2. Bollards 80,000.00 3. Pedestrian lighting 237,600.00 4. Tree grates 36 000.00 5. Benches 43,200.00 6. Shrubs 17,200.00 7. Trees (400) 96 000.00 8. New sidewalks 116,000.00 9. Demolition and restoration 27,000.00 10. Seating /retaining walls 53,600.00 11. Construction subtotal $ 842,200.00 12. Fee's, legal, financing, contingency: 15% 126,330.00 GRAND TOTAL $ 968,530.00 7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55126 (612) 546.0755 -29- Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED HOUSING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C, AND AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE THEREFOR WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462C, authorizes a City to plan, administer and make or purchase a loan or loans to finance one or more multifamily housing developments or the rehabilitation of multifamily housing developments after adoption of a housing plan; and WHEREAS, the housing plan must be considered at a public hearing held after notice published at last thirty (30) days prior to the date of said hearing after which the housing plan may be adopted by resolution of the governing body of the City with or without amendment; and WHEREAS, the r ram for the issuance of bond t finance p � s o fz ce a multifamily housing development must be considered at a public hearing after notice published at least fifteen (15 ) days prior to the date of said hearing after which the program may be adopted by resolution of the governing body of the City with or without amendment; and WHEREAS, there has been presented to this City Council (the "City Council ") a proposal for the acquisition of land and construction of a 73 -unit multifamily housing project (the "Project "). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA, THAT: 1. The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center (the "City ") will conduct a ublic hearing on the proposed housing program on Jul 8 1985 at 7:30 g p Po g P � Y p. M. 2. The City Manager of the City is hereby authorized to cause a public notice, substantially in the form of the notice attached hereto as Exhibit A, to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least fifteen days prior to the date established for the public hearing by the preceding paragraph of this resolution. 3. The City Manager of the City is hereby authorized to proceed, in cooperation with the law firm of Holmes & Graven, Chartered, with the preparation of the housing program relating to the Project, for presentation to this City Council at the public hearing herein authorized. 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. 9� Member introduced the following resolution and 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 quotations received were as follows: Bidder Quotation Superior Ford $19,314.00 Superior Ford $19,551.00 ** Brooklyn Ford $19,978.00 * ** Thane Hawkins Chevrolet $20,337.00 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 Superior Ford in the amount of $19,314 is hereby accepted and the City Manager is hereby authorized to contract for the purchase of the Step Van in the amount of $19,314 from Superior Ford. * Ford E350 with Ultimaster Body ** Ford E350 with Gruman Body * ** If built as a 1986 add $700.00 '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 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF CRYSTAL BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. The City of Brooklyn Center and the City of Crystal are desirous of entering into a Joint Powers Agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Section 474.18, Subd. 4 for the sharing of entitlement amounts of Industrial Development Revenue Bond financing. 2. This Council has reviewed a proposed Joint Powers Agreement between the Cities for the purpose stated in Section 1, and finds that the execution of the agreement is in the best financial interest of the City of Brooklyn Center. 3. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. 4. The City Manager is directed to transmit a certified copy of the resolution o the e Manager o� the it o Y g C f Crystal. rY stal. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i r M & C NO. 85 -07 June 7, 1985 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Assignment of $800,000 of IRB Capacity to the City of Crystal To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: Attached are various materials presented by the City of Crystal on behalf of their proposal and request that the City of Brooklyn Center assign $800,000 of their 1985 bonding capacity to the City of Crystal. Crystal is requesting this capacity to allow them to use IRBs to relocate existing businesses within their redevelopment project. There are a number of businesses in one location of their redevelopment project which must be moved. This $800,000 in bonding capacity will allow them to rebuild at another location within the redevelopment district. Brooklyn Center has slightly over $7 million of industrial development revenue bond capacity annually. This capacity cannot be carried over and accumulated year to year. At the end of each year we start over with another slightly over $7 million. We have had no proposals and do not anticipate any proposals which would use any of our bonding capacity this year. Crystal's request would reduce our capacity for 1985 to approximately $6.2 million. I am specifically recommending approval of this request because I do not believe it will hurt the City of Brooklyn Center, and it will be of considerable assistance to Crystal in its redevelopment project. There is, of course, a chance that a surprise development could occur in Brooklyn Center which would request bonding capacity, but if you grant this transfer there would still be $6.2 million available. Brooklyn Center is one among many communities in the metro area that do not exist on an island. There is a need for cooperation between and among metropolitan communities, especially suburban communities, and here is an opportunity for Brooklyn Center to cooperate with a neighbor. I believe the benefit far outweighs the slight risk to Center involved in this request. Respectfully s bmitted, Gerald G. Spli er City Manager encs. AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into as of this day of 1985, by and between the City of Crystal, a munici- pal corporation in Hennepin County, Minnesota (Crystal) and the City of Brooklyn Center, a municipal corporation in Hennepin Count Minnesota . sota (Brooklyn Y ( yn Center). WITNESSETH: IN consideration of the mutual undertakings set forth herein, Crystal and Brooklyn Center agree as follows: I. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the authority granted to Crystal and Brooklyn Center by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 and Chapter 474 (collectively, Act). The purpose of this Agreement is to enable Crystal to issue its industrial development revenue bonds (Bonds) for an approved project or projects (Project) pursuant to an allocation made by the Act to Brooklyn Center as an entitlement issuer under the Act. II. 2.01. Brooklyn Center has received a final certified allocation as an entitlement issuer in the amount of $7;2- 40,197. Crystal is a. non - entitlement local issuer. 2.02. Crystal wishes to issue its Bonds for a Project - - in the amount of at least $800,000. 2.03. Brooklyn Center finds it is desirable to make avail- able to Crystal from Brooklyn Center's allocation the sum of $800,000. III. 3.01. In order to induce Brooklyn Center to enter into this Agreement, Crystal represents and agrees as follows: (a) Crystal has before it a proposal or proposals for a Project requiring Bonds in an amount of at least $800,000. (b) Crystal intends to issue Bonds for the Project prior to September 1, 1985. In the event bonds for the Project are not issued b September er 1 y 1985 P , and Crystal on that t date intends to issue the bonds prior to December 31, 1985, Crystal will make available to Brooklyn Center the deposit necessary to reserve the allocation of the requested entitlement amount. (c) Crystal shall reimburse, indemnify, hold harmless and defend Crystal, its officials, employees, and agents for all costs, expenses, claims, damages and losses which they may incur or for which they may be held liable as a result of the transactions contemplat- ed herein and hereby releases Brooklyn Center, its officials, employees and agents from any claim Crystal may have arising out of the transactions contemplated hereby. (d) Crystal will timely and promptly notify Brooklyn Center of all proceedings relating to the approval of the project or projects and the issuance -of Bonds therefor. 3.02. In recognition of its undertakings under this Agree- ment, Brooklyn Center represents and agrees as follows: (a) Brooklyn Center has or will promptly and timely submit to the Authority all documents, deposits and other papers necessary to carry out the transaction contemplated hereby. 2 (b) Brooklyn Center represents that it has the necessary amounts of uncommitted allocation to enable it to enter into this Agreement. (c) Brooklyn Center will use its best efforts to inform Crystal of any modification of its allocation or of any other facts coming to its attention which may materially affect its ability to carry out and give effect to the transaction contemplated hereby. 3.03. Crystal agrees and covenants that, to the extent it does not need or use any entitlement allocation it may receive from the State of Minnesota for calendar year 1986, it will give the City of Brooklyn Center the right of first refusal to use such entitlement allocation, or the unused portion thereof, consistent with applicable law then in effect. 3.04. Brooklyn Center and Crystal represent to one another, and agree, and certify under penalty of perjury, that the allo- cation which is the subject of this Agreement is not made in consideration of any bribe, gift, gratuity, or direct or iiadirect contribution to any political campaign. 4.01. As used in this Agreement the terms (a) entitlement issuer, (b) local issuer, (c) allocation, (d) bonds, and (e) project have the meanings given them by the Act and by Minnesota Stat- utes, Chapter 474. The term "Authority" means the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development. 3 IN WITNESS WHEREBY, Crystal and Brooklyn Center have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the date first written above. CITY OF CRYSTAL By Mayor By City Manager CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By Mayor By City Manager 4 5 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE CONTINGENCY FUND TO THE PLAYGROUND PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Minnesota Tree Trust Program has contributed to the funding of the playground program over the past six years; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature has not authorized the funding thus far, but is expected to with the completion of a Special Session; and WHEREAS, a total of $14,600 is needed to fund the playground program; and WHEREAS, the 1985 playground program funded by Unit No. 64, Program 334 has a balance of $9,713 , creating a short fall of $4,887. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1. $4,887 be transferred from Unit No. 80, Account 4995 to Unit No. 64, Program 334. 2. Upon authorization of the Tree Trust Program by the Minnesota Legislature and appropriation by the State of Minnesota, $4,887 will be returned from Unit No. 64, Program 334 to Unit No. 80, Account No. 4995. 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. �C M & C NO. 85 -08 June 7, 1985 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Additional Appropriation for 1985 Playground Budget To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: Because the State Legislature has not authorized funding for certain employment programs whose recipients have been used in our playground program, there is a potential shortage in the playground account. We anticipate that this program will be approved by the State of Minnesota once the conference committees have resolved their differences. However, our program is starting this next week and without the personnel who would be funded by the State programs, we would have to cancel much of the program we have already committed to. The attached resolution authorizes the transfer of the amount of shortage caused by the lack of State appropriations ($4,887) from the contingency account to the playground budget. There is also a provision from this resolution that at a point in time when the State program is funded, the balance will be returned to the contingency fund. I recommend your approval of this transfer because our programming has all been set up and publicity out, and the citizens are expecting one level of programming, and to change it at this late date will cause substantial confusion and irritation. I believe this is a most appropriate use of the Council's contingency fund. Respectfully submitted, Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager q,q Member introduced the following 10 resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1984 -B (LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1983 -09, PHASE I) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1984 -B signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Mike Paul Electric, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1983 -09, PHASE I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract and change order is accepted and approved as follows: As Approved Final Amount Original Contract $ 45,300.00 $ 45,300.00 Change Order No. 1 - -- 4,196_33 - -- 4,196_33 $ 49,496.33 $ 49,496.33 2. The value of work performed is equal to the sum of the original contract and change order. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $49,496.33. 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. Q . f Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WEST PALMER LAKE PARK TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -18 AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRUCTION THEREOF --------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council that it is necessary and in the best interests of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota to construct a connecting trail in West Palmer Lake Park between the City's regional trail and the parking lot; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has received proposals for the construction of said trail, said proposals as follows: Bidder Proposal Shafer Contracting Company, Inc. $ 5,650.00 Bury and Carlson, Inc. 8,392.00 WHEREAS, the City Engineer has advised the City Council that the proposal of Shafer Contracting Company, Inc. in the amount of $5,650.00, is the lowest responsible proposal received and has recommended that a contract be awarded to said firm in that amount. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposed improvement shall be established as follows: WEST PALMER LAKE PARK TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -18 2. The proposal of Shafer Contracting Company, Inc., in the amount of $5,650.00, is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said firm in that amount. 3. The total cost of said project is estimated as follows: Contract Cost $5,650.00 Engineering Cost 508.50 Administrative Cost 56.50 TOTAL $6,215.00 RESOLUTION NO. 4. Improvement project No. 1985 -18 will be financed through the appropriation of funds from Municipal State Aid Fund Balance No. 2600. 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. E_ TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: Jim Grube, City Engineer DATE: June 6, 1985 RE: Trail Extension in West Palmer Lake Park Staff has solicited proposals for the completion of a trail connecting the City's regional trail system to the parking area at West Palmer Lake Park. Staff has noted that the trail system has proven to be very popular and recommends that the City provide the surfaced trail connection for the neighborhood bicyclists who wish to access the system at its northerly end. (Presently, bicyclists must either ride through the park's grass areas or use local streets to reach the paved connection at 69th Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway.) The lowest responsible proposal, at $5,650.00, was submitted by Shafer Contracting Company, Inc. Staff recommends the proposal be accepted, and a resolution reflecting the recommendation is submitted for City Council consideration. Respectfully submitted, Recommended for Approval, Cl,.,,, , - jj t4,4�6) I Jilli Grube Sy Knapp/ City Engineer Director of Public Works V e IF' it l ip , " •.. �A'!'►�", +./•'. , � �" ��- �� [ • � . `• ��C�'�11R. ..•..?�!•. w '*' ./ 't fell. -lq „ . , j �t � * 7. j ter'• • � ,� _ ��' �. • •�� , fir" rT! ti,+ � _ w,ri ^ •• �' . \ • � P Are • .} F• ♦ • ,, Aj op AA r +e • ;. � fir: � � • • ` ,. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CENTRAL PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1984 -10, PHASE II AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRUCTION THEREOF ------------------------------------------------ WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council that it is necessary and in the best interests of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota to provide for maintenance of the various landscape plantings in the Central Park Plaza area through the installation of a manual 1 irrigation system; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has received proposals for the installation of said system, said proposals as follows: Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Bidder Proposal Proposal Albrecht Company $ 6,426.00 $ 6,897.40 Custom Turf Irrigation, Inc. 9,400.00 10,000.00 WHEREAS, the City Engineer has advised the City Council that the ro 0 sal of Albrecht p p Company, in the amount of $6,426.00 for Alternate 1, is the lowest responsible proposal received and has recommended that a contract be awarded to said firm in that amount: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposed improvement shall be established as follows: CENTRAL PARK PLAZA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1984 -10, PHASE II 2. The proposal of Albrecht Company, in the amount of $6,426.00 for Alternate 1, is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said firm in that amount. 3. The total cost of said project is estimated as follows: Contract Cost $6,426.00 Engineering Cost 578.34 Administrative Cost 64.26 TOTAL $7,068.60 RESOLUTION N0. 4. Improvement Project No. 1984 -10, Phase II will be financed through the appropriation of funds from Capital Projects Fund Division 37. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ,, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: Jim Grube, City Engineer DATE: June 6, 1985 RE: Installation of Manual Sprinkling System in Central Park Plaza Upon review of the final development proposal for the Central Park Plaza improvements staff considers it essential to provide a water distribution system for maintenance of the various annual planting beds within the plaza area. Accordingly, staff chose a manual system design which allows for watering of the areas on an "as needed" basis. Based upon such a system, staff solicited proposals for its instal- lation in conjunction with the final landscaping of theplaza area. The proposal of Albrecht Company, in the amount of $6,426.00 provides for system installation prior to placement of sod in the area, and represents the lowest responsible proposal. Staff recommends the proposal be accepted based upon its finding that Albrecht Company is a capable contractor. Accordingly, a resolution reflecting the recommendation is submitted for City Council consideration. Respectfully submitted, Recommend for Approval, jn 4"dz� JiM Gru e Y Kna City Engineer Director of Public Works jn 9K Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. I RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SHORT- ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC. FOR THE DESIGN OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEMS ON SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AT JOHN MARTIN DRIVE AND AT SUMMIT DRIVE --------------------------------------------------- BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into agreement with Short - Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc., Consulting Engineers, for the design of Traffic Control Signal Systems on Shingle Creek Parkway at John Martin Drive and at Summit Drive, at a fee not to exceed $4,000.00 plus construction inspection costs on a per diem basis. BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby establishes Traffic Signal Improvement Project No. 1985 -20 for the purpose of providing for the installation of said traffic control systems and the Finance Director is hereby authorized and directed to appropriate funds from the Municipal State Aid Fund Balance No. 2613 to finance said consultant fees. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 B ROOKLYN TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: June 6, 1985 RE: Installation of Traffic Control Signal Systems on Shingle Creek Parkway Analysis of Short - Elliott- Hendrickson's traffic study relating to retail and office development in Brooklyn Center shows that, with construction of "Brookdale Corporate Center Two" underway, and with completion of Ryan Construction Company's shopping center (including the Target store) scheduled for mid - summer, 1986, it . is imperative that a traffic control signal system be installed at the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and John Martin Drive. And, although a temporary signal system is inplace at Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive, there will be many advantages in replacing that system with a permanent system which is fully integrated with the one at John Martin Drive. Accordingly, we have obtained a proposal from S.E.H. to design these traffic control signal systems for the City. Their proposal (i.e. "Scope of Work" section) is attached. I recommend acceptance and approval of S.E.H.'s proposal because they are well qualified in this area, have provided excellent service to the City on all prior projects, know the requirements for this project in detail, and I believe their proposed fees are very reasonable (giving the City the credits gained from S.E.H.'s involvement in the recent study). A resolution for this purpose is provided for consideration by the City Council. Res ectfully submitted, 7 t� I /� �� Sy Knapp Director of Public Works A SK: j n f "7l L� „ SCOPE OF WORK Short- Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc. will prepare plans, specifications and estimates suitable for bidding by contractors for the installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and John Martin Drive and for a new signal to replace the existing temporary signal at the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive. The signal design will meet applicable Mn /DOT standards and reflect the needs of the intersections. We would propose the following work program for your consideration. The work program is fairly well defined and is based on cooperative efforts of SEH and Brooklyn Center. The work program provides for some flexibility to make the most efficient use of the two staffs. We would review all of the information we have collecte d and generated to date relating to the two intersections. SEH would provide a signal justification report to be sent by the City to Mn /DOT which will is a requirement for state r aid funding. - Information for the report can generally. come L from SEH. The City should supply accident information. SEH will prepare a final design for the signal system and will prepare plan sheets including an intersection layout and wiring diagram. The City will provide SEH with exis- ting or as -built roadway plans. SEH will supplement these plans with a survey crew and will prepare a 30 scale base layout. Utility information will be obtained from the City and from the private and public utility companies. This will be placed on a separate utility sheet by SEH. SEH L will also prepare the title sheet. SEH will prepare the technical specifications for the traffic signals as well as the "time and traffic control" specifications. These specifications will be assembled with the general specifications of the City into a bid document. The City would advertise the project, open bids and handle general construction contract administration. SEH would - provide technical inspection for the signal and the City would provide general inspection. - SEH would be utilized _. primarily for inspection during installation _ of the controller and cabinet, electrical cables and signal heads. The City can provide inspection for installation of conduits, foundations and poles. SEH would stake the r location of all elements. SEH would also provide for a t review of shop drawings and would assist the City in setting proper timing on the controllers and placement of the traffic signal g system into operation with assistance from the manufacturers. It is anticipated that the City will enter into an agreement with .Hennepin County for ultimate maintenance of the system and SEH will coordinate signal "turn on" with Hennepin County. The plans and specifications will meet all requirements of Mn /DOT. They will be submitted to the Mn /DOT Traffic Engineering office for preliminary review. The estimated cost of the above work is $4,000 with inspection costs being, an additional amount. The work can be accomplished for a fixed fee or can be based on.a per diem basis equal to payroll cost times a multiplier of 2.2 to provide for general overhead and profit, plus the actual cost of reimbursable expenses. The $4,000 can be a "cost not to exceed" for the plan and specification preparation. Inspection costs would be on a per diem basis. Work on the project can begin immediately. As soon as authorized, SEH can make the necessary surveys and plan preparation can begin. A preliminary plan for both signals can be, returned to the City within four weeks of completion of the surveys.' This preliminary plan will also be r submitted to the Mn /DOT traffic engineering office. Final j plan sheets can be completed shortly after receiving comments on the preliminary plan. Specifications will be prepared to coincide with the completion of the final plan r sheets. l_ �L Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE DESIGN OF A WATER UTILITY CONTROL SYSTEM --------------------------------------------------- BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute an agreement with Orr - Schelen-Mayeron and Associates, Inc. for the design of a Water Utility Control System at a cost of $26,800. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby establishes Water Utility Improvement Project No. 1985 -19 for the purpose of providing for the design and installation of said utility control system and the Finance Director is hereby authorized and directed to appropriate funds from the Public Utilities Fund to finance said consultant fees. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: June 6, 1985 RE: Installation of a Water Utility Control System The City presently utilizes 8 wells to meet its water supply needs. Of these wells, 7 are located in the City's northeast neighborhood, and one well (Well No. 2) is located more centrally in the City at 63rd Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard. Only 2 of the 8 wells are operated in an automatic mode based upon system pressure. The other 6 wells are capable of "hand on" and "hand off" operation only. The City also presently utilizes 1/2 Million Gallon, 1 Million Gallon, and 1 1/2 Million Gallon elevated towers for the purpose of water storage. Both the 1/2 Million Gallon and 1 Million Gallon towers have altitude valves which have been inoperable for at least 15 years. These storage tanks are monitored only by on- site recording equipment. No automatic controls exist for these facilities. In the 1984 "Report on Water Works Improvements" Black and Veatch (the City's Consulting Engineer) recommended the following: "To efficiently operate the water system, some method of monitoring and automatically controlling water production and storage on a continuous, 24 hour per day basis should be employed. The system selected should optimize ground water usage and equipment utilization, and should provide data for analyzing system performance and for determining future system requirements. "This can best be accomplished by a control system that centralizes all control and monitoring functions at one location. With such a system, well pumps can be directed to automatically maintain selected elevated tank levels, thus assuring proper distribution system pressure. In addition, well field production can be staged in preset, adjustable increments to provide production to match consumption. `7 ;W, � "Systems are available which will meet these requirements and are generally quite similar. Such systems, which are referred to as supervisory control and data acquisition systems ( SCADA), consist of a master station and remote terminal units. The remote terminal units are located at sites where a requirement for acquiring data or performing a control exists. The master station communicates with the remote terminal units to request data or to command a control action. The master station can initiate control commands automatically in response to system conditions or commands may be initiated manually by an operator. Most SCADA systems use a digitally encoded message to transmit data and commands, however, the medium employed as the communications channel does vary with manufacturers." (The report continues to recommend consideration of various types of communication media including direct wire, microwave radio, CATV, leased telephone lines and radio.) The Black and Veatch report recommends that this type of system be included into our "short- term" improvement program, and estimates the cost of such improvements at $150,000. Recommendation to Employ Consultant to Design Improvements To date the City has been able to operate effectively without a central control system due in large part to the knowledge and dedication of the Public utility staff, and to the existence of a very adequate supply system. However, at least three factors point to the need to sophisticate our system, i.e.: 1. our current system demands are closer to system capacity; 2. higher power costs dictate the need for greater efficiency; and 3. (most importantly) Bob Zimbrick, our Public Utilities Supervisor, will be retiring in December, 1985. Accordingly, I recommend we proceed immediately to employ a consulting engineer to design the required improvements. This will allow us to capture much of Mr. Zimbrick's knowledge of the system before he leaves, and to program some of that knowledge into the computerized system. Also, with Jim Grube leaving us on June 28th, immediate authorization to proceed will allow us to have Jim "feed" a good deal of technical information about our system to the consultant before he leaves. After considering several alternatives, I recommend the selection of Orr - Schelen - Mayeron and Associates, Inc. (O.S.M.) for this project. This recommendation is based on the following factors: 1. O.S.M. is very familiar with the City's Public Utility Division because they have designed several sanitary sewer improvement projects and some other projects for US. 2. We have been well satisfied with their work. 3. As compared to Black and Veatch (the "most- apparent" choice because they have done almost all work on the design of our water system from its inception to- date), O.S.M. offers the following advantages: a. they are Minneapolis based (vs. Kansas City). I feel this has substantial advantages for smaller projects and for projects which may require a good deal of follow -up services to assure proper start -up and continuing operations support from the consultant. (Both considerations apply to this project.) b. O.S.M. has a better track record in response time, attention to detail, and meeting completion dates. c. O.S.M.'s proposed fees for this project are substantially lower than those quoted to use by Black and Veatch. Accordingly, we recommend that the City accept O.S.M.'s proposal for these services. A resolution for this purpose is provided for consideration by the City Council. Respectfully submitted, a I 'd ,� C4,441 Sy Knapp Director of Public Works SK: j nJV 1 I 1 1 J i OR R •SCHELEN • MAYERON ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors May 24, 1985 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Attn: Mr. Sy Knapp Director of Public Works Re: Water Utility Control Needs Proposal Scope of Consultant Services Dear Mr. Knapp: Enclosed is a copy of our Scope of Services to perform a water utility review and implement an automated control system. We have followed the outline as described in Mr. Jim Grube's letter of April 17, 1985. Our review will analyze the various methods of monitoring and controlling the water system, with a recommendation on the best overall method. Staff input and joint meetings between the consultant and the staff will insure the ultimate system addresses all the perceived needs of the city. To accomplish the Scope of Services as described, we have estimated an engineer- ing fee of $26,800.00. We look forward to working with you on this project. If this proposal meets with your approval, please sign below and return one copy to our office. Very truly yours, ORR- SCHELEN - MAYERON CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. � CIZ4;Z _ ) Ja es P. Norton P.E., Associate Sy Knapp, Director of Public. Works Jp n P. dalic , P.E., Vice President Gerald Splinter, City Manager f� Dean A. Nyquist, Mayor JPN:nlb Enclosure "02i fast ,�ennepin ;venue S:;ite 233 ; ^!linneapolis, i� Minnesota 5 -13 6121 331- 3_6,60 SCOPE OF SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED I. System Review and Recommendations A. Brooklyn Center System Operation 1. OSM will review the City's water supply and storage system operation to establish criteria upon which the automated monitor /control system can be based. To accomplish this, the City will make available all pumping and usage records on a monthly basis for the previous 2 years. Also, the City will make available the following information on the computer analysis of the water system. a. Computer model of the distribution system b. Computer printout of the hydraulic analysis of the distribution system. 2. OSM will undertake an electrical system load management study to determine the most economical method of water supply system opera- tion. Included shall be: a. Analysis of past electric billings to determine power factor penalties presently being paid. b. Analyze the various electrical billing rate structure cur- rently available from NSP to determine the feasibility of controlling supply the water su 1 system electrical usage to qualify for a lower electrical energy rate. c. Analyze potential pumping schedule and capacity requirement Y P P P 9 P Y q to determine the degree to which load scheduling is feasible. B. Control System Review 1. OSM will review the operation of the various supervisory control and data acquisition systems ( SCADA) as they relate to the Brooklyn Center utility operation and requirements. a. Review possible communications channels. b. Analyze available SCADA system types for appropriateness, i.e, analog system, digital systems, hardwired control vs. programmable control, display technology available. c. Value engineer options from "a" and "b" for Brooklyn Center's needs d. Site visit time and expenses for visits to manufacturers and existing installations with Brooklyn Center personnel is not included in the base scope of work, but may be provided on a cost plus basis. -1- II. Report to City A. OSM will summarize its review of the SCADA systems available, including an operations and cost comparison of: 1. Communications media a. UHF or VHF radio b. Telephone line c. Cable TV d. Microwave 2. Central control system operations menu selection, command procedures, etc. 3. Monitor /control capability, including data retrieval and storage 4. Ability to monitor /control system functions pressure, flow, chemical feed, etc. 5. Future expansion capability 6. Cost estimates B. OSM will make recommendations to the City regarding: 1. Repair /replacement of altitude valves for 112 million gallon and 1 million gallon towers. 2. Most effective electrical system load management program for incorpo- ration in the SCADA system. 3. Most effective /desirable SCADA system. D. OSM will forumulate a water supply /use contingency plan based upon the City's desire to maintain a minimum fire demand reserve. 1. Establish the minimum reserve volume 2. Address procedures for emergency curtailment of water consumption. III. Contract Administration A. OSM will: 1. Prepare contract documents 2. Provide contract administration and construction observation, includ- ing: -2- a. Review of drawings /submittals b. Provide contract administration and construction observation for altitude valve repair /replacement c. Review system installation and preparation of Operations Manual by contractor d. Review system startup by contractor e. Prepare payment vouchers 3. Advise City of acceptablity of contractual work and materials. IV. Timing A. It is understood that the city requires the system to be fully opera- tional by January 1, 1986. OSM will perform its work in a timely manner and will establish a schedule to meet this timeframe requirement. V. Work Not Included A. Radio Site Survey 1. It is understood that the city will provide any required site specific radio survey through another consultant (Ward Montgomery). 2. Application for FCC licensing B. Computer hydraulic analysis of ter system p y y existing wa y -3- 10,E CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of 19 at P.M. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Irving Avenue North as Platted Within the Hellsted Addition. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF IRVING AVENUE NORTH AS PLATTED WITHIN THE HELLSTED ADDITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That portion of Irving Avenue North as platted in Hellsted Addition, Office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies South of the following described l ine: a line 50.00 feet South of and parallel to the North line of Section 35, Township 119, Range 21 is hereby vacated Section 1. 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 CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B R000 K ' LYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: June 6, 1985 RE: Request for Vacation of a Portion of Irving Avenue Irving Avenue, from 69th Avenue to a point approximately 490 feet South of 69th Avenue North, was platted as a street (i.e. a 30 foot wide half street) in conjunction with the plat of Hellsted Addition (see attached map). However, the street has never been opened for public travel. Currently, S. and G. Associates own the property lying Westerly of this dedicated street, and wish to proceed with replatting of that property. Accordingly, their attorney has submitted a request that the City vacate Irving Avenue. Even though S. and G. Associates would not obtain possession of the vacated right of way (we assume that fee title rests with the property owner(s) in the Hellsted Addition), S. and G. does have two reasons for initiating this action, i.e. (1) to assure that the City will not require them to plat "the other half" of Irving Avenue, and (2) to assure that setbacks allowing that side of their property will be sideyard setbacks, not frontyard setbacks. Because we see no public purpose in ever developing Irving Avenue as a public street, we recommend approval. An ordinance providing for vacation of this street is submitted for consideration by the City Council. If the Council conducts a first reading, notice of the second reading and Public Hearing will be sent to affected property owners. Re pectfully submitted, M Sy Knapp SK:j „ / 4 -gMrnn'4� ;W Ww 11' 7 „ FRANKE, RIACH AND FRANKE ATTORNEYS AT LAW JEROME E. FRANKE RONALD J. RIACH 200 ROSEDALE TOWERS C. WILLIAM FRANKE 1700 WEST HIGHWAY 36 TIMOTHY J. HASSETT SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55113-4082 MICHAEL T. ODERLE 612/636 -6400 JOHN P. VITKO May 23, 1985 OF COUNSEL Mr. Sy Knapp Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Phone: ( 612) 561 -5440 Re: Vacation of Irving Avenue adjacent to Tract A, Registered Land Survey 1382, files of Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, a /k /a 1701 - 69th Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Dear Mr. Knapp: I represent S & G Associates, a Minnesota General Partnership, the fee owner of record of the above described real property. This letter is submitted concurrent with my client's Application to the Planning Commission for approval of the subdivision of Tract A, Registered Land Survey 1382. We seek to split off that part of Tract A lying East of the following described line: Commencing at a point on the North line of said Tract A, 172 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof, thence South and parallel with the East line of said Tract A (which line is adjacent to and abuts Irving Avenue), a distance of 410 feet, more or less to a point on the South line of said Tract A, distant 172 feet from the East line thereof. In connection with the noted Application, my client is requesting that Brooklyn Center make a finding that Irving Avenue North, where it abuts the referenced parcel, is not needed and should be vacated. Our survey of the site indicates that Irving Avenue has not been developed as a public street; however, part of Irving Avenue has been paved and is being used as a parking area. At your earliest convenience, please advise as to the status of this request. Very truly yours, FR A r KE, I'ACH ND FRANKE I / CWF /jk C. William Franke cc: Cyril E. Sheehy, Jr. gg� 5 ra • • sa s Ida o : I di- mm" -r%I n �f • of t � an f -+o-I. %A ** a �a �s a -i AID r TRACT A CIL R. .r: Q :I x 111 TRACT B 11 )ia � y�V t eta eo � i , r • -` 12 } Tr�ACT D TRACT C ( b e`��` � ;V 1� - {Y, U 4..ti'• ��/i/ �� ' �'=.1, IF�G"� `'= - R. L.S. 1 � .�.. 1n / / �? •'~ y✓ 9� �' Ca T i S) d �' Irv~ r-40 i 486 _ • }�u =57 ZI � /.}y � - I ._. - � � 7C� zf ♦IiA_C47 - +: i i `7 ' :vt °'3' �L.k { "..4. T] »e's ° 3633 t .97 ;;G ,s,f l-j ( s io I R AN � .4uGl T! C.N e X 77 40 Its •° 97 N59`•?ti 3S_t• /ad CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the _ 10th of June , 1, at 7 : 3 0 at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances Regarding Liquor Licenses. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING LIQUOR LICENSES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 11 -502 LICENSES REQUIRED. 1. No person except wholesalers or manufacturers to the extent authorized under State license, and except the municipal liquor store, shall directly or indirectly deal in, sell, or keep for sale any intoxicating liquor without first having received a license to do so as provided in this ordinance. Licenses shall be of [five] six kinds: "On -Sale Liquor Class A " Cn Sale Liquor Class B", "Cn -Sale Liquor Class C", "On -Sale Liquor Class D ", "On -Sale Club ", and "On- Sale Wine ". 2. "On -Sale Liquor" licenses shall be issued only to restaurants which are conducted in such a manner that a significant part of the revenue for a license year is the sale of foods, and to hotels conducted in such a manner that, of that part of the total revenue derived from the serving of foods and intoxicating liquors, a significant part thereof for the license year is derived from the serving of foods. The term "significant part" as used in the subparagraph means the following: a. for Class A licenses, 800 or more of the applicable revenue derived from the serving of foods; Class A licenses are available to all hotels and restaurants. b. for Class B licenses, 500 through 79% of the applicable revenue derived from the serving of foods; Class B licenses are available to all hotels and restaurants. c. for Class C licenses, 40% through 49% of the applicable revenue derived from the serving of foods; Class C licenses are available only to hotels and to restaurants which derive a considerable part of their revenue from sources other than liquor and food [and to all licensees described in Section 11 -502 3• [All licensees who have not established tKe ratio between revenue derived from foods and revenue derived from other sources at the proposed licensed premise shall apply for a Class C license. Upon transfer of the license of an existing licensed premise the license class is dictated by the said established ratio.] ORDINANCE NO. New applicants who have not established a ratio between food and liquor for the licensed premises shall apply for a Class D license. This is considered a probationary license. Twelve months of documentation of food and liquor sales shall be presented to tFie Chief of Police on or before November 1 to determine the appropriate license class for the following year. If such documentation is not available, the probationary license sFa - 11 be extended for no more than one additional year. Otherwise, a Class A, B, or C license will be assigned based on established ratio. 4. "On -Sale Club" licenses shall be issued only to clubs. 5. "On -Sale Wine" licenses shall be granted only to restaurants which are conducted in such a manner that a significant part of the revenue for a license year is the sale of foods, and only the sale of wine not exceeding 14 percent alcohol by volume for consumption on the licensed premises, in conjuntion with the sale of food shall be permitted. a. for wine licenses the term "significant part" means 50;7 or more of the applicable revenue derived from the serving of food. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: May 7, 1985 SUBJECT: Proposed Changes in Liquor Ordinance As per your request on the proposed changes in the liquor ordinance, the following are the reasons the staff feels a Class D license is necessary. First, the ordinance now makes an incorrect statement regarding the food /liquor split figures. It states we require the ratio of other sales. Second, we feel it is necessary to specifically name a probationary license and limit its length. This will keep an establishment from continually claiming to not have ratio figures available yet. Third, and most important, we feel the intent for a Class C was to allow 40% to 49% food for only establishments such as hotels and bowling alleys which have other substantial main businesses besides the restaurants. We feel that it would be hard to start a restaurant out with a Class C license for its probation and then have them only make 45% food and tell them they do not qualify for a Class C license. In order to avoid this type of confusion in the future, we feel a new Class D probationary license is necessary. License fees are prorated on a daily basis. They are presently at the following; Class A, $21.92 /day; Class B, $30.14 /day; and Class C, $38.36/day. A Class D license would be prorated the same as a Class C as the fees would be the same. Also, this is based on a regulary 365 day year. During :Leap years the fee does change as it is divided by 366. If you have any further questions, please contact me. /D c CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 10th of June , 1985 at 7:30 at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances Regarding On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Fees. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CF 23 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE FEES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 23 -010 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 23 -010. LICENSE FEES. The fees for the various licenses shall be as hereinafter stated, not withstanding other ordinance provisions regarding the specific fee. Fee annual un- less otherwise Type of Licens Required by Section License Expires stated) On Sale Intoxicating Liquor Class A 11 -507 Dec. 31 $ 8,000.00 Class B 11 -507 Dec. 31 11,000.00 Class C 11 -507 Dec. 31 14,000.00 (These fees shall become effective on January 1, 1985. Until such time the fees from all classes of on -sale intoxicating liquor licenses shall be $10,000.) Class D, 11 -507 Dec. 31 $14,000 Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public rearing will be held on the 10th of June , 1985 at 7:30 at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 19 Relating to the Regulating, the Operating, Parking, Storing, Repairing, Servicing, and Maintaining of Vehicles. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY ORDINANCE RELATING TO TIE REGULATING, THE OPERATING, PARKING, STORING, REPAIRING, SERVICING, AND MAINTAINING OF [JUNK] VEHICLES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES CRDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 19 -1301 through Section 19 -1307 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 19 -1301 INTENT AND CONSTRUCTION. The collection of unused and unusable motor vehicle bodies, parts, engines and related accessories having become a common occurrence in the community, and such collection having become a source of danger to the physical and mental well being of children and adults within the community, and such collection having become a source of concern and complaint by citizens of the community, this [Junk] Vehicle Ordinance is enacted for the purpose of prohibiting the collection and maintaining of such motor vehicle bodies, parts, engines and related accessories. Section 19 -1302 DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of Section 19 -1301 through 19 -1307 inclusive, the following words and terms [wherever they occur in this ordinance] are defined as follows: a. PERSON. Person means any natural person, firm, association, partnership or corporation, and agent of any of the afore -said, except duly licensed New and Used Car Dealers, while engaged in the operation of their business. b. [JUNK] VEHICLE: [Within the context of Section 19 -1301, Junk] Vehicle means any motor vehicle which is not properly licensed for operation within the State of Minnesota by the State of Minnesota, or not properly licensed by any other state for operation within that state, or which is not in operable condition, or which is partially dismantled, or which is used for sale of parts, or as a source of repair or replacement parts for other vehicles, or which is kept for scrapping, dismantling, or salvage of any kind. Section 19 -1303 PARKING AND STORAGE. With the exception of appropriately licensed pioneer, classic, or collector vehicles as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 168.10 no person shall park, keep, place or store, or permit the parking or storage of a [ junk] vehicle on a public street or alley or on any private lands or premises which he owns, occupies, or controls unless the [ junk] vehicle shall be within a building on such premises. Appropriately licensed but inoperable pioneer, classic, or collector vehicles as defined by Minnesota Statutes Section 168.10 may be stored on the owner's property provided that such vehicles are screened from public view by means of a six foot opaque fence. ORDINANCE NO. Section 19 -1304 STORAGE OF PARTS, ENGINES, AND RELATED ACCESSORIES. No person shall store or keep parts, engines and related accessories on a public street or alley or on any private lands or premises which he owns, occupies, or" controls, unless such parts, engines, and related accessories are kept or stored within a building. Section 19 -1305 CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to permit any act prohibited by any other ordinance, statute, or rule of law. Section 19 -1306 SEPARABILITY. Should any section, subdivision, clause, or other provision of this ordinance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the ordinances as a whole nor of any part thereof other than the part so declared to be invalid. Section 19 -1307 PENALTY. Any person violating the provisions of this ordinance, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine of not more than seven hundred ($700) dollars or imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days or both, together with costs of prosecution. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION MAY 23, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Pro tem Nancy Manson at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pro tem Nancy Manson, Commissioners Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom, and Mike Nelson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Pro tem Manson stated that Chairman Lucht and Commissioner Bernards had called to say they would be unable to attend and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 9 1985 Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve the minutes of the May 1985 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 85014 (Silver Lake Leasing) Followin g the -- Ma mran Pro tern's ex p � Y lanation the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for special use permit approval to operate a car leasing office in the commercial building at 4315 70th Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85014 attached). Commmissioner Malecki arrives at 7:34 p.m. Chairman Pro tem Manson asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Gaetke with Silver Lake Leasing stated that he had nothing to add, but would answer questions. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether his company leased cars without the customer seeing them first. Mr. Gaetke explained that leasing was really an alternate method of financing the use of an automobile. He stated that he had hopes that his business would be quite successful and that he would soon outgrow the office space he was seeking to rent. He stated that there would be no parking of vehicles on the lot and that transfer of vehicles would take place at car dealerships where the vehicles would originate. Chairman Pro tem Manson asked whether cars would be dropped off at the leasing office after a customer was through with it. Mr. Gaetke responded that that could happen. He stated that he would certainly not store cars on the property overnight. He explained that it was a small office space that he was renting and that the landlord would not accept any leased cars on the property. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85014) Chairman Pro tem Manson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Gaetke further explained that used cars would be returned to a lot in Circle Pines which his company owns for sale of used cars. Hearing no other comments, Chairman Pro tem Manson called for a motion to close the public hearing. 5 -23 -85 _1_ CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. . 10 I ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85014 (Silver Lake Leasing) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 85014, subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall be no storage or transfer of vehicles at the site or on the neighboring Legion Club property. Office use only is permitted at 4315 70th Avenue North. 2. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 3• The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Short - Elliott - Hendrickson Study The Secretary then reviewed with the Planning Commission a memo from the City Manager to the City Council regarding the moratorium on retail development and implications of the traffic study by Short - Elliott- Hendrickson for the City's development policies. The Secretary explained that the Council had accepted the recommendations in the memo in their action to allow the moratorium to lapse and approve the plans for the Target retail development. The Secretary stated that the Planning Commission was to review potential ordinance changes that would be needed to insure that proposed developments did not pose an unreasonable burden on the traffic system. The Secretary stated that the probable and maximum land use scenarios contained information that might be useful in shaping ordinance requirements related to traffic analysis. The Secretary pointed out that the study just completed showed potential problems at the intersection of County Road 10 and Shingle Creek Parkway and John Martin Drive and Shingle Creek g Parkway. He stated that the problems at John Martin Drive would mostly be alleviated by the installation of a traffic signal at that intersection. He added that there was a potential for significant problems at Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive and that some modifications to the intersection would be necessary to accommodate even the probable scenario. The Secretary stated that the traffic analysis shows that maximum development of the area would bring a breakdown in traffic movement in the 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. peak hour period. He reviewed the graphics and the basic format of the report and urged the Commission to become better acquainted q d with it. Chairman Pro tem Manson asked whether the bank in the high -rise office building at Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive was looked at in developing the traffic analysis. The Secretary answered in the negative. He stated that the main traffic impact of the bank would probably be felt on the office building lot. 5 -23 -85 -2- There followed a brief discussion regarding the proposed Ramada Inn and the problems that had been experienced in that project getting off the ground. The Commission also discussed briefly the possible changes to the County Road 10 and Shingle Creek Parkway intersection to address the problems expected there. The Secretary stated that the left turn on County Road 10 might be lengthened and /or a double lane installed and that a possible right turn lane on southbound Shingle Creek Parkway might be installed to allow freer movement of cars turning right at that intersection. b. Community Based Residential Facilities The Secretary then introduced a discussion of community based residential facilities and how to regulate them in the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that the Commission had received two letters from Jim Thomson of the City Attorney's office, a plan for dispersal of such facilities prepared for Hennepin County, and portions of State statutes dealing with local residential facilities and their status under the Zoning Enabling Act. He stated that such facilities are moving into the suburbs because of a past overconcentration in certain areas of Minneapolis. He explained that a high concentration of such facilities would exist if more than one -half the population in a given neighborhood were residents of such a facility. The Secretary also stated that, under State law, such facilities with up to six residents must be considered a permitted use in a single family- residential district and facilities with seven to sixteen clients are allowed in multiple - family districts. The Secretary then reviewed with the Commission some of the significant changes suggested by Attorney Jim Thomson. He stated that one basic change would be to adopt the State definition of a residential facility. This would not just include mentally ill or the mentally retarded, he said, but also correctional facilities, half -way houses, etc.. He stated that residential facilities should be listed specifically as a special use if that is how they are to be treated. He was not sure whether to eliminate a category including "other commercial uses required for the public welfare in an Rl district ", because of other uses that might fall into that category. The Secretary stated that the most basic policy question before the Planning Commission was whether to allow more than six clients in the R1 zone and more than sixteen in multiple- family zones. He stated, if the City allowed more than six in the Rl zone, it should probably be by a special use permit with a cap on the maximum number of clients allowed. He also pointed out, that if the City did allow more than six, it would not really be able to deny such facilities. There followed a lengthy discussion regarding whether to allow more than six in the single - family district and more than sixteen in the multiple- family districts. Commissioner Sandstrom generally argued that more clients should be allowed if space was available under the limitations of the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance. The Secretary reminded the Commission that, if it allowed more than six clients by a special use permit, the court decision against the City in the Diane Wright case basically foreclosed the option of denying a special use permit to such a facility. He also reminded the Commission that all types of residential facilities would have to be allowed, including half -way houses for sex offenders or other convicts. Commissioner Nelson and Commissioner Ainas cited the goal of dispersing residential facilities as "mainstreaming" those with disabilities and recommended a limit of eight in the single - family zone by special use permit. After further 5 -23 -85 -3- E discussion as to what the Commission could and could not do in the case of a special use permit, it was agreed by all of the Commissioners present that eight clients should be allowed by a special use permit in the R1 zone. In discussing such facilities in multiple - family districts, Commissioners Ainas and Sandstrom suggested that from seven to sixteen clients be a permitted use and seventeen or eighteen be allowed by a special use permit. Chairman Pro tern Manson and Commissioners Nalecki and Nelson, however, preferred to allow only up to sixteen clients as a permitted use in multiple- family districts. They recommended that no such facilities be comprehended as a special use in the multiple - family zones. c. Real Estate Signs Commissioner Sandstrom then brought u the subject of real estate signs advertising g P J g space for lease in commercial buildings. He stated that he felt the existing size limitations were too restrictive and did not allow adequate space for advertising space for lease. The Secretary reviewed the provisions of the Sign Ordinance relating to real estate signs and suggested that Commissioner Sandstrom develop a specific recommendation if he did not feel the amount of signery allowed was adequate. The Secretary added that, in his opinion, adequate signery was allowed by the ordinance. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt the existing ordinance was very restrictive and that signs advertising space for lease can't be seen easily enough to do any good. ADJOURNMENT .otion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tern Manson, CommissionersPalecki, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Chairman Pro tem I i 5 -23 -85 -4- d Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85014 Applicant: Silver Lake Leasing Location: 4315 -70th Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate an automobile leasing office out of the commercial building at 4315 -70th Avenue North (also occupied by Sun Maintenance). The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by 70th Avenue North, on the east by the Duoos Brothers Legion Post and on the southwest by Brooklyn Printing and other small businesses along Brooklyn Boulevard. Automobile and truck rental and leasing is a special use in the C2 zoning district. The applicant has submitted a brief letter explaining that the activity at 4315 -70th Avenue North will only be a leasing office. No cars will be stored on the site. Nor will vehicles be picked up or dropped off at the site. Traffic generated by the use will consist of employee and customer traffic. The applicant has informed staff that leased cars will be picked up and dropped off at auto dealerships in this general area of the Twin Cities. Since the site has sufficient parking for office use of the building only, it must be established, for the record, that the site will not be used as a storage area or pick -up /drop -off location for auto- mobiles or other vehicles. The Commission should request the applicant to state clearly for the record that the site at 4315 -70th Avenue North will not be used for storage or transfer of vehicles to be leased by the leasing office. Aside from the concern regarding parking, staff have no misgivings about an office use locating in the building at 4315 -70th Avenue North. Office uses are permitted in the C2 zoning district. Approval is, therefore, recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. There shall be no storage or transfer of vehicles at the site or on the neighboring Legion Club. Office use only is permitted at 4315 -70th Avenue North. 2. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is non - transferable. 3. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 5 -23 -85 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA`'` MAY 23, 1985 STUDY SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: May 9, 1985 4. Chairman's Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 5. Silver Lake Leasing 85014 Request for special use permit approval to operate a car leasing office in the commercial building at 4315 70th Avenue North. 6. Other Business 7. Discussion Items a) SEH Traffic Study b) Group Care Facil.ities 8. Adjournment S Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85014 Applicant: Silver Lake Leasing Location: 4315-70th Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate an automobile leasing office out of the commercial building at 4315 -70th Avenue North (also occupied by Sun Maintenance). The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by 70th Avenue North, on the east by the Duoos Brothers Legion Post and on the southwest by Brooklyn Printing and other small businesses along Brooklyn Boulevard. Automobile and truck rental and leasing is a special use in the C2 zoning district. The applicant has submitted a brief letter explaining that the activity at 4315 -70th Avenue North will only be a leasing office. No cars will be stored on the site. Nor will vehicles be picked up or dropped off at the site. Traffic generated by the use will consist of employee and customer traffic. The applicant has informed staff that leased cars will be picked up and dropped off at auto dealerships in this general area of the Twin Cities. Since the site has sufficient parking for office use of the building only, it must be established, for the record, that the site will not be used as a storage area or pick -up /drop -off location for auto- mobiles or other vehicles. The Commission should request the applicant to state clearly for the record that the site at 4315 -70th Avenue North will not be used for storage or transfer of vehicles to be leased by the leasing office. Aside from the concern regarding parking, staff have no misgivings about an office use locating in the building at 4315 -70th Avenue North. Office uses are permitted in the C2 zoning district. Approval is, therefore, recommended, subject to at i least the following conditions: 1. There shall be no storage or transfer of vehicles at the site or on the neighboring Legion Club. Office use only is permitted at 4315 -70th Avenue North. 2. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is non - transferable. 3. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 5 -23 -85 Section 35 -220. SPECIAL USE PERMITS 4 2. Standards for Special Use Permits A special use permit may be granted by the City.Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. (c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. (d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. ( The Special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the 1' L ..L I L S _ t.Z n u lei i6. 1.. - .4-Ch it. is loc a Led. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ord- inance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted, the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connec- tion therewith. 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to gain the consent of the City Council fok resubmission at an earlier time. S. Re E Revocation and ., ....n....on of Use Permits When a special a =e permit has been issued pursuant to the pro - visions of this ordinance, such pern shall expire without further aCtiGit by i:iie Plaiinili�j Cou'uiti88iurt or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the sub- ject property within one year of the date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee of $15.00. Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub- ject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced within that time. In any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit re- lated thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandon- ment. AV i: �imr Nk ��\ ` I. E Haw � ms APPLICATION NO. �- -- y 8501 -- -j- -- TO W � W kip 1 u 3t F h i1 N V.. I AVE - - LANE _ R d►+r ,t 8 - a i ;mss — a � LU STN V �) camee�sa POST OFFICE - - o f � ' MATER - CEPS N. TOYER N E� 03TN AY E 7 — i W'� �I - Vrz I I '� 9 4 -- -- � F7 a — LL C i T N A C 1 5 T AV t Q — I ,x f H TER Lt. v E —�- -- 1! N. 6 5TH 4VE J L °aS TNT BROOKLANE PARK 4-- I - _ __. GARDEN CITY 3 SCt,OGL # � - _- V's.i 1..._.... tt�� br ,9�'" � �' '� � •..a� 64TH AV A ay�a C . -- �PARK� o y 245.805 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 5058 5059 dures set forth in section 245.801. All forfeitures shall be paid into the general fund. Sub( license sl Any unpaid forfeitures may be recovered by the attorney general. without History: 1976 c 243 s 10 other poll Sub: 245.81 [Repealed, 1976 c 243 s 15] state or 'j 245.811 FEES. 252.28, complied i Subdivision 1. Commissioner's authority. The commissioner may charge a Sub( reasonable fee for the issuance or renewal of a license except that no fee may be or before charged for a family foster care or family day care home license. Fees may be 1985. waived at the discretion of the commissioner. (b) , Subd. 2. Rules. The commissioner may adopt reasonable rules and regula- facilities tions pursuant to chapter 14 as may be necessary to carry into effect the provisions departmc of subdivision 1. facilities. j History: 1976 c 243 s 11; 1984 c 654 art S s 18 affected facility p 245.812 LOCATION AND ZONING. concentr Subdivision 1. No license or provisional license shall be granted when the more per issuance of the license would substantially contribute to the excessive concentration planning of residential facilities within any town, municipality or county of the state. (c) Subd. 2. In determining whether a license shall be issued, the commissioner shall f shall specifically consider the population, size, land use plan, availability of commu- sion incl cl nity services and the number and size of existing public and private community ( . residential facilities in the town, municipality or county in which an applicant seeks recognize to operate a residence. Under no circumstances may the commissioner newly in reside license any group residential facility pursuant to sections 245.781 to 245.812 and (2) i, 252.28, subdivision 2 if such residential facility will be within 1,320 feet of any facility I existing group residential facility unless the appropriate town, municipality or county (3) zoning authority grants the facility a conditional use or special use permit. With the areas th, I exception of foster family homes the requirements of this subdivision apply to all (4) licensed residential facilities, and for cities of the first class apply even if a facility is a until i considered a permitted single family residential use of property according to until ati subdivision 3. (at Subd. 2a. It is the policy of this state that handicapped persons and children shall be should not be excluded by municipal zoning ordinances or other land use regulations If t from the benefits of normal residential surroundings. i Subd. 3. A licensed residential facility serving six . or fewer persons or a reasons, licensed day care facility serving 12 or fewer persons shall be considered a permitted the requ i single family residential use of property for the purposes of zoning. (d) j Subd. 4. Unless otherwise provided in any town, municipal or county zoning 245.73 t ij regulation, a licensed residential facility serving from seven through sixteen persons does no or a licensed day care facility serving from 13 through 16 persons shall be considered right to a permitted multi-family residential use of If the cc p y property for purposes of zoning. A grants, t township, municipal or county zoning authority may require a conditional use or special use permit in order to assure proper maintenance and operation of a facility, conducpt provided that no conditions shall be imposed on the facility which are more of cha t restrictive than those imposed on other conditional uses or special uses of residential Hip property in the same zones, unless such additional conditions are necessary to 1Sp1981 } protect the health and safety of the residents of the facility. Nothing herein shall be construed to exclude or prohibit residential or day care facilities from single family 245.813 zones if otherwise permitted by a local zoning regulation. Ar I 5059 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 245.812 5058 Subd. 5. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, no license or provisional 2neral fund. license shall be issued under sections 245.781 to 245.812 and 252.28, subdivision 2 without 30 days written notice from the commissioner to the affected municipality or other political subdivision. I Subd. 6. No state funds shall be made available to or be expended by any state or local agency for facilities licensed under sections 245.781 to 245.812 and 252.28, subdivision 2 unless and until the provisions of subdivision 5 have been complied with in full. y charge a Subd. 7. (a) Residential facilities for adult mentally ill persons established on !' fee may be or before July 1, 1980, are exempt from the requirements of this section until July 1, -es may be 1985. (b) Before January 1, 1985, each county having one or more group residential and regula- facilities within 1,320 feet of any existing group residential facility shall submit to the provisions department of human services a plan to promote dispersal of group residential facilities. In formulating its plan, the county shall solicit the participation of affected persons, facilities, municipalities having highly concentrated residential For purposes of this subdivision, "highly . Fo facility populations, and advocacy groups p rp " 8 concentrated" means having a population in residential facilities serving seven or i when the more persons that exceeds one -half of one percent of the population of a recognized >ncentration planning district or other administrative subdivision. i the state. (c) Within 45 days after submission of the plan by the county, the commissioner >ioner shall certify whether the plan fulfills the purposes and requirements of this subdivi- m sion including the following requirements. { community (1) No new facility serving seven or more persons shall be located in any )licant seeks recognized planning district or other administrative subdivision where the population _oner newly in residential facilities is highly concentrated. 245.812 and (2) The county plan shall promote dispersal of highly concentrated residential feet of any facility populations. ty or county (3) The county plan shall promote the development of residential facilities in t. With the areas that are not highly concentrated. apply to all (4) No person in a residential facility shall be displaced as a result of this section a facility until a relocation plan has been implemented that provides for an acceptable ccording to alternative placement. ind children (5) If the plan provides for the relocation of residential facilities, the relocation regulations shall be completed by January 1, 1990. If the commissioner certifies that the plan does not do so, he shall state the per mit ted a reasons, and the county shall have 30 days to submit a plan amended to comply with a per e the requirements of the commissioner. t (d) After July 1, 1985, the commissioner may reduce grants pursuant to section , unty zoning 245.73 to a county required to have an approved plan under clause (b) if the county teen persons does not have a plan approved by the commissioner. The county board has the e considered right to be provided with advance notice and to appeal the commissioner's decision. zoning. A If the county requests a hearing within 30 days of the notification of intent to reduce ional use or grants, the commissioner shall not certify any reduction in grants until a hearing is of a facility, conducted and a decision rendered in accordance with the contested case provisions h are more of chapter 14. )f residential History: 1976 c 243 s 12; 1979 c 42 s 1; 1980 c 612 s 1; 1981 c 360 art 2 s 16,• a y to 1Sp1981 c 4 art 1 s 119 -121; 1984 c 617 s 2 -5; 1984 c 654 art 5 s 58 .r 11 be yi 245.813 [Repealed, 1980 c 542 s 21 1 �: j 8403 W5 HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT, PLANNING, ZONING 462.357 i { the board of delay, or impede a subdivision which has been given preliminary approval prior to j peal or etition ! p � the effective date of the interim ordinance. d by it has had History: 1965 c 670 s 5; 1976 c 127 s 21; 1977 c 347 s 68; 1980 c 566 s 24; to the board of 1983 c 216 art 1 s 67 462.356 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUATION; GENERALLY. i! Subdivision 1. R tion by the planning agency of the comprehensive for plan execution. Upon the recommenda- is JF COMPRE- municipal plan or sections thereof, y shall prepare the planning agency shall study and propose to the governing body reasonable and Manning agency practicable means for putting the plan or section of the plan into effect. Subject to 1 e anning g and the limitations of the following sections, such means include, but are not limited to, zoning regulations, regulations for the subdivision of land, an official map, a in the develop program for coordination of the normal public improvements and services of the es the planning ijf municipality, urban renewal and a capital improvements program. ij acent units of f shall nits Subd. 2. Compliance with plan. After a comprehensive municipal plan or ' ;ary. v section thereof has been recommended by the planning agency and a copy filed with planning agency = the governing body, no publicly owned interest in real property within the munici - pality shall be acquired or disposed of, nor shall any capital improvement vith the munici- be 1 ;unicipal plan as 1 authorized by the municipality or special district or agency thereof or any other political subdivision having jurisdiction within the municipality until after the red and adopted or to a major planning agency has reviewed the proposed acquisition, disposal, or capital improve- 1 pr se amend- ment and reported in writing to the governing body or other special district or planning agency or political subdivision concerned, its findings as to compliance of the i a ection or proposed acquisition, disposal or improvement with the comprehensive municipal I e public hearing plan. Failure of the to agency to report on the proposal within 45 days after r such other eriod as may be designated by the governing body such a reference, o period division. The oefore the day of u sub tall be s of this requirements P have satisfied the re , shall be deemed to ha q ndment shall be governing body may, by resolution adopted by two- thirds vote dispense with the totice of hearing. requirements of this subdivision when in its judgment it finds that the proposed >r of any section acquisition or disposal of real property or capital improvement has no relationship to members of the the comprehensive municipal plan. iendment thereof History: 1965 c 670 s 6 ling body of the 462.357 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUATION; ZONING. �vided by charter Subdivision 1. Authority for zoning. For the purpose of promoting the public adopt and amend health, safety, morals and general welfare, a municipality may by ordinance regulate official municipal the location, height, width, bulk, type of foundation, number of stories, size of inance. Until so buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size :commendation Of of yards and other open spaces, the density and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry, residence, recreation, public activities, a g studies or has or other purposes, and the uses of land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, I ' u P rP a hearing for the agriculture, forestry, soil conservation, water supply conservation, conservation of ve plan or official shorelands, as defined in section 105.485, access to direct sunlight for solar energy :rritory for which systems as defined in section 116J.06, flood control or other purposes, and may the governing establish standards and procedures regulating such uses. No regulation may !e to all or part Of prohibit earth sheltered construction as defined in section 116J.06, subdivision 2, or .s and the health manufactured homes built in conformance with sections 327.31 to 327.35 that ulate, restrict or compl with all other zoning ordinances promulgated pursuant to this section. The g Y g ;tion or a portion regulations may divide the municipality into districts or zones of suitable numbers, :cti and may be shape and area. The regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings, - dl *e may halt, regulations in one district may differ from those in other districts. The ordinance 462.357 HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT, PLANNING, ZONING 8406 8407 embodying these regulations shall be known as the zoning ordinance and shall the existing ordina consist of text and maps. A city may by ordinance extend the application of its whether the numt zoning regulations to unincorporated territory located within two miles of its limits alterations renders in any direction, but not in a county or town which has adopted zoning regulations; planning commissi provided that where two or more noncontiguous municipalities have boundaries less opinion the propos< than four miles apart, each is authorized to control the zoning of land on its side of a overall needs of the line equidistant between the two noncontiguous municipalities unless a town or and shall have con county in the affected area has adopted zoning regulations. Any city may thereafter alterations, of whi enforce such regulations in the area to the same extent as if such property were newspaper of gener situated within its corporate limits, until the county or town board adopts a prior to such heari comprehensive zoning regulation which includes the area. hearing, and shall Subd. 2. General requirements. At any time after the adoption of a land use recommendations i plan for the municipality, the planning agency, for the purpose of carrying out the Subd. 6. Apr policies and goals of the land use plan, may prepare a proposed zoning ordinance adjustments may and submit it to the governing body with its recommendations for adoption. Subject reasonable conditio to the requirements of subdivisions 3, 4 and 5, the governing body may adopt and adjustments has th amend a zoning ordinance by a two - thirds vote of all its members. (1) To hear ar. Subd. 3. Public hearings. No zoning ordinance or amendment thereto shall order, requirement, be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by the planning agency or by the enforcement of the governing body. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be (2) To hear rec published in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days prior to the instances where th day of the hearing. When an amendment involves changes in district boundaries circumstances uniq affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at least ten such variances only days before the day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and property the spirit and inteni situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property to which the amendment the granting of a relates. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing reasonable use if us the notice may use any appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of the landowner is d owners. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the landowner, and the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible person and shall be made a locality. Economic part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to reasonable use for individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceed- hardship also inclu� ings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this subdivision has been made. solar energy system Subd. 4. Amendments. An amendment to a zoning ordinance may be initiat- defined in section 1 ed by the governing body, the planning agency, or by petition of affected property board of appeals an owners as defined in the zoning ordinance. An amendment not initiated by the permit as a varianc planning agency shall be referred to the planning agency, if there is one, for study in the zone where and report and may not be acted upon by the governing body until it has received body as the case = the recommendation of the planning agency on the proposed amendment or until 60 dwelling as a two f< days have elapsed from the date of reference of the amendment without a report by may impose condit the planning agency. protect adjacent pr Subd. 5. Amendment; certain cities of the first class. The provisions of this Subd. 6a. It subdivision apply to cities of the first class. In such cities amendments to a zoning should not be exclu ordinance shall be made in conformance with this section but only after there shall from the benefits o have been filed in the office of the city clerk a written consent of the owners of 6a through 9, "per two - thirds of the several descriptions of real estate situate within 100 feet of the total Subd. 7. Per: contiguous descriptions of real estate held by the same owner or any party serving six or few( purchasing any such contiguous property within one year preceding the request, and persons shall be co after the affirmative vote in favor thereof by a majority of the members of the the purposes of zor governing body of any such city. The governing body of such city may, by a Subd. 8. Per: two- thirds vote of its members, after hearing, adopt a new zoning ordinance without municipal or coup: such written consent whenever the planning commission or planning board of such licensed residential city shall have made a survey of the whole area of the city or of an area of not less facility serving frc than 40 acres, within which the new ordinance or the amendments or alterations of multifamily resider 9 8406 1 8407 HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT, PLANNING, ZONING 462.357 ordinance and shall the existing ordinance would take effect when adopted, and shall have considered :e application of its whether the number of descriptions of real estate affected by such changes and 'o miles of its limits alterations renders the obtaining of such written consent impractical, and such i zoning regulations; planning commission or planning board shall report in writing as to whether in its lave boundaries less opinion the proposals of the governing body in any case are reasonably related to the land on its side of a overall needs of the community, to existing land use, or to a plan for future land use, unless a town or 1 and shall have conducted a public hearing on such proposed ordinance, changes or city may thereafter j alterations, of which hearing published notice shall have been given in a daily :uch property were newspaper of general circulation at least once each week for three successive weeks m board adopts a prior to such hearing, which notice shall state the time, place and purpose of such I hearing, and shall have reported to the governing body of the city its findings and ?ption of a land use recommendations in writing. of carrying out the Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and J zoning ordinance adjustments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any adoption. Subject reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and )dv may adopt and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: .rs (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any lment thereto shall order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in nning agency or by the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. e hearing shall be (2) To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in n days prior to the instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of district boundaries circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant -nailed at least ten such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with :)erty and property the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with 'n t amendment the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a )nor mailing reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of s 5IWddresses of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the esses to which the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the d shall be made a locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if mailed notice to reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Undue idate the proceed- hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for )n has been made. solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as .ce may be initiat- defined in section 116106, subdivision 2, when in harmony with the ordinance. The affected property board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not t initiated by the permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property is one, for study in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing til it has received body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dment or until 60 dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be thout a report by may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. provisions of this Subd. 6a. It is the policy of this state that handicapped persons and children nents to a zoning should not be excluded by municipal zoning ordinances or other land use regulations after there shall from the benefits of normal residential surroundings. For purposes of subdivisions of the owners of 6a through 9, "person" has the meaning given in section 245.782, subdivision 2. 0 feet of the total Subd. 7. Permitted single family use. A state licensed residential facility :r or any party serving six or fewer persons or a licensed day care facility serving 12 or fewer the request, and persons shall be considered a permitted single family residential use of property for members of the the purposes of zoning. city may, by a Subd. 8. Permitted multifamily use. Unless otherwise provided in any town, rdinance without municipal or county zoning regulation as authorized by this subdivision, a state 'g board of such licensed residential facility serving from 7 through 16 persons or a licensed day care area of not less facility serving from 13 through 16 persons shall be considered a permitted o rations of multifamily residential use of property for purposes of zoning. A township, W IP M 462.357 HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT, PLANNING, ZONING 8408 municipal or county zoning authority may require a conditional use or special use permit in order to assure proper maintenance and operation of a facility, provided that no conditions shall be imposed on the facility which are more restrictive than those imposed on other conditional uses or special uses of residential property in the same zones, unless the additional conditions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of the residential facility. Nothing herein shall be construed to exclude or prohibit residential or day care facilities from single family zones if I otherwise permitted by a local zoning regulation. History: 1965 c 670 s 7,• 1969 c 259 s 1; 1973 c 123 art S s 7; 1973 c 379 s 4; 1973 c 539 s 1; 1973 c 559 s 1,2; 1975 c 60 s 2; 1978 c 786 s 14,15,• Ex1979 c 2 s 42,43; 1981 c 356 s 248• 1982 c 490 s 2; 1982 c 507 s 22; 1984 c 617 s 6 -8 462.358 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUATION; SUBDIVISION REG- ULATIONS. Subdivision 1. [Repealed, 1980 c 566 s 35] Subd. la. Authority. To protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, to provide for the orderly, economic, and safe development of land, to preserve agricultural lands, to promote the availability of housing affordable to persons and families of all income levels, and to facilitate adequate provision for transportation, water, sewage, storm drainage, schools, parks, playgrounds, and i 0 ther ublic p services and facilities, a municipality may b ordinance t subdivi- p y ance ado sion regulations establishing Y Y p st ablishin = g o standards, requirements, and procedures for the review and approval or disapproval of subdivisions. The regulations may contain varied provisions respecting, and be made applicable only to, certain classes or kinds of subdivisions. The regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of subdivision. A municipality may by resolution extend the application of its subdivision regulations to unincorporated territory located within two miles of its limits in any direction but not in a town which has adopted subdivision regulations; provided that where two or more noncontiguous municipalities have boundaries less than four miles apart, each is authorized to control the subdivision of land equal q u distance from its boundaries within this area. Subd. 2. [Repealed, 1980 c 566 s 35] Subd. 2a. Terms of regulations. The standards and requirements e ula t . q u ements in the regulations tons ma address without limitation: tation: _ the size, location, grading, and improve- _ ment of lots, structures, public areas, streets, roads, trails, walkways, curbs and gutters, water supply, storm drainage, lighting, sewers, electricity, gas, and other utilities; the and planning design of sites, access to solar energy; and the protection _ and conservation of flood plains, shore lands, soils, water, vegetation, energy, air quality, and geologic and ecologic features. The regulations shall require that subdivisions be consistent sist ent with the municipalit ct al' tt s off ' tct p y al ma if one exists and ' P its zoning ordinance, and may require consistency with other official controls and the comprehensive plan. The regulations may prohibit certain classes or kinds of subdivisions in areas where rohibition is consistent ste t P with the comprehensive plan and the purposes of this section, particularly the preservation of agricultural lands. The regulations may prohibit, restrict or control development for the purpose of protecting and assuring access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The regulations may prohibit the issuance of building permits for any tracts, lots, or parcels for which required subdivision approval has not been obtained. The reguiations may permit the municipality to condition its approval on the construc- tion and installation of sewers, streets, electric, gas, drainage, and water facilities, and similar utilities and improvements or, in lieu thereof, on the receipt by the municipality of a cash deposit, certified check, irrevocable letter of credit, or bond in IMPROVEMENT HEARING INFORMATION FOR EWING AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO, 1985 -10 DREW AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO, 1985 -11 DALLAS ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO, 1985 -12 WINGARD LANE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO, 1985 -13 65TH AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -14 DATE OF HEARING - JUNE 10 1985 TIME OF HEARING - 8:00 P.M. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROO BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER REVISED ENGINEER'S REPORT Ewing Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -10 Concrete Curb and Gutter Installation and Bituminous overlay PROJECT LOCATION: Ewing Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North DISCUSSION: The City has received a petition for the improvement of Ewing Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North. The petition, signed by 50% of the property owners (7 of 14), requests that concrete curb and gutter and street surfacing improvements be installed. Subsequent to receipt of the original petition, the City received a second petition requesting that no street improvements be constructed along Ewing Avenue North. This petition, signed by 71% of the property owners (10 of 14), includes the signatures of four owners who originally signed the improvement petition. Accordingly, it is difficult to evaluate the true wishes of the property owners without additional discussion and input. Staff has completed a preliminary review of existing conditions and determined that the existing surface placed in 1956 is essentially sound. Accordingly, we recommend that the improvement project, if approved, provide for widening the existing 27 to 28 foot surface to the standard 30 foot width. The project should also include the removal and replacement of the pavement's uneven outer edges (3 to 5 feet) to provide a match between the curb and gutter and the widened street surface. Upon completion of the curb and gutter installation and street widening, the entire surface should then be overlayed with bituminous paving along its length from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North to insure a uniform appearance and good rideability. Such a reconstructed street will have a 20 year life expectancy, assuming routine maintenance including periodic seal - coating is provided. 1107�e _g;0*ft&44 maU 4!?46e15r Engineer's Report - Page 2 Project No. 1985 -10 Staff has also examined the drainage conditions at the Ewing Avenue North - 69th Avenue North intersection and determined that surface drainage can be partially corrected by construction of a concrete cross - street gutter. We consider this method to be a cost effective, temporary solution to existing drainage problems. As a permanent solution, a storm sewer system should be installed in conjunction with future improvements along 69th Avenue. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS In accordance with the recently- adopted street reconstruction assessment policy, reimbursement of project costs is based upon assessment of the $1200 residential unit charge against each of the fourteen abutting residential properties (total = $16,800). It is proposed that the balance of the cost ($31,780) be financed from the City's local Municipal State Aid Fund. A summary of the estimated project costs and funding sources is as follows: Cost Summary Construction Cost $36,650 Contingency 5,500 Subtotal $42,150 Engineering Cost 3,790 Administrative Cost 420 Legal Cost 420 Capitalized Interest 1,800 TOTAL $48,580 Revenue Source Special Assessment Share $16,800 City Cost Share (M.S.A. Fund Balance 2611) 31,780 TOTAL $48,580 SUMMARY The proposed project as described above, is feasible under the conditions described and at the costs estimated. Engineer's Report - Page 3 Project No. 1985 -10 As noted above, it is difficult to accurately evaluate the current level of interest in the project, because both petitions were circulated and signed on the basis of partially accurate information. If the City Council wishes to further discuss the project, and to receive further input, we recommend that a public hearing be held for this purpose. Notices would be sent to the property owners, along with more detailed information. After the public he City Council could then decide g y c de to approve, rr , or to reject the proposed improvement. A resolution for this purpose is provided for consideration by the City Council. (Note: A simple majority vote of the Council is required to call for the public hearing. However, because 4 of the original 7 petitioners supporting the project have now signed the petition opposing it, the project could only be ordered in - after the public hearing - by a 4 /5ths vote of the Council.) If, alternately, the City Council wishes to deny the petition at this time, an alternate resolution for this purpose is also provided. Respectfully submitted, Recommended For Approval, Jifi Grube sy Knapp City Engineer Director of Public Works JNG:j i a � i mm w FA w " i I N. I i MOUND 71M CEMETARY MM mom P.2 rA rA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that the Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, will meet at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, on Monday, June 10, 1985, at 8:00 o'clock P.M., central daylight time, to consider the making of the following improvements: Ewing Avenue North Street Improvement Project No 1985-10 Description: Concrete curb and gutter installation and bituminous surfacing improvement on Ewing Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North Estimated Cost: $48,580.00 The benefited area proposed to be assessed for this improvement is as follows: Abutting properties along Ewing Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North Drew Avenue North Street Improvement Project No 1985-11 Description: Concrete curb and gutter installation and bituminous surfacing improvement on Drew Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North Estimated Cost: $48,580.00 The benefited area proposed to be assessed for this improvement is as follows: Abutting properties along Drew Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North Dallas Road Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -12 Description: Concrete curb and gutter installation and bituminous surfacing improvement on Dallas road from 72nd Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North Estimated Cost: $92,830.00 The benefited area proposed to be assessed for this improvement is as follows: Abutting properties along Dallas Road from 72nd Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North The Council proposes to proceed under authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 429.011 to 429.111. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvements will be heard at this meeting. GERALD G. LINTER, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Dated May 16, 1985 By order of the City Council (Published in the Brooklyn kly Center Post, May 23, 1985.) • May 17, 1985 Dear Property Owner: At 8:00 P.M. on Monday, June 10, 1985, the Brooklyn Center City Council will conduct a public hearing on the improvement of Ewing Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North. As noted on the enclosed "Notice of Public Hearing" the proposed improvements include installation of concrete curb and gutter and pavement restoration. Your property lies within the area proposed to be assessed for the improvement. If the City Council orders the construction of the improvement, it is estimated the assessment against each single- family site would be $1,200.00 as established by City Council resolution No. 85 -34 (copy enclosed). Also enclosed is information regarding payment options. The public hearing is an opportunity for you to express an opinion on the proposed improvement. Petitions, both for and against the proposal, have been circulated within the neighborhood and submitted to the City Council. However, the City Council believes it to be in the best interests of the affected owners that everyone be given an opportunity to make his /her comments and opinions known after receiving full information about the project. Only after the City Council has received your comments will a decision be made to either proceed with the project or to terminate the proceedings. • May 17, 1985 Page 2 We ask that you review the enclosed information prior to the public hearing. You are encouraged to call the City Engineering Department at 561 -5440 if you need additional information or have a question which could be answered in advance of the meeting. Yours very truly, Sy 'Knapp Director of Public Works SK: ��}-� Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING EWING AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -10, AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREON --------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, Resolution No. 85 -76 adopted the 6th day of May, 1985, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed improvement of Ewing Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North; and, WHEREAS, ten days' published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 10th day of June, 1985, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that it is hereby determined that it is necessary and in the best interests of the City nd y the owners of property specially benefited thereby, P Y Y. that: 1. The following improvement as proposed in Council Resolution No. 85 -76 adopted on the 6th day of May, 1985 shall be constructed: EWING AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -10 2. The City Engineer is designated as the engineer for this improvement. The City Engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for this improvement. 3. The estimated os c t of the project is $48,580.00. 4. The estimated cost will be financed by: Special Assessments $16,800.00 M.S.A. Fund Balance 2611 31,780.00 TOTAL $48,580.00 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. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TERMINATING PROCEEDINGS FOR EWING AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -10 -------------------------------------------------- BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that Chapter 429 proceedings regarding Ewing Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -10 are hereby terminated. 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 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 ROOKLYN TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER ENGINEER'S REPORT Drew Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -11 Concrete Curb and Gutter Installation and Bituminous Overlay PROJECT LOCATION: Drew Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North DISCUSSION: The City has received a petition for the improvement of Drew Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North. The petition, signed by six of fourteen property owners (43 %), requests that concrete curb and gutter and street surfacing improvements be installed. Also submitted in conjunction with this request was a petition signed by seven of fourteen property owners (50 %) which requested no work be undertaken along the street. In addition, a second petition, signed by fourteen property owners between 67th and 68th Avenues North, requested that no improvements be completed along Drew Avenue North between 67th and 69th Avenues North. Staff has completed a preliminary review of existing conditions and determined that the existing surface placed in 1956 is essentially sound. Accordingly, we recommend that the improvement project, if approved, provide for widening the existing 28 foot surface to the standard 30 foot width. The project should also include the removal and replacement of the pavement's uneven outer edges (3 to 5 feet) to provide a match between the curb and gutter and the widened street surface. Upon completion of the curb and gutter installation and street widening, the entire surface should then be overlayed with bituminous paving along its length from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North to insure a uniform appearance and good rideability. Such a reconstructed street will have a 20 year life expectancy, assuming routine maintenance including periodic seal - coating is provided. „ 07�e . rn Engineer's Report - Page 2 Project 1985 -11 Based upon preliminary examination of drainage conditions, staff has determined that only minor adjustments to the existing storm sewer system are necessary. Specifically, the proposal provides for the addition of one drainage structure (catch basin) on Drew Avenue North at 69th Avenue North and the adjustment of various drainage structures along Drew Avenue North. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS In accordance with the recently- adopted street reconstruction assessment policy, reimbursement of project costs is based upon assessment of the $1,200 residential unit charge against each of the fourteen abutting residential properties (total = $16,800). It is proposed that the balance of the cost ($31,780) be financed from the City's local Municipal State Aid Fund. A summary of the estimated project costs and funding sources is as follows: Cost Summary Construction Cost $36,650 Contingency 5,500 Subtotal $42,150 Engineering Cost 3,790 Administrative Cost 420 Legal Cost 420 Capitalized Interest 1,800 TOTAL $48,580 Revenue Source Special Assessment Share $16,800 City Cost Share (M.S.A. Fund Balance 2611) 31,780 TOTAL $48,580 SUMMARY The proposed project as described above is feasible under the conditions described and at the costs estimated. i (Engineer's Report - Page 3 Project No. 1985 -11 I i I As noted above, the petition requesting the improvement was signed by 6 property owners, while the petition opposing the project was signed by 7 property owners. If the City Council wishes to further discuss the project, and to receive further input, we recommend that a public hearing be held for this purpose. Notices would be sent to the property owners, along with more detailed information. After the public hearing, the City Council could then decide to approve, or to reject the proposed improvement. A resolution for this purpose is provided for consideration by the City Council. (Note: A simple majority vote of the Council is required to call for the public hearing. Also, because the petition requesting this improvement was signed by more than 35 %.of the property owners, the project could be ordered constructed - after the public hearing - by a simple majority vote of the City Council. If, alternately, the City Council wishes to deny the petition at this time, an alternate resolution for this I purpose is also provided. I ` Respectfully submitted, Recommended For Approval, JIm Grube Sy Knapp City Engineer Director of Public Works JNG: i !s ■ ■ ■' ! �! IUND I ETARY p -• !� �� is mm all NUAll see 4 �lI ♦ jam s s NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that the Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, will meet at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, on Monday, June 10, 1985, at 8:00 o'clock P.M., central daylight time, to consider the making of the following improvements: Ewing Avenue North Street Improvement Project No 1985 -10 Description: Concrete curb and gutter installation and bituminous surfacing improvement on Ewing Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North Estimated Cost: $48,580.00 The benefited area proposed to be assessed for this improvement is as follows: Abutting properties along Ewing Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North Drew Avenue North Street Improvement Project No 1985-11 Description: Concrete curb and gutter installation and bituminous surfacing improvement on Drew Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North Estimated Cost: $48,580.00 The benefited area proposed to be assessed for this improvement is as follows: • Abutting properties along Drew Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North Dallas Road Street Improvement Project No 1985 -12 Description: Concrete curb and gutter installation and bituminous surfacing improvement on Dallas road from 72nd Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North Estimated Cost: $92,830.00 The benefited area proposed to be assessed for this improvement is as follows: Abutting properties along Dallas Road from 72nd Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North The Council proposes to proceed under authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 429.011 to 429.111. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvements will be heard at this meeting. GERALD G. LINTER, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Dated May 16, 1985 By order of the City Council • (Published in the Brooklyn Center Post, May 23, 1985.) May 17, 1985 Dear Property Owner: At 8:00 P.M. on Monday, June 10, 1985, the Brooklyn Center City Council will conduct a public hearing on the improvement of Drew Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North. As • noted on the enclosed "Notice of Public Hearing" the proposed improvements include installation of concrete curb and gutter and pavement restoration. Your property lies within the area proposed to be assessed for the improvement. If the City Council orders the construction of the improvement, it is estimated the assessment against each single - family site would be $1,200.00 as established by City Council resolution No. 85 -34 (copy enclosed). Also enclosed is information regarding payment options. The public hearing is an opportunity for you to express an opinion on the proposed improvement. Petitions, both for and against the proposal, have been circulated within the neighborhood and submitted to the City Council. However, the City Council believes it to be in the best interests of the affected owners that everyone be given an opportunity to make his /her comments and opinions known after receiving full information about the project. Only after the City Council has received your comments will a decision be made to either proceed with the project or to terminate the proceedings. May 17, 1985 . Page 2 We ask that you review the enclosed information prior to the public hearing. You are encouraged to call the City Engineering Department at 561 -5440 if you need additional information or have a question which could be answered in advance of the meeting. Yours very truly, / Sy Knapp Director of Public Works t SK: 1 • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING DREW AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -11, AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREON --------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, Resolution No. 85 -77 adopted the 6th day of May, 1985, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed improvement of Drew Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North; and, WHEREAS, ten days' published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 10th day of June, 1985, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that it is hereby determined that it is necessary and in the best interests of the City and the owners of property specially benefited thereby, that: 1. The following improvement as proposed in Council Resolution No. 85 -77 adopted on the 6th day of May, 1985 shall be constructed: DREW AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -11 2. The City Engineer is designated as the engineer for this improvement. The City Engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for this improvement. 3. The estimated cost of the project is $48,580.00. 4. The estimated cost will be financed by: Special Assessments $16,800.00 M.S.A. Fund Balance 2611 31,780.00 TOTAL $48,580.00 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. r Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TERMINATING PROCEEDINGS FOR DREW AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -11 -------------------------------------------------- BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that Chapter 429 proceedings regarding Drew Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -11 are hereby terminated. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER ENGINEER'S REPORT Dallas Road Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -12 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -12 Grading, Base, Bituminous Paving and Concrete Curb and Gutter PROJECT LOCATION: Dallas Road from 72nd Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North DISCUSSION: The City has received a petition for the improvement of Dallas Road from 72nd Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North. The petition, signed by nine of seventeen property owners • (53 %) requests that the street be reconstructed and that concrete curb and gutter be installed. Also submitted in conjunction with this request was a petition signed by five of seventeen property owners which requests that the proposed improvement be denied. This segment of Dallas Road was constructed in 1963, and has shown significant signs of distress (heavy alligator cracking, softness of the roadway, and water pumpage through cracks) for many years. This year several segments have experienced total failure i.e. - a complete breakup of the bituminous surface and subgrade. The primary cause of this failure is the inability of the underlying clay material to allow vertical drainage of subgrade moisture. The saturated subgrade has held the water in place. As freezing temperatures occurred the frozen water crystals expanded, heaving the subgrade and the pavement structure. As temperatures warmed, the ice crystals melted and the subgrade settled. Because the saturated clay soils provide little structural support for the pavement, vehicular traffic loading then destroys the pavement during springtime conditions when the ground water rises to the surface level. " 7lse Sox /fZl c y ; 1 once it?,Zt, Engineer's Report - Page 2 • Project No. 1985 -12 Staff has determined that approximately 600 feet of the total 800 feet must be totally removed and reconstructed to provide an acceptable pavement surface. Accordingly, we recommend that the improvement project, if approved, provide for (a) the installation of a subgrade drain system (b) the placement of a properly graded free - draining subgrade material, and (c) a full -width new bituminous surface. Such a reconstructed street will have a life expectancy exceeding 20 years, assuming that routine maintenance including periodic seal coating is provided. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS In accordance with the recently - adopted street reconstruction assessment policy, reimbursement of project costs is based upon assessment of the $1,200 residential unit charge against each of the seventeen abutting residential properties (total = $20,400). It is proposed that the balance of the cost ($72,430) be financed from the City's local Municipal State Aid Fund. A summary of the estimated project costs and funding sources is as follows: Cost Summary Construction Cost $71,000 Contingency 10,650 Subtotal $81,650 Engineering Cost 7,350 Administrative Cost 820 Legal Cost 820 Capitalized Interest 2,190 TOTAL $92,830 Revenue Summary Special Assessment Share $20,400 City Cost Share (M.S.A. Fund Balance 2611) 72,430 TOTAL $92,830 i (Engineer's Report - Page 3 Project No. 1985 -12 i I SUMMARY The project is feasible under the conditions referenced and at the costs estimated. A resolution calling for a public hearing on June 10, 1985 is provided for consideration by the City Council. If the public hearing is held, the project can be ordered in - only after the public hearing - by a simple majority vote of the City Council. It should also be noted that the "do nothing" alternative is not acceptable on this segment of street. The cost for a minimal repair, to extend the life of the existing street by 2 or 3 years is estimated at $20,000 to $30,000. Accordingly, serious consideration of the total reconstruction project is recommended. Respectfully submitted, Recommended For Approval, Al J1m. Grube S Kr a Y PP City Engineer Director of Public Works JNG:j I ITTMUNMI 7� 1 Nic ol ••�. I M .. 1o1 at. No 11111111 a III Big NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING • FOR IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that the Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, will meet at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, on Monday, June 10, 1985, at 8:00 o'clock P.M., central daylight time, to consider the making of the following improvements: Ewing Avenue North Street Improvement Pro'ect No. 1985 -10 Description: Concrete curb and gutter installation and bituminous surfacing improvement on Ewing Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North Estimated Cost: $48,580.00 The benefited area proposed to be assessed for this improvement is as follows: Abutting properties along Ewing Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North Drew Avenue North Street Improvement Project No 1985-11 Description: Concrete curb and gutter installation and bituminous surfacing improvement on Drew Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North Estimated Cost: $48,580.00 The benefited area proposed to be assessed for this improvement is as follows: Abutting properties along Drew Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to 69th Avenue North Dallas Road Street Improvement Project No 1985-12 Description: Concrete curb and gutter installation and bituminous surfacing improvement on Dallas road from 72nd Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North Estimated Cost: $92,830.00 The benefited area proposed to be assessed for this improvement is as follows: Abutting properties along Dallas Road from 72nd Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North The Council proposes to proceed under authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 429.011 to 429.111. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvements will be heard at this meeting. Aeazl,. 7 GERALD G. LINTER, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Dated May 16, 1985 By order of the City Council (Published in the Brooklyn Center Post, May 23, 1985.) • May 17, 1985 Dear Property Owner: At 8:00 P.M. on Monday, June 10, 1985, the Brooklyn Center City Council will conduct a public hearing on the improvement of Dallas Road from 72nd Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North. As noted on the enclosed "Notice of Public Hearing" the proposed improvements include installation of concrete curb and gutter and pavement restoration. Your property lies within the area proposed to be assessed for the improvement. If the City Council orders the construction of the improvement, it is estimated the assessment against each single- family site would be $1,200.00 as established by City Council resolution No. 85 -34 (copy enclosed). Also enclosed is information regarding payment options. The public hearing is an opportunity for you to express an opinion on the proposed improvement. A petition requesting the improvement has been submitted to the City Council. However, the City Council believes it to be in the best interests of the affected owners that everyone be given an opportunity to make his /her comments and opinions known after receiving full information about the project. Only after the City Council has received your comments will a decision be made to either proceed with the project or to terminate the proceedings. May 17, 1985 Page 2 • We ask that you review the enclosed information prior to the public hearing. You are encouraged to call the City Engineering Department at 561 -5440 if you need additional information or have a question which could be answered in advance of the meeting. Yours very truly, Sy Knapp Director of Public Works SK: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING DALLAS ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -12, AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREON --------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, Resolution No. 85 -78 adopted the 6th day of May, 1985, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed improvement of Dallas Road from 72nd Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North; and, WHEREAS, ten days' published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 10th day of June, 1985, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that it is hereby determined that it is necessary and in the best interests of the City and the owners of property specially benefited thereby, that: 1. The following improvement as proposed in Council Resolution No. 85 -78 adopted on the 6th day of May, 1985 shall be constructed: DALLAS ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -12 2. The City Engineer is designated as the engineer for this improvement. The City Engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for this improvement. 3. The estimated cost of the project is $92,830.00. 4. The estimated cost will be financed by: Special Assessments $20,400.00 M.S.A. Fund Balance 2611 72,430.00 TOTAL $92,830.00 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. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TERMINATING PROCEEDINGS FOR DALLAS ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -12 -------------------------------------------------- BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that Chapter 429 proceedings regarding Dallas Road Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -12 are hereby terminated. 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. C CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER ENGINEER'S REPORT Wingard Lane Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -13 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -13 Closure of Street Intersection /Construction of "Turnaround" PROJECT LOCATION: Wingard Lane at Brooklyn Boulevard DISCUSSION: The City has received a petition for the closure of the Wingard Lane intersection with Brooklyn Boulevard. The petition, signed by five of ten affected property owners (50 %), requests that a "Hammerhead Turnaround" be constructed at the intersection as a means of eliminating "cut- through" traffic between Brooklyn Boulevard and Noble Avenue. (Note: A traffic count taken in November, 1984 showed that the traffic volume on this portion of Wingard Lane is 1250 vehicles per day. We estimate that more than 90% of this traffic is non -local traffic.) The proposed improvement provides for the intersection closure as requested, and the construction of a "hammerhead turn - around" (see sketches attached). Related construction includes the installation of concrete curb and gutter within the turn around area, extension of sidewalk along Brooklyn Boulevard, the extension of storm sewer for drainage purposes, and landscaping. Presently, the residence at 7216 Brooklyn Boulevard has driveway access to both Wingard Lane and Brooklyn Boulevard. Staff recommends the driveway access to Wingard Lane be closed in conjunction with this project. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS In consideration of the fact that the proposed project is primarily a safety improvement, of general benefit to the entire City, recommends the City finance the project through appropriation of funds from its local Municipal State Aid fund account. „ #7�z .s m Engineer's Report - Page 2 • Project No. 1985 -13 A summary of estimated project costs and revenue source is as follows: Cost Summary Construction Cost $16,280 Contingency 2,440 Subtotal $18,720 Engineering Cost 1,680 Administrative Cost 190 TOTAL $20,590 Revenue Source City Cost Share $20,590 (M.S.A. Fund Balance 2611) SUMMARY . The proposed project is feasible under the conditions referenced and at the costs estimated. Although we have recommended that no special assessment be levied for this project, we do recommend that a public hearing be conducted to provide an opportunity for discussion of the proposed improvements. A resolution calling for a public hearing to be held on June 10, 1985 is provided for consideration by the City Council. An alternate resolution, denying the petition, is also provided for consideration. Respectfully submitted, Recommended For Approval, m Grube Sy Knapp City Engineer Director of Public Works JNG : j n 1 FOR 'HAMMERHEAD TURNAROUND' • ON WINGARD LANE , , , , , �pw �' 1 �r y ro � NEC � pe w � EW A / QW�JE 2 s A1 i t t VV C 4 , lAh 3 o _ y,4� s ME.PyE,gD Tu.PNq,POU,vp © ENTE,e (FD PGl/�J2 / 1 1 b- ,l11V,4 e V l/eEPT P2 AV Now 'llim 4r. lilt' �ooetiNE MT J LANE 1 PONDS DR ly % " ��` ` -7 v > Q W �. If m 72ND Q Q 0 Z W lu° W 2 \ C �'�Cl U1# QlllYJL i� `S�, 71ST I JAVE. I N. O + WILLOW / LANE <t ti SCHOOL 'L Tp1H / t f W 70TH AVE N. Z W O tat C'� W —Z PARK WILLOW LANE G C.S.A.R 3334 N0. 130 6` W Q: W U.S. > > W W Q J W POST o a s a = o w OFFICE _ �p �pG ui Z 9 � 0 68TH AV E. N_ O �� h- 68TH 4 AVE_ �O 'H N i IQ� a cc 10 t PROJECT LOCATION MAP = ' x; STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.1985-13 1NINGARD LANE AT BROOKLYN BOULEVARD :Y:�: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that the Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, will meet at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, on Monday, June 10, 1985, at 8:00 o'clock P.M., central daylight time, for a public hearing on each of the following proposed improvements: Wingard Lane Street Improvement Project No 1985-13 Description: Closure of street intersection of Wingard Lane at C.S.A.H. 152 (Brooklyn Boulevard) and construction of turnaround Estimated Cost: $20,590 • Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvements will be heard at this meeting. Alta& -'Oe 4ft GERALD G. S LINTER, CITY CLERK CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Dated May 16, 1985 By order of the City Council Published in ( the Brooklyn Center Y Post, May 23, 1985.) May 17, 1985 Dear Prop Owner: P Y At 8:00 P.M. on Monday, June 10, 1985, the Brooklyn Center City Council will conduct a public hearing on the proposed closure of the Wingard Lane intersection at Brooklyn Boulevard (C.S.A.H. 10). The proposal provides for construction of a "hammerhead turnaround" and related landscaping to eliminate cut through traffic between Brooklyn Boulevard and Noble Avenue North. All costs incurred in the completion of the proposed project would be financed by the City, with no special assessments proposed to be levied against the affected properties. The scheduled hearing is an opportunity for you to express an opinion on the proposed project. A petition requesting the intersection closure was signed by five adjacent owners. However, the City Council believes it to be in the best interests of the affected owners that everyone be given an opportunity to make his /her comments and opinions known after receiving full information about the project. Only after the City Council has received your comments will a decision be made to either proceed with the project or to terminate the proceedings. We ask that you review the enclosed information prior to the public hearing. You are encouraged to call the City Engineering Department at 561 -5440 if you need additional information or have a question which could be answered in advance of the meeting. Yo rs very truly, Sy � �� KnapP� ` Director of Public Works SK: j �� Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. ( RESOLUTION ORDERING WINGARD LANE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -13, AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREON --------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, Resolution No. 85 -79 adopted the 6th day of May, 1985, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed improvement of Wingard Lane at its intersection with C.S.A.H. 152 (Brooklyn Boulevard);and WHEREAS, ten days' published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 10th day of June, 1985, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that it is hereby determined that it is necessary and in the best interests of the City and the owners of property specially benefited thereby, that: 1. The following improvement as proposed in Council Resolution No. 85 -79 adopted on the 6th day of May, 1985 shall be constructed: WINGARD LANE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -13 2. The City Engineer is designated as the engineer for this improvement. The City Engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for this improvement. 3. The estimated cost of the project is $20,590.00. 4. The estimated cost will be financed by: M.S.A. Fund Balance 2611 20,590.00 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. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TERMINATING PROCEEDINGS FOR WINGARD LANE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -13 -------------------------------------------------- BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that proceedings regarding Wingard Lane Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -13 are hereby terminated. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER ENGINEER'S REPORT 65th Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -14 PROJECT DESCRIP - 14 DESCRIPTION: Street Improvement Pro No. 1985 P 7 Concrete Curb and Gutter Installation and Bituminous Surfacing Improvements PROJECT LOCATION: 65th Avenue North from Drew Avenue North to Beard Avenue North DISCUSSION: The City has received a petition for the improvement of 65th Avenue North from Drew Avenue North to Beard Avenue North. The petition, signed by 6 of 7 of the affected property owners requests that concrete curb and gutter be installed and necessary bituminous surfacing improvements be installed. This segment of 65th Avenue North, constructed between 1959 and 1962, is essentially sound, except for the pavement edges where the pavement surface has shown signs of distress. The proposed improvement project provides for removal of the distressed pavement edge (approximately 3 to 5 feet), installation of curb and gutter to provide a typical 30 foot street width and overlay f the existing bituminous g numinous surface to insure proper street drainage to and along the gutter. A review of existing drainage patterns shows that the street segment between Drew and Chowen Avenues North drains to the 65th Avenue North -Drew Avenue North intersection where the water is trapped within the westerly access drive to the Garden City Elementary School. The proposed street improvement project includes the extension of storm sewer from the northerly intersection of 65th and Drew Avenues North to the school access to eliminate this drainage problem. Between Chowen and Beard Avenues, the street drains easterly to Beard Avenue where an adequate storm drain system is inplace. „ 74e ail one Engineer's Report - 1985 -14 Page 2 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS In accordance with the recently- adopted street reconstruction assessment policy, reimbursement of project costs is based upon assessment of the $1200 residential unit charge against each of the abutting single family residences and a $16 per foot charge against the Garden City Elementary School frontage (zoned R -1) abutting the project. Also benefited by the improvement is the Garden City Court Apartment complex (with an R -5 zoning) and the adjacent complex at 6425 Beard Avenue North (also zoned R -5). In accordance with the street reconstruction policy, the apartment complexes may be assessed at a separate rate based on an evaluation of the project costs and project benefits. Accordingly, staff recommends a rate of $20 per foot to these properties. Based upon the proposal outlined above, $17,270 of the estimated costs may be financed through the levy of special assessments. It is proposed that the balance of the cost (32,270) be financed from the City's local Municipal State Aid Fund. A summary of the estimated project costs and funding sources is as follows: Cost Summary Construction Cost $37,200 Contingency 5,760 Subtotal $42,960 Engineering Cost 3,870 Administrative Cost 430 Legal Cost 430 Capitalized Interest 1,850 TOTAL $49,540 Revenue Source Special Assessment Share Residential Units 4 @ $1200 = $ 4,800 Apartment Frontage 466.8 LF @ $20 = 9,340 School Frontage 195.4 LF @ $16 = 3,130 $17,270 City Cost Share (M.S.A. Fund Balance 2611) 32,270 TOTAL $49,540 Engineer's Report - 1985 -14 Page 3 SUMMARY The proposed project as described above, is feasible under the conditions described and at the costs estimated. A . resolution calling for a public hearing on June 10, 1985 is provided for consideration by the City Council. If the public hearing is held, the project can be ordered in - only after the public hearing - by a simple majority vote of the City Council. Respectfully submitted, Recommended For Approval, JjZn Grube S 'Kna Y pp City Engineer Director erector of Public Works JNG : j n' �� Y Mm Vol WA Mom won POW dik NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING • FOR IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that the Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, will meet at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, on Monday, June 10, 1985, at 8:00 o'clock P.M., central daylight time, to consider the making of the following improvement: 65th Avenue North Street Improvement Pro No. 1985 -14 Description: Concrete curb and gutter installation and bituminous surfacing improvement on 65th Avenue North from Drew Avenue North to Beard Avenue North Estimated Cost: $49,540.00 The benefited area proposed to be assessed for thin improvement is as follows: All benefiting properties with Registered Land Survey Numbers 803 and 838 and within Blocks 9 and 10 of Brooklane Addition. The Council proposes 'to proceed under authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 429.011 to 429.111. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvements will be heard at this meeting. +� GERALD G. PLINTER, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Dated May 20, 1985 By order of the City Council (Published in the Brooklyn Center Post, May 23, 1985.) • May 17, 1985 Dear Property Owner: At 8:00 P.M. on Monday, June 10, 1985, the Brooklyn Center City Council will conduct a public hearing on the improvement of 65th Avenue North from Drew Avenue North to Beard Avenue North. As noted on the enclosed "Notice of Public Hearing" the proposed improvements include installation of concrete curb and gutter and bitumi nous avement improvement. P P The public hearing is an opportunity for you to express an opinion on the proposed improvement. A petition requesting the improvement has been submitted to the City Council. However, the City Council believes it to be in the best interests of the affected owners that everyone be given an opportunity to make his /her comments and opinions known after receiving full information about the project. Only after the City Council has received your comments will a decision be made to either proceed with the project or to terminate the proceedings. If the improvement project is ordered to be built during the summer of 1985, detailed plans and specifications for the project would be prepared by the City Engineering Department. Advertisements would then be placed inviting competitive bids to be submitted for completion of the work in accordance with the plans and specifications. If satisfactory bids are received, the work would then be placed under contract to the lowest responsible bidder, with a fall, 1985 completion date specified. In early fall (probably during September, 1985) the City Council would conduct a second public hearing regarding the proposed special assessments. Once the City Council adopts the final assessment roll, property owners may choose one of the following payment options: Option 1 - (within 30 days after the date of adoption of the assessment roll) - pay the entire amount of the assessment without any interest charges Option 2 - (after that 30 day period but before November 15, 1985) - pay the entire amount of the assessment plus interest (estimated at 12 percent per year) from the date of adoption of the assessment roll to the date that payment is made Option 3 - (after November 15, 1985) - the City would certify any unpaid assessments to Hennepin County, for collection with the property taxes, on a 10 year installment basis. Our records indicate that the estimated assessment against your prpoerty would be established as follows if the project is ordered by the City Council: Assessment Assessable Total Address Rate Units Assessment - - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- If you have any questions regarding this information, please call the City Engineering office (561- 5440). Sy /Knap Director of Public Works SK:j 'J Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING 65TH AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -14, AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREON --------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, Resolution No. 85 -81 adopted the 20th day of May, 1985, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed improvement of 65th Avenue North from Drew Avenue North to Beard Avenue North; and, WHEREAS, ten days' published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 10th day of June, 1985, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that it is hereby determined that it is necessary and in the best interests of the City and the owners of property specially benefited thereby, that: 1. The following improvement as proposed in Council g P p P 1 Resolution No. 85 -81 adopted on the 10th day of May, 1985 shall be constructed: 65TH AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -14 2. The City Engineer is designated as the engineer for this improvement. The City Engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for this improvement. 3. The estimated cost of the project is $49,540.00. 4. The estimated cost will be financed by: Special Assessments $17,270.00 M.S.A. Fund Balance 2611 32,270.00 TOTAL $49,540.00 Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk R2SOLUTION 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. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TERMINATING PROCEEDINGS FOR 65TH AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -14 -------------------------------------------------- BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that Chapter 429 proceedings regarding 65th Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -14 are hereby terminated. 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 Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 85 -34 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 W1E]REAS, 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 Number of rest entlal units 4. the assessment rates in R -4, R -5, R -6, and R -7 zoned districts shall be individually established based on an evaluation of project costs and project benefits. February 11, 1985 �f Da my o r " ATTEST: C or- w • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER INFORMATION REGARDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECTS AND PAYMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTED IN 1985 If an improvement project is ordered to be built during the summer of 1985, detailed plans and specifications for the project would be prepared by the City Engineering Department. Advertisements would then be placed inviting competitive bids to be submitted for completion of the work in accordance with the plans and specifications. If satisfactory bids are received, the work would then be placed under contract to the lowest responsible bidder, with a fall, 1985 completion date specified. In early fall (probably during September, 1985) the City Council would conduct a second public hearing regarding the proposed special assessments. • Once the City Council adopts the final assessment roll, property owners may choose one of the following payment options: Option 1 - (within 30 days after the date of adoption of the assessment roll) - pay the entire amount of the assessment without any interest charges Option 2 - (after that 30 day period but before November 15, 1985) - pay the entire amount of the assessment plus interest (estimated at 12 percent per year) from the date of adoption of the assessment roll to the date that payment is made Option 3 - (after November 15, 1985) - the City would certify any unpaid assessments to Hennepin County, for collection with the property taxes, on a 10 year installment basis. Following is a schedule showing total annual payments, if the 10 year installment payment option is selected by the property owner. (Note: this schedule assumes a total assessment of $1,200 and an estimated interest rate of 12 percent.) • Year of Principal Interest Total Payment I Payment Payment Payment (1) (2) lst 120.00 180.00 300.00 2nd 120.00 129.60 249.60 3rd 120.00 115.20 235.20 4th 120.00 100.80 220.80 5th ( 120.00 86.40 206.40 6th 120.00 72.00 192.00 7th 120.00 57.60 177.60 8th 120.00 43.20 163.20 9th 120.00 28.80 148.80 10th 120.00 14.40 134.40 Total $1200.00 $ 828.00 $2028.00 Note (1) The first year interest payment is for an estimated 15 month period. Note (2) The first year payment would be payable with 1986 property taxes. Note (3) At any time during the 10 year payment period, the remaining balance could be "prepaid", with interest charges calculated to the end of that Y ear. If you have any questions regarding this information, please call the City Engineering office - Y g g e (561 5440) . Sy Y, Director of Public Works SK: j J r i s V CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 CENTS TELEPHONE 561 -5440 R TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: May 3, 1985 RE: M.S.A. Fund Balance (Account No. 2611) Following is a summary of the Municipal State Aid Fund Balance, Account No. 2611: Fund Balance and Description The unencumbered balance in this account as of January 1, 1985 was $1,118,475.51. This balance represents amounts from projects on M.S.A. streets which have also been partially charged to special assessments (to the extent that the assessment charge is duplicated). Proposed 1985 RK ects Proposed 1985 projects which have been approved, or are under consideration, on which a portion of the project is proposed to be charged to Account No. 2611 are summarized as follows: "City Share" to be Charged to Approved Pro -iects Account No. 2611 Lyndale Avenue improvement, $ 22,850 including 55th & 56th Avenue improvements Xerxes Avenue Landscape plan 1,600 development SUBTOTAL $ 24,450 Xerxes Avenue Project $ 62,340 (Public Hearing to be held 5/6/85) „ 07 m �„ M° ' May 3, 1985 - G.G. Splinter Page 2 Other Street Proj (C.E. reports to be considered by City Council on 5/6/85) Wingard Avenue project $ 20,590 Ewing Avenue project 31,780 Drew Avenue project 31,780 Dallas Road project 72,430 SUBTOTAL $156,580 TOTAL = $243,370 Respectfully submitted, 4�� Sy Knapp Director of Public Works SK: MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: June 7, 1985 SUBJECT: Civil Defense Sirens I have met with several sales representatives vending warning sirens, and have arrived at several alternative proposals for the City. In the 1985 Emergency Preparedness budget, $13,000.00 has been appropriated for purchase of a siren (Department 34, Capital Outlay, Object Number 4552). Current Siren Status Presently the City operates six civil defense sirens covering approximately 46 percent of the total area of the City. The sirens range in age from 20 to 30 years old. The sirens are activated by phone lines, but will be converted to radio -tone activation by the end, of 1985 ( funds for the conversion have been appropriated). See Attachment 1 for the locations and area covered by the sirens now in place. Note that siren No. 6 is smaller and therefore covers less area than our records had indicated originally. The 1985 budget request was for locating a new, larger siren in the northwest section of the City. Note: In the following proposals, allowance is made to re -use some of the current poles rather than purchasing new ones.. Killmer Electric inspected the poles and found that three of them are usable while the other three are in poor condition. (See Attachment One, page 1b.) Proposal One This proposal presented by Mr. G. M. Thompson of Tommy's Firehouse, Incorporated, Rochester, Minnesota requires purchasing two electro- mechanical warning sirens manufactured by Federal Signal Corporation, with a large siren to be located in the northwest sector of the City and a smaller model to be placed in the south- central portion of the City. The two smaller sirens currently located in the northwest part of the City would be replaced. The total cost to the City, including the sirens, installation and trade -in would be $14,385.00, and coverage of the City would be about 75 percent. See Attachment 2. Mr. Thompson also suggested for future consideration that one additional electronic siren be located in the southwest corner of the City at an approximate cost of $10,438.00. This would provide coverage of about 85 percent of the City. Proposal Two A second option available to the City as proposed by Mr. Thompson is to install two large electro- mechanical sirens, one in the northwest sector and the other in the southwest sector of Brooklyn Center. The smaller sirens currently in the northwest area would be traded in. The siren now in the southwest corner of the City would be relocated to the southeast corner, and the two sirens now in the southeast corner would also be traded. The overall result would be removal of four sirens, relocation of one siren, and installation of two new sirens, leaving the City with four sirens and total siren coverage of approximately 90 percent. See Attachment 3. Memo to: Gerald G. Splinter -2- June 7, 1985 With the reduction from six sirens to four sirens, the City would need only four radio -tone activators rather than six. The cost to the City of the two activators (after the Federal Government contributes their matched share) is $1,806.00, and this amount will be saved if this second proposal is selected. The net cost including the savings from the radio -tone activators is $17,301.00. Proposal Three This proposal consists of three phases, and may be accomplished over a three -year period or less, depending on the City's priorities. The goal of this option is to completely convert from all electro - mechanical sirens to all electronic sirens (see Attachment 4). The electronic sirens have a public address capability (see Attachment 5 for a full description of electro- mechanical and electronic sirens). The electronic sirens priced here are manufactured by Whelan Engineering Company, Incorporated and are distributed by Mid- Central Fire, Incorporated. Phase One of this proposal includes replacing the two small sirens in the northwest sector of the City with a large electronic siren at a cost of $14,287.00. Approximately 70 percent of the City would be covered by a siren. Phase Two allows for replacement of the three sirens in the southern half of the City with one large and one medium sized sirens. For $26,580.00, the City would improve total siren coverage to about 90 percent of the City. In Phase Three of this proposal, the large electro - mechanical siren in the northeast part of the City would be replaced by a large electronic siren, giving the City coverage with four electronic sirens. At a cost of $13,840.00, the City's siren coverage would be about 85 percent. Areas not in the sirens' range include some unpopulated areas such as portions of Palmer Lake and south of Central Park. The overall cost of Proposal 3 is $54,707.00. These three proposals can be reviewed more closely by perusing the attachments. My recommendation is to pursue Proposal Two which provides the highest coverage at the lowest cost. • i` �� n, ....r" ! 1 I I \�` p 1..�. � 3 v9.Y� !♦ �rJ ++�/ � Yi z � �� ,..,.., �J Lv..� —r-•• �31"f� '�-�- -�3 : ! I(.�L�� ,I� ``� - S I 3 w '� ,�-' � - - :—� °--__ ,...,•ra. t at i �� ,L—JL::]c�c_ �[ ` p \ �D , �� , — � .M. a.wiy. J -:.m �-. a.:c,.= �� •` - I�,. �i-- ]t li� � f �� 11 -- -- /� ��l • �i r . ;.. 1 . ... __ e l z1 a .c....a.nw ` i . �� . ' � #11 f ;,� f/ I . ^�m r. h l , 1 r # II U f� F,..,.�..::,,�, :. s' .�' ',....•'t� / IA �� i � — -- �-�,� I � \� 1 � � I , . �� „ �v , r i ,� l� 00 � H .., i k ? `a :] _] •� ��.� /i!I 1 �, ,,., .,. J r ice.. � � +�: yr� ' of .s., -- 1 -�,.. - ` )�' _ - - 1 + ;, •�, >� (� y1 � - .-�- ..,� K '_ I �,l�t� - L` L ll aR �'i Q'Iho►''' lnC I L ui -� ,x.. ,.. � � .�`• '4 i, -, � �� } 3}. ,�. ' � �,��,. J `(� � I .=Yii j j 1 ~ i" �; ,'" � t ;' �` -- �—J[ � �J � �� --RUC . ��_..�..1�� ''�'� I II � 6 S ✓'; �; .. ..... ... s.:;, : \ � pyre I x.,.a {• ;.... -f— i 'r 3 • t r -3 i 3 3 i - • �# it 5 3 I + ' f '� �L_._ !�} :. e s ..., §f ...(l.c,..;n #3s° • CURRENT SIREN LOCATIONS 1. 6740 Brooklyn Boulevard 100 db electro- mechanical *2. Bellvue Park - 55th & Camden Avenues North 100 db electro- mechanical 3• 65th & Humboldt Avenues North 125 db electro- mechanical *4. 5731 Girard Avenue North 100 db electro- mechanical *5. 6112 France Avenue North 100 db electro- mechanical 6• 5333 Brooklyn Boulevard 115 db electro- mechanical *Siren poles in re- usable condition. -lb- ATTACHMENT 2 PROPOSAL ONE ri st tj i! h 11 b ft I st c? �! Y i! i3 :¢ ". e; = z; ca �7 r a i c ° _ * �* s +` IL G x t l i nc, an - — - _ -- - -- _ _�— — — J 1 �' '— J� ��. �J�<lj��l ` ell 1 I � � �. ' ^�{ R •� 5,n� i °� I ;�i � �( j ��• t ig 1 z7 ` tr \3 1 14 ��,c�� ` ^' �� j : "r '�, - _•� y l �� i i , t— .�u.�1L� %/ � ..:..z. r -- i IJI I , O-DE �I �O 3 h ii tm LOCAL STREET II p ,/ / -7 r ��` ,',1 1 �^� -•. n k �' " ' ,( t lx, TWIN � -� � / 'z�' �lT �� l I� -L �`1� r ��oF i �,.�� ❑ I( 1 'pl �I �. CITY 0 F a. ��, LAKE > K lx t \ T \ may r> „!7 1 (! ✓ t } RYAN LA NE 1 x I TWIN 1. KEY: E/M = electro- mechanical • E = electronic D = decibels Shaded areas = proposed sirens Unshaded areas = current sirens -2a- PROPOSAL ONE SIREN LOCATIONS *1. 6400 Brooklyn Boulevard Y 124 db electro- mechanical 2. Bellvue Park - 55th & Camden Avenues North 100 db electro - mechanical 3• 65th & Humboldt Avenues North 125 db electro- mechanical 4. 5731 Girard Avenue North 100 db electro- mechanical *5. 5500 North Lilac Drive 115 db electro- mechanical 6. 5333 Brooklyn Boulevard 115 db electro- mechanical OPTIONAL *7• 4900 France Avenue North 115 db electronic SIRENS TO BE REMOVED 1. 6740 Brooklyn Boulevard 100 db electro- mechanical 2. 6112 France Avenue North 100 db electro- mechanical Indicates new sirens -2b- . PROPOSAL ONE Manufacturer: Federal Signal Corporation Distributor: Tommy's Firehouse, Incorporated Siren, One (1) RSH10A, 124 db, electro- mechanical $5,440.00 Siren, One (1) STH10A, 115 db, electro- mechanical 3,043.00 Remote control starters, two (2) 802.00 NSP Hook -up Charges 1,900.00 Killmer Electric Charges - Removal of two (2) sirens & poles 2 @ $700.00 each 1,400.00 - Reinstallation of pole from 6112 France to 5500 N. Lilac Drive for new siren 1,075.00 - Installation of new P ole for new siren at 6400 Brooklyn Boulevard 1,325.00 Credit for trade -in of two (2) sirens - (600_00) SUBTOTAL 14 8 , $ ,3 5 00 For Future Consideration: Siren, One (1) EOWS x'1212, 115 db, electronic $5,100.00 One (1) Control Cabinet, EOWS *'C /B 3,360.00 Installation 1,075.00 Radio -tone Activator by Healy -Ruff 903.00 SUBTOTAL 10,438.00 TOTAL $24,823.00 -2c- A r 1 f�il �l. (�It �'[(1 'e.j � iF. iji - .4�� t' t, Ji ' �.� Y .c)E r �� _ _::. .��..:...� _ •-^'�_ '' I � ?SOU I [ 1 n ... i , i ,t••�E((t t �t'�yi n'�+ � , ° i u i , l -' f'i;, , ' 11 . " a °`n;b _a i � W_. � �ti� 1,�� : � .. .... ...» � „lam •!— �� -�;� d r - - -✓ 3 l 1i 2j e �� .• - mot ( 1 71 4 � /" a r' �r s x.�''r?�"' ��` t �_ ��.: � �� ";; ■f -�� 3�`.f �' �'s�`tr�a i�� .... «r _ �` __ J ,\i �?x � 4 �n P xAls.. n, rfi 1 ��fr r t' + � ',•, t IN �� F (f� � C - l � � • � W ¢ _..� L �� j v r.!__._ — .N °. }. '. tlk., A� � a `'` 4 L f4-� • +�., ; �aUlµ..... YY I i �+ �+ �+ (D - .r m. J �.. 'II y r�i +�! wit t� � � ��'�� r+ � � 1t+ "t�'��.�.'«� � ,� � , / • �� I � ..... 'Jy '�, I fl' � C1 (D 1 � _.�' j ' '`¢:� � I t ur, X a >; t �,r� � s /� <`' '.�.0 �'� `� "��'i +-'� � � r �- L l �•" 1 ' �# _.--! �— - " � ,.,,...,.. '.Z W t5 rt 'z {r 1 r1 `mPi .° .� O W ^� � - nom. U) L e " " � I PROPOSAL TWO SIREN LOCATIONS *1. I -694 & Brooklyn Boulevard 124 db electro- mechanical * 2• 5333 Brooklyn Boulevard 124 db electro- mechanical 3. 65th & Humboldt Avenues North 125 db electro- mechanical *4. 5600 Girard Avenue North 115 db electro- mechanical SIRENS TO BE REMOVED 1. 6740 Brooklyn Boulevard 100 db electro- mechanical 2. 6112 France Avenue North 100 db electro- mechanical 3. Bellvue Park - 55th & Camden Avenues North 100 db electro - mechanical 4. 5731 Girard Avenue North 100 db electro- mechanical SIREN TO BE RELOCATED FROM: 5333 Brooklyn Boulevard TO: 5600 Girard Avenue North 115 db electro- mechanical *Indicates new sirens -3b -- PROPOSAL TWO Manufacturer: Federal Signal Corporation Distributor: Tommy's Firehouse, Incorporated Sirens, Two (2) RSH 10A, 124 db, $10,880.00 electro- mechanical 2 @ $5,440.00 each Two (2) Remote control starters 802.00 NSP Hook -up Charges 1,900.00 Killmer Electric Charges - Removal of five (5) sirens and poles 5 @ $700.00 each 3,500.00 - Reinstallation of poles from 6112 France to I -694 and Brooklyn Boulevard from 53rd & Camden to 5333 Brooklyn Boulevard from 5731 Girard to 5600 Girard 3 @ $1,075.00 each 3,225.00 Credit for trade -in of four (4) sirens (1,200.00) Credit for two (2) Healy -Ruff radio -tone (1,806.00) activators TOTAL $17,301.00 i -3c- ATTACHMENT 4 PROPOSAL THREE PHASE ONE N it it it ii t J n 3 i? •, s. st a § -t :t �. X �t �! r? a r' E s? � S S t it i? �F '^ - • a 3 �i f �a i e .�� D cm v y� ,ll'� / � Q tea, _je— v . J G I ri,� i� •` 4 'ti� { 'fad • � � �--�. �" kl '... �; .. n . u.c �� I J - � � ' L.� � � E f I ,� -_.. / �� ,-� "G {� .3. ate' � �rt '"2 - ",.?t �c 'f Iii i� t I li E _ rs..- I' �I. Ll J I 1 �,.�?�_ ^ .e�;s"'� � z'+:�4,. � - ��` to � :, � �� a / ��C �. F Fri r ----'• � � �U �__ `�•, }kw- *Ym"a.. �'=.*k ` <'_ �/-^I: a �,• /� LJ�JL:1 k;• ./ �.o..c.. =.. X ^ L�LJ �.J L J "r \�`l ....a�•..,... R I ,!,`� �Inj I { �! !.DI� ~ � 9 / �. �� JI�� a ry L. �„ / .., LLiLJ Isi � v im , -DB I L I f LOCAL STREET IN 1 Y ,� !\ - ju ..• 4 � I [�(;ld-, ua�TWIN) ! \ I 1�!• it i! ,i�� 3In r ��I ! �J� ^ n� �� .••\ i\a .. LAKE U Rd F CITY OF rt �l O O I� L I J - I TWIN: ♦ / ♦ ♦ M'. LAKE I � � I�-' -' Asa �I� -_./ / �r�� —.,� I .... «,. ► ... ... - ' � '° �' X� 1 1 �J RYAN LAKF S 6i 9 • ( \` L .J �q p \ so 9 y II —Irky TWIN • - .. f\ LAKE IiiL �L_ L KEY: E/M = electro- mechanical �\ E = electronic DB = decibels Shaded areas = proposed sirens Unshaded areas = current sirens -4a- PROPOSAL THREE PHASE ONE SIREN LOCATIONS *1. I -694 & Brooklyn Boulevard 124 db electronic 2. Bellvue Park - 55th & Camden Avenues North 100 db electro - mechanical 3. 65th & Humboldt Avenues North 125 db electro- mechanical 4. 5731 Girard Avenue North 100 db electro- mechanical 5. 5333 Brooklyn Boulevard 115 db electro- mechanical SIRENS TO BE REMOVED 1. 6740 Brooklyn Boulevard 100 db electro- mechanical 2. 6112 France Avenue North 100 db electro- mechanical *Indicates new siren -4b- PROPOSAL THREE PHASE TWO T1 il A il '1 .1 p A L h r9 3i 3 gi D A P c - 61 CJ f . J GA1 177T N F-1 IF In n I= W, N �X g D j" 1 � LOCAL STREET IF INDEX CITY OF 0 0 K L TWIN. LAXE C I N 'T' J IF RYAN LAKE 1 -j, J TWIN L KEY: E/M = electro-mechanical E = electronic DB = decibels Shaded areas = proposed sirens Unshaded areas = current sirens -4c- PROPOSAL THREE PHASE TWO SIREN LOCATIONS *1. I -694 & Brooklyn Boulevard 124 db electronic * * 2• 5333 Brooklyn Boulevard 124 db electronic 3. 65th & Humboldt Avenues North 125 db electro- mechanical * *4. 5600 Fremont Avenue North 115 db electronic SIRENS TO BE REMOVED 1. 5333 Brooklyn Boulevard 115 db electro- mechanical 2. Bellvue Park - 55th & Camden Avenues North 100 db electro- mechanical 3. 5731 Girard Avenue North 100 db electro- mechanical *Indicates new siren, Phase One * *Indicates new sirens, Phase Two -4d- PROPOSAL THREE PHASE THREE M ;I v :i A C IL J1 4 i �I [ � S .t i '- � � F:.{F' -,�-� � x "'�'m '� < � � � � �.. � ,{�,.+ ,..,Fc awl � £ �""'�� y d �J� /,.. � i 1 11 fi. 1 , {� r ,`x '' 1 77{{ , �,rv r � �� „ � , + -�,r r 'x• r {, ��, .� ,� ”- -.�' -t + 7 � ' ! 24' 11711F�11 I V E 77 4 � � y � ...eT��`�•� Y � * ,� +� "`° re;` e yw' ;�, '�` ` :"�s�� ""�; � ! Y f X'�.. rn'�..,- 3�i��s�� w�Y $. ; �'�5' , `�r t x" z •: r �k �' r C<.+ �' � � r V t m ILI X7 V LOCAL ST 1171, WEA , 'i 77' LA J 'A �V 3" F Cily OF t. 0 0 K Li YN C E N T Y� t � � 7—' RYAN LAKL TWN U g I - _ _1 L LAKE KEY: E/M = electro-mechanical E = electronic DB = decibels Shaded areas = proposed sirens Unshaded areas = current sirens -4e- PROPOSAL THREE PHASE THREE SIREN LOCATIONS *1. I -694 & Brooklyn Boulevard 124 db electronic * *2• 5333 Brooklyn Boulevard 124 db electronic * * *3• 65th & Humboldt Avenues North 124 db electronic * *4. 5600 Fremont Avenue North 115 db electronic SIREN TO BE REPLACED 1. 65th & Humboldt Avenues North 124 db electro- mechanical • *Indicates new siren, Phase One * *Indicates new sirens, Phase Two ** *Indicates new siren, Phase Three -4f- PROPOSAL THREE Manufacturer: Whelan Engineering Company, Incorporated • Distributor: Mid- Central Fire, Incorporated PHASE ONE Siren, One (1) WS -3000, 124 db. electronic $10,100.00 Decoder, One (1) D836 915.00 Encoder,* One (1) E836 900.00 NSP Hook -up Charges 300.00 Killmer Electric Charges - Removal of two (2) sirens and poles 2 @ $700.00 each 1, - Reinstallation of pole from 6112 France to I -6914 and Brooklyn Boulevard for new siren 1,075.00 Delivery 5 00.00 Credit for one (1) Healy -Ruff radio -tone activator 903.00 TOTAL PHASE ONE $1 PHASE TWO Siren, One (1) WS -3000, 12 db, electronic $10,100.00 Siren, One (1) WS -2500, 115 db, electronic 9,000.00 Decoders, Two (2) D836, $915.00 each 1,830.00 NSP Hook -up Charges 600.00 Killmer Electric Charges - Removal of three (3) sirens and poles 3 @ $700.00 each 2,100.00 - Reinstallation of poles from Bellvue Park to 5333 Brooklyn Boulevard from 5731 Girard to 5600 Fremont 2 @ $1,075.00 each 2,150.00 • Delivery, WS -3000 500.00 Delivery, WS -2500 300.00 TOTAL PHASE TWO $26,580.00 -4g- • PHASE THREE Siren, One (1) WS -3000, 124 db, electronic $10,100.00 Decoder, One (1) D836 915.00 NSP Hook -up Charges 300.00 Killmer Electric Charges - Removal of one (1) siren and pole 700.00 - Installation of new pole with new siren at 65th and Humboldt 1,325.00 Delivery 500.00 TOTAL PHASE THREE $13,840.00 TOTAL PROPOSAL THREE $54,707.00 *The Encoder E836 is a one -time purchase. -4h- ATTACHMENT 5 CPG 1 -37 September 18, 1984 • e. Sirens Electronic sirens are lighter in weight than electro- mechanical sirens, resulting in reduced mounting problems. They can operate from a battery supply that is continually trickle charged by a 115 volt AC single phase standard commercial power source. They can provide a public address capability using the same mechanism that generates the warning signal. They can provide a multiplicity of signals based on user requirements, with with practically no difference in cost from that of a siren that produces a limited number of signals. Electronic sirens designed and produced in the last several years have output power capabilities equal to electro- mechanical sirens. This has been brought about by the advances in the design of solid state circuitry. Many electronic sirens now have a power output ranging from 106 decibels to 126 decibels. This power output equals that generated by current electro- mechanical sirens. Electronic sirens usually operate from two 12 volt batteries connected in series to develop 24 volts DC. They normally require a 90 ampere opera- ting current. This means that an electronic siren requires approximately 2,160 watts of power to operate. Electro- mechanical sirens, however, operate only from primary AC power sources. This can range from 115 volts AC single phase up to 480 volts AC three phase. This higher power require -. ment is due to their use of motors to drive the sirens. As an example, 115 volt AC single phase siren systems may require more than 150 amperes for initial startup current. This means that an electro- mechanical siren could require as much as 17,250 watts of'startup power. In addition to the great disparity in the amount of power required to operate an electro- mechanical siren, compared to that required for an electronic siren, an electro- mechanical siren cannot be operated off of batteries. Therefore, if primary power is lost, an electro- mechanical siren system becomes inoperable. The use of large power generators to provide backup power is impractical. However, electronic sirens operate continuously off of the inplace batteries that are constantly being trickle charged by primary power, usually 110 volts AC single phase. If primary power fails, the electronic sirens can still be operated off of the inplace batteries that provide the 24 volts DC necessary for operation. f. This CPG is not intended to provide guidance on the use of the media or public information practices when alerting and warning the public. However, when enhancing an alerting and warning system, consideration should be given to a program of public understanding as to what actions are to be taken when hearing certain signals. Additionally, whenever possible, contiguous communities should have agreements on what certain signals are used for and what actions are to be taken by the public. SOURCE Federal Emergency Management Agency CPG 1 -37 /September 1984 State and Local Communications and Warning Systems Engineering Guidance. Federal Assistance Handbook. 1 -10 PAR 1. U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1984 0 - 455 -892 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE CONTINGENCY FUND TO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CAPITAL OUTLAY WHEREAS, less than 500 of the City's area receives coverage from civil defense warning sirens; and WHEREAS, $13,000 has been appropriated to Unit No. 34, Object No. 4552 for purchase of one warning siren; and WHEREAS, approximately 900 of the City's area will receive coverage with the installation of two new sirens at a cost of $17,301, creating a need of $4,301. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that $4,301 be transferred from Unit No. 80, Object No. 4995 to Unit No. 34, Object No. 4552 to allow for purchasing of two civil defense warning sirens. 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. 13b M & C NO. 85 -06 June 7, 1985 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Proposed Municipal Golf Course To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: Attached please find a report from Paul Holmlund to myself relating to the final cost analysis of the proposed municipal golf course. The Parks and Recreation Commission has held a couple of hearings, the last of which was earlier this spring, and is recommending favorable consideration of this project. Our Finance Director and I are recommending the attached financial plan which involves a total cost, very conservatively estimated, at $1,100,000. All the funds would come from the Capital Improvement Projects Fund which is intended for projects similar to this. $600,000 of the costs would be an appropriation or grant to the project and $500,000 would be a loan. This loan would be paid back to the Capital Improvements Fund from golf course revenues. The details of the revenue estimates are contained in Paul's report. Again, I remind you that the expenses in this report, we believe, are overestimated and the revenues are underestimated. We have built in contingencies in each step of the estimating process, and we feel comfortable that we are presenting you a worst case scenario. Even with this very conservative approach the project is feasible. The golf course project proposes to build a par 3, nine hole golf course on the land . adjacent to Lion's Park south of Highway 100 and surrounding our water tower at that location. It also proposes to relocate the Little League field on the north end of Lion's Park and reorientate the existing field toward the south end of Lion's Park and create a new complex for the Little League, which will better serve their needs. In return for this relocation and redevelopment we have entered into initial discussions in which the Little League has preliminarily agreed to grant us the land they now own on the north end of Lion's Park. We would recommend that a public hearing be held before the City Council on the proposed golf course project at your next regularly scheduled Council meeting, which is June 24, 1985. Respectfully bmitted, Gerald G. Spli er City Manaer enc. J (CCMGCM) T0: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Department of Finance DATE: May 8, 1985 SUBJECT: PROPOSED MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE COST ANALYSIS AND FINANCING PLAN I have attached a Cost Analysis and Financing Plan for the proposed municipal golf course. This report is based on information contained in the Brauer & Associates Ltd. Inc. report; memorandums prepared by Gene Hagel, former Director of Parks and Recreation; and Jim Grube, City Engineer; and suggested changes made orally by you. In summary, the report shows that the capitalized costs of the proposed par three golf course are projected to be $1,100,000 and that the costs could be financed by a direct transfer of $600,000 and a loan of $500,000, both from the City's Capital Projects Fund. Schedule V of this report shows that, if the loan is approved at an interest rate of no more then 5%, then the annual excess of operating income over expenses will be sufficient to retire the loan in twenty -one years. The report consists of the following exhibits and schedules: ----------------------------------------------------------- Exhibit A: COST AND FINANCING SUMMARY Exhibit B: PROJECTED OPERATING INCOME AND EXPENSE BY YEAR --- -- - - -- (This exhibit shows projected income and expense for the first twenty -five years of operations.) Schedule I: SUMMARY OF CAPITALIZED COSTS AND FINANCING --- - - - - - -- (This schedule shows the detail of projected costs as stated in Exhibit A.) Schedule II: PROJECTED ROUNDS AND REVENUES -- --- - - - --- ( This schedule shows the detail of projected revenue as stated in Exhibit B.) Schedule III: PROJECTED OPERATING COSTS - FIRST FULL YEAR - -- -- - - - - - -- (This schedule shows the detail of projected operating costs for the first full year as stated in Exhibit B.) Schedule IV: PROJECTED OPERATING COSTS - FIRST ONE -HALF YEAR --- -- - - - - -- (This schedule shows the detail of projected operating costs for the first one -half year as stated in Exhibit B.) Schedule V: LOAN AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE - ----- - - -- (This schedule shows that the annual excess of income over expense, as shown in Exhibit B, would be sufficient to pay the principal and interest on a $500,000 loan from the Capital Projects Fund and retire the debt in twenty -one years. Respectfully submitted, Paul W. Holmlund Director of Finance (CCMGCFS) BROOKLYN CENTER MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE Exhibit A PROJECTIONS AS OF MAY 1, 1985 -- - - - - -- COST AND FINANCING SUMMARY CAPITALIZED COSTS: (Schedule I) --------------- -- Real Estate: Land Development $ 518,800 Club House and Parking 325,300 Little League Modification 112,700 Total Real Estate $ 956,800 Personal Property: Maintenance Equipment 48,800 Equipment for Rental 2,200 Other Equipment 44,030 Total Personal Property 95,030 Inventory (Merchandise for Resale) 8,000 Start -up Costs 30,000 Contingency 10,170 ------- - - - - -- Total Capitalized Costs $ 1,100,000 FINANCING: Direct Transfer from Capital Projects Fund $ 600,000 Loan from Capital Projects Fund (Schedule V) 500,000 $ 1,100,000 (CCMGCIE) BROOKLYN CENTER MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE Exhibit B PROJECTIONS AS OF MAY 1, 1985 M PROJECTED IN P COME AND EXPENSE BY YEAR --- - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- - - - - - -- -- - - -- Annual Cumulative Income Over Income Over Year Rounds Income Expense Expense Expense - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- 1987 12,500 $ 58,125 $ 77,800 $ - 19,675 $ - 19,675 1988 25,000 122,500 112,270 10,230 -9,445 1989 27,000 132,300 119,006 13,294 3,849 1990 29,000 149,350 126,147 23,203 27,052 1991 30,000 154,500 133,715 20,785 47,837 5 Years -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1992 32,000 172,800 141,738 31,062 78,899 1993 34,000 183,600 150,243 33,357 112,256 1994 35,000 206,500 159,257 47,243 159,499 1995 35,000 206,500 168,813 37,687 197,186 1996 36,000 230,400 178,941 51,459 248,645 10 Years -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1997 36,000 230,400 189,678 40,722 289,367 1998 37,000 255,300 201,058 54,242 343,609 1999 37,000 255,300 213,122 42,178 385,787 2000 38,000 281,200 225,909 55,291 441,077 2001 38,000 281,200 239,464 41,736 482,814 15 Years -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2002 39,000 327,600 253,832 73,768 556,582 2003 39,000 347,100 269,062 78,038 634,620 2004 40,000 376,000 285,205 90,795 725,415 2005 40,000 396,000 302,318 93,682 819,097 2006 40,000 416,000 320,457 95,543 914,641 20 Years -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2007 40,000 436,000 339,684 96,316 1,010,957 2008 40 436,000 360,065 75,935 1,086,892 2009 40,000 456,000 381,669 74,331 1,161,223 2010 40,000 476,000 404,569 71,431 1,232,653 2011 40,000 496,000 428,843 67,157 1,299,810 25 Years -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTALS 879,500 $ 7,082,675 $ 5,782,865 $ 1,299,810 $ 1,299,810 (CCMGCCC) BROOKLYN CENTER MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE Schedule I PROJECTIONS AS OF MAY 1, 1985 SUMMARY OF CAPITALIZED COSTS AND FINANCING --- - - - -- - -- --- - - - - -- CAPITALIZED COSTS Construction Consultant City Engin- City Admini- Item Costs + 10% Fees eering Fees strative Fees Total ------------------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- Land Development $ 475,900 $ 33,300 $ 4,800 $ 4,800 $ 518,800 Club House /Parking 298,400 20,900 3,000 3,000 325,300 Little League Modification 101,900 2,500 7,500 800 112,700 -- --- - ---- ---------- ---------- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- Total Real Estate 876,200 56,700 15,300 8,600 956,800 - - Maintenance Equipment: -- ________ �________ Greens Mower - 1 New 10,000 Greens Mower - 1 Used 5,000 Fairway Mower 15,000 Aerator 4,500 Topdresser 3,500 Drag Mat 200 Fertilizer Spreader 100 Hand Mowers (3) 1,500 Soil Shredder 1,000 Utility Vehicle 6,000 Caddy Cart 1,000 Miscellaneous Tools 1,000 Total Maintenance Equipment r - 48,800 Clubs, 10 sets @ $120 each 1,200 Pull Carts, 20 @ $50 each 1,000 Total Equipment For Rental .� 2,200 Flags and Poles 280 Cups 75 Tee Markers 120 Tee Plaques 300 Ball Washers 360 Hole Cutter 80 Cup Setter and Puller 35 Shoe Spike Brushes 80 Rule Signs 200 Receptacles and Benches 500 Club House Concessions Equipment 10,000 Club House Furniture and Fixtures 15,000 Miscellaneous 17,000 ---- - - - - -- Total Other Equipment 44,030 ---- - - - - -- Total Personal Property 95,030 Inventory (Merchandise for Resale) 8,000 Start -up Costs 30,000 0 Contingency 10,170 Total Capitalized Costs 1,100,000 LESS DIRECT TRANSFER FROM CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND - 600,000 AMOUNT TO BE BORROWED FROM CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND $ 500,000 (CCMGCRR) BROOKLYN CENTER MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE Schedule II ----- - - - - -- PROJECTIONS AS OF MAY 1, 1985 PROJECTED ROUNDS AND REVENUES - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- -- - - - - -- Other Income Number of Green Green Fee @ $.40 Per Total Year Rounds Fees Revenue Round (Net) Revenue 1987 12,500 $ 4.25 $ 53,125 $ 5,000 $ 58,125 1988 25,000 4.50 112,500 10,000 122,500 1 989 27,000 2 7, 0 4.50 121,500 10,800 132,300 1990 29,000 4.75 137,750 11,600 149,350 1991 30,000 4.75 142,500 12,000 154,500 1992 32,000 5.00 160,000 12,800 172,800 1993 34,000 5.00 170,000 13,600 183,600 1994 35,000 5.50 192,500 14,000 206,500 1 995 35,000 5.50 192,500 14,000 206,500 1996 36,000 6.00 216,000 14,400 230,400 1997 36,000 6.00 216,000 14 230,400 1998 37,000 6.50 240,500 14,800 255,300 1999 37,000 6.50 240,500 14,800 255,300 2000 38,000 7.00 266,000 15,200 281,200 2001 38,000 7.00 266,000 15,200 281,200 2002 39,000 8.00 312,000 15,600 327,600 2003 39,000 8.50 331,500 15,600 347,100 2004 40,000 9.00 360,000 16,000 376,000 2005 40,000 9.50 380,000 16,000 396,000 2006 40,000 10.00 400,000 16,000 416,000 2007 40,000 10.50 420,000 16,000 436,000 2008 40,000 10.50 420,000 16,000 436,000 2009 40,000 11.00 440,000 16,000 456,000 2010 40,000 11.50 460,000 16,000 476,000 2011 40,000 12.00 480,000 16,000 496,000 ------ - - - --- ------ - - - --- ------- - - - - -- TOTALS 879,500 $ 6,730,875 $ 351,800 $ 7,082,675 - - - -- ------ - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- (CCMGFOC2) BROOKLYN CENTER MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE Schedule III ------ ---- -- PROJECTIONS AS OF MAY 1, 1985 PROJECTED OPERATING COSTS - FIRST FULL YEAR --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - --- - --- - - -- PERSONAL SERVICES: Salaries - Regular Employees $ 33,600 Salaries - Temporary Employees 35,000 PERA 1,900 Social Security 2,500 Total Personal Services N - - $ 73,000 SUPPLIES, REPAIRS, AND MAINTENANCE: ----------------------------------- Office Supplies 400 Operating Supplies, General 5,000 Chemicals and Chemical Products 6,400 Landscape Materials and Supplies lies PP 5,000 Motor Fuels 2,000 Small Tools 200 Equipment Parts 400 Equipment Repairs 600 Total Supplies, Repairs, and Maintenance 20,000 COMMUNICATIONS: Telephone 1 X 200 Postage 300 Total Communications --- - - - - -- 1,500 UTILITIES: Electric Service 1,200 Gas Service 1,000 Water 2,000 Waste Disposal 500 Total Utilities 4,700 OTHER DISBURSEMENTS: Insurance 4,506 Total Other Disbursements - - -- 4,500 CAPITAL OUTLAY: Equipment Replacement 5,000 Total Capital Outlay 5,000 CONTINGENCY (10% of Non - Personnel Costs): 3,570 -------------•--------------------------- TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES: $ 112,270 (CCMGFOC1) BROOKLYN CENTER MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE Schedule IV ----- - - ---- PROJECTIONS AS OF MAY 1, 1985 PROJECTED OPERATING COSTS - FIRST ONE -HALF YEAR PERSONAL SERVICES: Salaries - Regular Employees $ 32,200 Salaries - Temporary Employees 20,000 PERA 1,300 Social Security 2,300 Total Personal Services --- - - - - -- $ .55,800 SUPPLIES, REPAIRS, AND MAINTENANCE: ---------------------------------- Office Supplies 300 Operating Supplies, General 2,500 Chemicals and Chemical Products 500 Landscape Materials and Supplies 4,000 Motor Fuels 1,500 Small Tools 300 Equipment Parts 300 Equipment Repairs 400 Total Supplies, Repairs, and Maintenance 9.,800 COMMUNICATIONS: Telephone 1 X 200 Postage 300 Total Communications - 1,500 UTILITIES: Electric Service 1,500 Gas Service 1,300 Water 1,500 Waste Disposal 400 Total Utilities - 4,700 OTHER DISBURSEMENTS: ------------------- Insurance 4,000 Total Other Disbursements 4,000 CONTINGENCY (10% of Non - Personnel Costs): 2,000 ---------------------------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES: $ 77,800 ------------------ - - - - -- --- - - - - -- (CCMGCL5) BROOKLYN CENTER MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE PROJECTIONS AS OF MAY 1, 1985 LOAN AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE Schedule V - - -- ------ - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- (ASSUMING THAT LOAN WILL BE PAID AS FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE) Loan Amount: $ 500,000 Annual Interest Rate: 5% --------------- - - - -- Term: (Years) 21 Beginning Ending Principal Annual Annual Interest Principal Unpaid Principal Year Balance Interest Payment Paid Paid Interest Balance - - -- --- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- 1 500,000 $ 25,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 25,000 $ 525,000 2 525,000 26,250 0 0 0 26,250 551,250 3 551,250 27,563 4,000 4,000 0 23,563 574,813 4 574,813 28,741 23,000 23,000 0 5,741 580,553 5 580,553 29,028 21,000 21,000 0 8,028 588,581 6 588,581 29,429 31,000 29,429 1,571 0 587,010 7 587,010 29,350 33,000 29,350 3,650 0 583,360 8 583,360 29,168 47,000 29,168 17,832 0 565,528 9 565,528 28,276 38,000 28,276 9,724 0 555,805 10 555,805 27,790 51,000 27,790 23,210 0 532,595 11 532,595 26,630 41,000 26,630 14,370 -0 518,225 12 518,225 25,911 54,000 25,911 28,089 0 490,136 13 490,136 24,507 42,000 24,507 17,493 -0 472,643 14 472,643 23,632 55,000 23,632 31,368 0 441,275 15 441,275 22,064 42,000 22,064 19,936 -0 421,339 16 421,339 21,067 74,000 21,067 52,933 0 368,406 17 368,406 18,420 78,000 18,420 59,580 0 308,826 18 308,826 15,441 91,000 15,441 75,559 0 233,267 i a 19 233,267 11,663 94,000 11,663 82,337 0 150,931 20 150,931 7,547 95,000 7,547 87,453 -0 63,477 21 63,477 3,174 66,651 3,174 63,477 -0 -0 ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- $ 480,651 $ 980,651 $ 392,069 $ 588,582 Licenses to be approved by the City Council on June 10, 1985 AMUSEMENT DEVICE - OPERATOR / Snyder Brothers Brookdale Shopping Ctr. of of Police AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR B & K Music & Vending 3420 Nicollet Ave. S. Carousel International P.O. Box 307 Theisen Vending Co. 3804 Nicollet Ave. S. Qu Ch f of olice FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Brooklyn Center Babe Ruth 2206 Brookview Dr. Chuck Muer's 2101 Freeway Blvd. Interstate United 1091 Pierce Butler Rte. Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N. K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr. K -Mart 3600 63rd Ave. N. Lynbrook Bowl, Inc 6357 N . Lilac Dr. Num Num Foods Brookdale Center Service Systems 701 Decatur Northwestern Bell 5910 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Video Review 5810 Xerxes Ave. N. Sanitarian GARBAGE AND REFUSE VEHICLE LICENSE Bergstrom Trucking 5860 73rd Ave. N. Block Sanitation 6741 79th Ave. N. Mengelkoch Co. 119 NE 14th Street Midwest Grease Buyers, Inc. P.O. Box 26 Robbinsdale Transfer Co., Inc. 5232 Hanson Court Woodlake Sanitary Service 4000 Hamel Road Sanitarian ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Brooklyn Center Fire Dept 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE T.G.S. Mechanical 50 Choctaw Circle _ r"� N", Buildi Official NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Riviera Tanning Studio 6040 Earle Br. Dr. Sanitarian, SIGNHANGER LICENSE Crosstown Sign Co. 10166 Central Ave. NE .� Buildin Cfficial �, SWIMING POOL LICENSE Chippewa Park Investment Group 6507 Camden Ave. N. ��(�r�, Sanitarian TEMPORARY ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING LICENSE Brooklyn Center Fire Dept. 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Brooklyn Center Jaycees 7254 Dupont Ave. N Chffelf of Police GENERAL APPROVAL: Gera G. S 1 nter, City Clerk