The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1985 05-20 CCP Regular Session /3 C7o / , y CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MAY 20, 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. Presentation to Dr. Duane Orn for Services on the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission * 7. Approval of Minutes - May 6, 1985 8. Resolutions: a. Accepting Petition, Receiving Engineer's Report, Establishing 65th Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -14 and Calling for a Hearing Thereon -This resolution provides for installation of concrete curb and gutter and bituminous surfacing improvements along 65th Avenue North, Drew Avenue North to Beard Avenue North. * b. Declaring June 26 through June 30 as Brooklyn Center Earle Brown Days c. Authorizing Dispatch and Use of City Equipment and Services by the City Manager in Emergency Situations 9. Planning Commission Items (7:15 p.m.) a. Review of Moratorium and Traffic Study b. Planning Commission Application No. 85001 submitted by Ryan Construction Company for a site and building plan approval to construct a 105,000 sq. ft. Target store and 34,160 sq. ft. attached retail center on the land east of Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin Drive and Summit Drive. This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its January 17, 1985 meeting and was tabled with direction to the applicant to revise plans and response to staff recommendations. The application was again considered by the Planning Commission at its February 14 meeting and was recommended for approval. The application was also reviewed by the City Council on a preliminary basis at the April 22, 1985 City Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- May 20, 1985 c. Planning Commission Application No. 85003 submitted by Ryan Construction Company for preliminary plat approval to combine six lots and resubdivide into two the land east of Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin Drive and Summit Drive (the site of the proposed retail development contained in Application No. 85001). This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its January 17, 1985 meeting and was tabled by the Commission at that meeting. The application was again considered by the Planning Commission at their February 14, 1985 meeting and was recommended for approval. The application received preliminary review by the City Council at their April 22, 1985 meeting. 1. Final Plat - Shingle Creek Center -This plat provides for the development of the Target store site and Associated Commercial Shopping Center site. 2. Resolution Approving and Authorizing Execution of Subdivision Agreement for Shingle Creek Center d. Planning Commission Application No. 85010 submitted by Dawn Weum for special use permit approval to operate a nursery school in the basement of the Brooklyn United Methodist Church at 7200 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 85010 at its May 9, 1985 meeting. e. Planning Commission Application No. 85011 submitted by Uhde /Nelson y Inc. for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a two -phase office development on the old City Hall property at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 85011 at its May 9, 1985 meeting. f. Planning Commission Application No. 85012 submitted by Uhde /Nelson, Inc. for preliminary plat approval to combine into a single lot the parcels of land that make up the old City Hall site at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 85012 at its May 9, 1985 meeting. g. 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. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 85013 at its May 9, 1985 meeting. 10. Discussion Items: a. Exit Ramp between I -694 (Westbound) to T. H. 252 -Staff will be prepared to discuss the possible redesign of this ramp in connection with reconstruction of T. H. 252 and I -694. b. Recommendation not to Purchase Umbrella Insurance Policy -The staff will be prepared to discuss this item at the meeting. c. Senior Transportation Project Joint Powers Agreement * 11. Licenses 12. Adjournment s � r t 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 6, 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 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, City Engineer Jim Grube, and Deputy City Clerk Tom Bublitz. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Pastor Dick Rabine of the Brookdale Covenant Church. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the Open Forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the Consent Agenda. None of the Councilmembers requested items removed from the Consent Agenda and the Mayor continued with the regular agenda items. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 22, 1985 There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes of the City Council m6eting of April 22, 1985 as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. PRESENTATION TO CITY COUNCIL FROM NATIONAL WATER SKI ASSOCIATION The Council received a letter from Nor. Hank Longo, President of the Minnesota Water Ski Association, thanking the Council for their cooperation in allowing the Water Ski Association members to perform ski jumping on Twin Lake. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 85 -72 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1985 GENERAL FUND BUDGET, AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM COUNCIL CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT AND AUTHORIZING DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FROM CITY'S LIQUOR FUND 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 5 -6 -85 -1- thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka Celia Scott Bill Hawes an Rich � , , d c Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -73 ,ember Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF JOAN DOMAAS 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 Yq , 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 -74 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1985 GENERAL FUND BUDGET, AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR CAPITAL OUTLAY IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT 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. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the following list of licenses: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE B. C. National Little League Hwy. 100 & Lilac Dr. Los Primos Brookdale Center T. Wrights 5800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE B. C. American Legion Auxilary 4307 70th Ave. N. Orchard Lane School 6201 Noble Ave. N. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Advance Heating 7805 Beech St. NE Atkins Mechanical, Inc. 6 W. 550 River Rd. Berghorst Plumbing & Htg. 10732 Hanson Blvd. Carlson Refrigeration 133 W. Island Ave. Ganley's Htg. & Air Cond. 2401 80th Ave. N. Genz -Ryan 14745 South Robert Trail Harris Mechanical Contracting 2300 Territorial Rd. LeVahn Brothers Plumbing & Htg. 3200 Penn Ave. N. Pump & Water Service, Inc. 1800 2nd St. S. Rapid Heating & Air Cond. 205 Atlantic Ln. G. Sedgwick Htg. & Air Cond. 1001 Xenia Ave. S. MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP LICENSE Brookdale Ford 2500 County Rd. 10 5 -6 -85 -2- K, POOL TABLE LICENSE Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Dr. SWIMMING POOL LICENSE B. C. Community Center 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Brookwood Estates 6125 N. Lilac Dr. Columbus Village Apts. 507 70th Ave. N. Earle Brown Farm Apts. 1701, 07 69th Ave. N. Hi Crest Apts. 1300 67th Ave. N. Marvin Garden Townhouses 68th & Orchard Ave. N. Riverwood Townhouse Association 6611 Camden Dr. Twin Lake North Apts. 4536 58th Ave. N. TAXI CAB LICENSE Town Taxi 11318 Olson Highway Yellow Suburban 127 1st Ave. N. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager introduced several resolutions Accepting Petition and Engineer's Report, Establishing Street Improvement Projects and Calling for a Public Hearing. The four areas addressed by the resolutions, included Ewing Avenue North, Drew Avenue North, Dallas Road, and Wingard Lane. The Director of Public Works reviewed the Engineer's Report on Ewing Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -10, and explained that the project was initiated by a petition which was signed by seven out of the 14 property owners in the area. He explained a second petition requesting no improvements along Ewing Avenue was signed by ten out of the 14 property owners, including four of the original seven signers in favor of the project. As a result of this situation, he explained the staff needs additional input from the neighborhood regarding the project. The Director of Public Works explained the staff has completed a preliminary review of the existing conditions and determined that the existing surface placed in 1956 is essentially sound and that accordingly the staff would recommend that the project, if approved, provide for the widening of the existing 27' to 28' surface to the standard 30' width. He pointed out that such a reconstruction should produce a street which would last 20 years. He then reviewed the estimated construction cost of the project which was $36,650 plus $5,500 for contingencies for a total of $42,150. In addition to the construction cost, the engineering cost, administrative cost, legal cost, and capitalized interest would bring the total project to $48,580. The Director of Public Works then reviewed the revenue sources for the project and again reviewed the problems with the two petitions. He stated that as a result of the conflicts among the two petitions the staff is recommending the Council proceed with a public hearing process. The Director of Public Works also presented an alternate resolution to the Council denying the project. Ms. Janice Hopke requested to speak and stated that of the four individuals in the project area who did not sign her petition against the improvement project, one of 5 -6 -85 -3- w t these four did not sign either petition. She explained that ten out of the 13 property owners who signed petitions expressed a desire to deny the project. Currently, she stated there are two persons for the project, 11 recommending denial, and one not indicating either denial or approval. The Director of Public Works reviewed the City's petition process, and explained that it is standard policy to send two petitions along with the petition carrier, one for the project and one against. He explained the person carrying the petitions is asked to record all persons in favor and also those opposed to a particular project. REVIEW OF DREW AVENUE NORTH STREET IMTROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -11 The Director of Public Works reviewed the location of the proposed Drew Avenue project which is one block east of the Ewing Avenue project. He explained the project was initiated by a petition carried by Mr. Larry Goga. He noted that six of the 14 property owners signed a petition in favor of the project and seven of the 14 property owners signed a petition opposing the project. He explained one property owner indicated no position on the project. The Director of Public Works explained that a second petition was circulated by property owners on Drew Avenue between 67th and 68th opposing the improvements on Drew between 67th and 69th. He noted that almost 100% of these property owners were against the project and that this was being submitted as information only to the Council. With regard to the project, the Director of Public Works explained that the street improvement project on Drew was almost identical to the Ewing Avenue project. He proceeded to review the project costs which totaled $48,580 and also reviewed the revenue sources for the project. He explained that two resolutions are being presented to the Council this evening, one in favor and one denying the project. REVIEW OF DALLAS ROAD STREET IMPROVUENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -12 The Director of Public Works noted that the Dallas Road Street Improvement Project was initiated by petition with nine of the 17 property owners in the area signing in favor of the project and five of the 17 signing in opposition. He explained the project area comprehended by the Dallas Road project is 22 years old and is experiencing signs of stress. He reviewed the recommendations for reconstruction of the roadway, which included subgrade drainage and a new roadway surface. He explained that the new street could expect to have a life expectancy of 20 years or more. The Director of Public Works proceeded to review the cost of the project which totaled $92,830. He then reviewed the revenue sources for the project. The Director of Public Works recommended that the alternative of no reconstruction on this project is not advisable since the minimum repair cost for the roadway would be between $20,000 and $30,000. REVIEW OF WINGARD LANE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -13 The Director of Public Works explained the project on Wingard Lane was initiated by a petition which calls for the closure of the Wingard Lane intersection with Brooklyn Boulevard. The petition was signed by five of the ten affected property owners and requests that a "hammerhead turnaround" be installed. He pointed out that the person carrying the petition did not obtain the signatures of those opposed to the project. The Director of Public Works noted that there are approximately 1,250 vehicles per day traveling on the affected portion of Wingard Lane. He then reviewed the cost of 5 -6 -85 -4- construction for the project which totaled $20,590, including engineering and administrative costs. He explained the project is a safety improvement and a benefit to the entire City and therefore, the staff is recommending the total cost of the project be charged to the City's MSA fund. Councilmember Hawes expressed a concern that perhaps this type of structure may be requested in other areas of the City. The City Manager recommended to the Council that each project must be weighed on its own merits. The staff and Council continued to discuss the general traffic flow in the area and the proposed project. Mayor Nyquist noted that there were public hearings scheduled for 7:30 p.m. and that the Council would return to the street reconstruction projects later in the meeting, and requested the staff to begin the Planning Commission items. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 85007 SUBMITTED BY SIGN SERVICE, INC. FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ERECT AN 8 1 BY 10' FREESTANDING IDENTIFICATION SIGN AT 00 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD The City Manager pointed out the Planning Commission recommended denial of Application No. 85007 at its April 25, 1985 meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Councilmembers pages one through two of the April 25, 1985 Planning Commission meeting minutes and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 85007. He explained the applicant is Sign Service, Inc. and is seeking a variance for the Ryan Oldsmobile dealership on.Brooklyn Boulevard north of I -94. He explained the request is to erect an 8' x 10' freestanding identification sign at the Oldsmobile dealership at 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard. He explained that there exists on the site three roof signs which exceed the height in area allowed by the sign ordinance. He pointed out these were allowed under a variance granted in 1975 which forbade any other freestanding signery on the site. He added the sign ordinance would normally allow two freestanding identification signs for this type of outdoor sales and display activity. At present, he pointed out Ryan Oldsmobile has one more roof sign than is permitted and all three roof signs are higher than the 23 1 6 " allowed by ordinance. He explained that the current situation was acknowledged by a variance Application No. 75004 in lieu of all other freestanding identification signery on the site. In summary, he pointed out the variance was granted in 1975 with the condition that no other freestanding sign be permitted on the site. The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Councilmembers the applicant's letter requesting the sign variance. He explained the sign requested is legal under normal circumstances but not in consideration of the previous variance granted. The Director of Planning & Inspection explained that, after holding a public hearing on the application, the Planning Commission determined that there were no grounds for granting the variance. He pointed out there is a public hearing scheduled on the application this evening and that the proper notices had been sent to surrounding property owners and that the applicant is present this evening. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application No. 85007. He recognized the applicant, MT. C. L. Mc Kline of Sign Service, Inc. who told the City Council that he was in a unique position with the sign already being 5 -6 -85 -5- i installed. He explained that last fall Ryan Oldsmobile went into the leasing business, and wanted a sign to announce its rates and at that time he indicated he checked with Building Official Will Dahn, and was told that he could have such a sign. However, he pointed out when he made formal application for the sign permit he was denied. He again emphasized that Ryan Oldsmobile like many other car dealers is moving into the leasing area and believes it is important to get the right information on their daily and monthly rates for leasing. He also stated that he believes the sign panels on top of Ryan Oldsmobile's building are part of the wall and that the signs were therefore a wall sign. He asked that the Council consider the signs as wall signs and, therefore, allow the freestanding signs normally permitted. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on Application No. 85007. In discussion of the application, Councilmember Theis inquired as to the procedure for variance request. The City Manager explained that the staff does a detailed check of applications when the formal application is submitted. He explained that the staff answers questions over the phone but does not go into detail unless an application is submitted. The Council continued to discuss and review the history of the sign variance granted to the Ryan Oldsmobile dealership formally Velie Oldsmobile, in 1975. Councilmember Hawes asked that, if the roof signs were removed, could the dealership install freestanding signs. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the freestanding signs would be permitted and the dealership would be entitled to two freestanding signs, one 250 sq. ft. and another 125 sq. ft. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to deny Application No. 85007 on the grounds that the standards for a variance are not met. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 85008 SUBMITTED BY RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO OPERATE A ,0100 SQUARE FT. DRIVE -UP BANK FACILITY IN THE OFFICE BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE The City Manager pointed out the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 85008 at its April 25, 1985 meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Councilmembers pages two through four of the April 25 minutes and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 85008. He explained the request is for a special use permit for a drive -up bank facility in the office building under construction on Shingle Creek and Summit Drive. He explained the building is phase II of the Brookdale Corporate Center. The Director of Planning & Inspection proceeded to review the parking requirements for the proposed project and also reviewed the traffic concerns raised by the application. He explained the four drive -up lanes are to be located on the east side of the building and bank customers would enter the site via an access slightly 5 -6 -85 -6- south of the building. As a result, he pointed out cars using the drive -up lanes will turn right almost immediately and stack between the drive -up teller stations and the driving lane running along the south side of the building. He explained the concern of staff is that the stacking associated with the bank drive -up may back up into this lane, hindering entrance to the site, perhaps, to the point of affecting the flow of traffic on Earle Brown Drive. He cited another concern with regard to the peak business hours for the bank particularly Friday afternoon and the possibility that it will lead to conflicts between cars willing to enter the site for banking and cars exiting both office buildings and moving into the right turn lane of southbound Earle Brown Drive. He stated that the staff is concerned that if the bank's business grows there may be a serious traffic problem affecting the public streets, and that the staff is recommending that the permit approval be conditioned on the southerly access being moved north of the building, if the City determines that a traffic problem related to the operation of the bank exists in Earle Brown Drive. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that, following a public hearing the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 85008 subject to eight conditions which he reviewed for Councilmembers. He also pointed out that a public hearing is scheduled this evening, that the proper notices had been sent, and that a representative of the applicant is present this evening. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application No. 85008. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that item No. 7 in the Planning Commission recommended conditions should be modified to state that the easements for landscape improvements should be at both the southwesterly and southeasterly corners of the property, where Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive intersect, and where Earle Brown and Summit Drives intersect. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. John Kelly of Ryan Construction who stated that he has nothing to add to the information presented to the Council this evening but is available to answer any questions the Council might have regarding the proposed project. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Application No. 85008. 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 Theis to approve Application No. 85008 subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 5 -6 -85 -7- 2. The certificate of occupancy for the bank shall be subject to the installation of 15 minute parking signs at no less than 10 stalls on the south side of the office building. 3• The applicant shall agree in writing that the south entrance to the site off Earle Brown Drive shall be relocated to a point north of the office building upon a determination by the City that a traffic problem related to the operation of the bank exists in Earle Brown Drive. Said agreement to be executed prior to the issuance of the special use permit and prior to building permits for the bank space and shall be filed with the title to the property. 4. Special use permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 5. Permit approval acknowledges a proof -of- parking plan received April 11, 1985 from Ryan Construction Company providing 492 parking stalls on site. If it becomes necessary to install some deferred spaces, those located in the Earle Brown Drive greenstrip shall be installed first and those potentially under the landscaped islands installed last. 6. The applicant shall agree in writing to install proof -of- parking spaces upon a determination by the City that a parking deficiency exists on the site. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of building permits for the bank. 7. The applicant shall grant easements to the City for the purpose of allowing landscape improvements at the southeasterly and southwesterly corners of the property, where Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive intersect, and where Earle Brown and Summit Drives intersect. 8. The applicant shall grant a 5' sidewalk easement along the southerly side of the property to the City. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING ON XERXES AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -09 The Director of Public Works introduced the public hearing and explained that notice of the hearing has been published in the official newspaper and all affected property owners have received written notice of the hearing. He proceeded to review the location of the project which is along Xerxes Avenue North from County State Aid Highway 10 to the I -94 bridge. He noted the project proposes to improve the surface on the roadway by repairing the structural cracking then constructing a bituminous overlay. Also, he pointed out included in the proposed surface improvement is the replacement of cracked, settled, and deteriorated concrete curb and gutter, the reconstruction of the sidewalk pedestrian ramps and placement of settled sidewalk panels at the Xerxes Avenue I -94 bridge approach. The Director of Public Works then discussed the proposed geometric changes to the roadway which is include a left turn lane for northbound to westbound traffic 5 -6 -85 -8- movements at the Xerxes Avenue, 59th Avenue intersection, construction of a roadway surface taper for the northbound traffic lane approach prior to the left turn lane and lengthening of the left turn lane for northbound to westbound turn at the Xerxes Avenue, 63rd Avenue intersection. The Director of Public Works then reviewed the cost estimates for the project totaling $359,290. He also reviewed the special assessment share of the project which totaled 67 %, and reviewed the approach to assessing the project which consisted of establishing two zones with different assessment rates based on square footage. He also noted the staff determined it would be difficult cul to show benefit to residential properties in the project area, especially, with a more or less routine bituminous overlay. He pointed out, however, benefit can be proved to commercial properties which will receive an improved level of service with the improved street surface. He continued his review of the zones.of benefit indicated in the project which included zone A and zone B. The Director of Public Works stated that notices of this evening's public hearing had been sent to all commercial and residential property owners in the project area and that the staff is not aware of any written correspondence from property owners in the project area. Councilmember Theis expressed a concern regarding the left turn lane proposed to facilitate traffic moving through the residential area at 59th & Xerxes. The Director of Public Works replied that one of the recommendations in the City's comprehensive plan is to eliminate the access from 59th onto Brooklyn Boulevard. He explained this was discussed with some of the residents in the area and generally the residents preferred the access to Brooklyn Boulevard to remain open. The City Manager added that the left turn lane at 59th can be justified on a safety basis even if 59th Avenue were closed off to Brooklyn Boulevard. Councilmember Theis commented that he could approve the left turn lane, if the left turn lane aided residents living in the area. The Director of Public Works commented that in both the Wingard Lane and Xerxes Avenue project it is recognized that the traffic conditions are not good.and can go either way. He explained that in the Xerxes Avenue project he believes the better of the two choices is to accommodate the traffic movement via the left turn lane. +He noted that the left turn lane will always be used by someone even if traffic circulation changes along 59th. He added that he does not believe that traffic is going to be any more encouraged to travel down 59th with the left turn lane but rather he views it as improving the safety of the intersection. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Xerxes Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -09• He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Xerxes Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985- 09. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -75 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 5 -6 -85 -9- RESOLUTION ORDERING XERXES AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -09, AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREON Upon a roll call vote being taken on the motion, the following voted in favor thereof. Councilmember Hawes yes, Councilmember Scott yes, Councilmember Lhotka yes, Councilmember Theis yes, Mayor Nyquist yes. and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:240 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m. RESO LUTIONS (CONTINUED) Mayor Nyquist noted the Council would now address the resolutions presented in conjunction with the various us petitions for street improvement projects reviewed earlier in the meeting. s RESOLUTION NO. 85 -76 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION, RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING EWING AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -10, AND CALLING FOR A HEARING THEREON The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -77 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION, RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING DREW AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVMEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -11, AND CALLING FOR A HEARING THEREON s The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -78 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION, RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING DALLAS ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -12, AND CALLING FOR A HEARING THEREON The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor p reo n vo g , g 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 -79 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: i 5 -6 -85 -10- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION, RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING WINGARD LANE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -13, AND CALLING FOR A HEARING THEREON 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 -80 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER WELL NO. 8 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985- 01, PHASE I AND PHASE II 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. DISCUSSION ITEMS REPORT ON TRAFFIC STUDY RELATING TO THE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM The Director of Public Works introduced Mr. Bob Byers and Mr. Glen Van Wormer of Short - Elliott - Hendrickson, the consulting firm conducting the traffic analysis study. Mr. Byers stated that he would present a verbal summary of the report this evening with a written report to follow. Mr Byers proceeded to review the project process and project methodology. He explained the analysis estimated the number of trips generated under each potential land use in the study area. He stated the traffic counts were developed around three scenarios, existing land use, probable land use, and maximum usage of land. He noted that the maximum development alternative for some intersections presented some very difficult traffic situations. He noted the study addressed the various rush hours experienced in the study area, one being, 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. carrying work related traffic and another 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. carrying retail related traffic. Mr. Byers cited an example of one of the intersections studied in the analysis, that being County Road 10 and Shingle Creek Parkway. He explained the 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. traffic totaled 3, 600 vehicles in the intersection and the 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. traffic totaled 3,400 vehicles. He then reviewed the intersections at the Brookdale area, and noted that the City would probably not want to deviate much beyond the probable development in this area because of the heavy traffic. As a general rule, he stated that south of Interstate 94 there is less flexibility with regard to traffic and north of the interstate there is relatively more flexibility and the City may deviate from the probable development scenario. He then reviewed the traffic service levels at various intersections in the study area, and noted that most intersections can be handled at the probable level with some improvements but the maximum case presents more difficult problems with more expensive solutions. The City Manager explained that the staff will be working with Short- Elliott- Hendrickson before May 20th to develop strategies to control development to a probable case. 5 -6 -85 -11- ORDINANCES The City 'anager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Accessory Commercial Uses in Multi -story Office Buildings. He explained the ordinance was first read on April 8, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on April 18, 1985, and is recommended for a second reading this evening. He pointed out accessory uses permitted under the ordinance amendment include retail food shops, gift shops, book and stationery shops, tobacco shops, accessory eating establishments, sale and service of office supply equipment, newsstands, and similar accessory retail shops. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinance Regarding Accessory Commercial Uses in Multi -story Office Buildings. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Accessory Commercial Uses in Multi -story Office Buildings. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 85 -08 Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING ACCESSORY COMMERCIAL USES IN MULTI -STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance 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 ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances Regarding Liquor License Fees , p and explained the ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening and would provide an additional class of liquor license (Class D) to the ordinance. He added that the ordinance also addresses miscellaneous housekeeping changes and corrections to the City liquor ordinance. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances Regarding Liquor License Fees for a first reading and to set the public hearing date on the ordinance for June 10, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances Regarding On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Fees, and explained the ordinance is offered for a first reading and would establish the license fee for the Class D liquor license. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending hapter 23 of the City Ordinances g Y 5 -6 -85 -12- i .. Regarding On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Fees and to set the public hearing date for the ordinance amendment for June 10, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending the City Ordinance Relating to the Regulating, the Operating, Parking, Storing, Repairing, Servicing, and Maintaining of Vehicles. He explained the ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening and addresses the issue of vehicles stored on private property which had been previously classified in the ordinance as junk vehicles. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending the City Ordinance Relating to the Regulating, the Operating, Parking, Storing, Repairing, Servicing, and Maintaining of Vehicles and to set the public hearing time and date at 7:30 p.m. on June 10, 1985. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION FOR ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE FOR MIDWEST RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES, INC. TO OPERATE UNDER THE NAME OF T.J. APPLEBEE'S The City Manager explained the restaurant will be located in the Brookdale Shopping Mall in the space formerly occupied by the Hennepin County Service Center and the Video Arcade. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Midwest Restaurant Associates, Inc. to operate under the name of T.J. Applebee's contingent upon the police department final on -site inspection and approval of the premises and seating requirements. Voting n favor. M Ny Councilmembers Lhotk g Y Yq � a , Hawes and Theis. e s. a Voting g nst: none. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC. LOCAL N0. 72 j The City Manager requested the Council's approval of the memorandum of understanding between the City and the Police Department Bargaining Unit and noted that the only changes in the existing contract is a 5% wage increase and an additional d onal $10 per month towards the purchase of health insurance. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the Memorandum of agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Local No. 82 and dated May 2, 1985. 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 Theis to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at :2 Y y ,7 10 5 .m. p Deputy City Clerk Mayor 5 -6 -85 -13- Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION, RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING 65TH AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -14, AND CALLING FOR A HEARING THEREON --------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, has received a petition requesting the installation of curb and gutter and related street improvements along 65th Avenue North from Drew Avenue North to Beard Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report to the City Council regarding the feasibility of the petitioned improvement: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Said petition is hereby accepted. 2. The Engineer's Report, as submitted by the City Engineer, is hereby received and accepted. 3. The proposed project is hereby established: 65TH AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -14 4. The Council will consider the improvement in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $49,540.00. 5. The area to be included within the assessment District for Improvement Project No. 1985 -14 shall be all benefiting properties within Registered Land Surveys Nos. 803 and 838 and within Blocks 9 and 10 of Brooklane Addition. 6. A public hearing shall be held on the proposed improvement on the 10th day of June, 1985, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 8:00 P.M. local time, and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY :711r irOOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER ENGINEER'S REPORT 65th Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -14 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 of the existing bituminous 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. "Ile SoHCetltuu� �1 ogre L'� „ 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 City Cost Share $17,270 (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, Jita Grube Sy"Knapp City Engineer Director of Public Works JNG : j nd I,J iii � �� • � � -•.. m- loss m im WINE Rm MEMO III / WIN W E MINE �b Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING JUNE 26 THROUGH 30 AS BROOKLYN CENTER EARLE BROWN DAYS WHEREAS, the purpose of the City of Brooklyn Center Earle Brown Days is to promote the City of Brooklyn Center, its people and amenities; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Jaycees, Chamber of Commerce, Lions Club, and other community groups participate in the annual civic celebration to demonstrate the vitality of the City of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to declare June 26 through June 30, 1985 as the dates for Brooklyn Center Earle Brown Days. 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. YC' Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DISPATCH AND USE OF CITY EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES BY CITY MANAGER IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council finds that instances have occurred in the past and can be anticipated in the future wherein there is a danger by fire, hazard, casualty or other similar occurrences taking place or occurring outside the territorial limits of the City of Brooklyn Center; and by the suddenness thereof it would be impossible or impractical for the City Council to meet and authorize the dispatch and use of City equipment and personnel to combat such fire, hazard, casualty or other similar occurrence; therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center City Council as follows: The Council finds it desirable and necessary to authorize the City Manager or his designee to exercise discretion, considering at all times and in each case the internal needs of the City of Brooklyn Center and its inhabitants, to dispatch City equipment and personnel as deemed necessary to combat such occurrence whether it takes place within or without the Brooklyn Center City limits. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such dispatch and use as directed by the City Manager or his designee shall be fully authorized as an act of the City of Brooklyn Center and all provisions for compensation of personnel, rental of equipment, liability insurance coverage, workman's compensation insurance and all other safeguards and matters pertaining to the City, its equipment and personnel, shall apply in each case as if specifically authorized and directed by this City Council at such time, whether or not the governing body or authority of the place in which the fire, hazard, casualty or other similar occurrence exists, has previously requested and provided for assistance and the use of the Brooklyn Center equipment and personnel under a mutual protection agreement or other type protection agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center. FURTHER, the City Manager or his designee shall recall, order and terminate the use of such equipment and personnel when the need for their use no longer exists, or earlier, when at his discretion it appears in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: May 16, 1985 SUBJECT: Use of City Equipment in Emergency Situations Attached is a resolution authorizing the dispatch and use of City equipment and services by the City Manager in emergency situations. The Metropolitan Emergency Managers Association (MEMA) recommends passage of this resolution in order to achieve the most efficient way of providing assistance to each other in the event of a disaster. St. Louis Park and several other communities have already adopted this resolution. Under the resolution, present mutual aid pacts would be left as they are. In the event of a request for assistance which would involve several different City departments including those not covered by existing mutual aid pacts, that request would be directed to the City Manager's office. The resolution would authorize the City Manager or his designee to send equipment and personnel to assist a stricken area, at their request, in the event of a disaster, with or without a formal mutual aid pact. The general purpose of this resolution is to avoid uncertainty in the area of worker's compensation, insurace and equipment damage costs. The City, when assisting another City in an emergency by providing equipment and personnel, would assume all costs in the areas just cited. By clearly stating the City's responsibilities in this resolution, emergency assistance can be provided in a timely fashion. M,& C NO. 85 -05 May 16, 1985 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Retail Moratorium To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: The Council has received the final report from Short- Elliott- Hendrickson relating to the traffic analysis of our commercial and industrial core. Your staff has carefully reviewed the final report, and we hereby recommend that the retail moratorium not be extended. If the Council takes no action, the moratorium will expire on May 20 at midnight. We recommend no extension x ension of the moratorium because the traffic analysis in the report indicates P the currently nown proposed retail development Y p p 1 will not cause failure of major intersections. We do, however, believe the Council should not issue any special use permits for retail in any other zone without special traffic analysis and study. We would request the City Council instruct the Planning and Inspection Director not to accept special use permit requests without accompanying commitment to pay the costs of traffic analysis as determined by the Public Works Director. We also believe that while our present special use requirements in our ordinance may not be perfect as we would like, they do offer a measure of control of retail development in our industrial and light commercial zones. We believe the Council should direct the staff to review the special use requirements of our zoning ordinance and suggest modifications for Planning Commission consideration in light of the information received in our traffic analysis study. We know we have problems if we don't carefully watch the mix of land uses in our commercial and industrial area. We also believe that if we do develop systems and techniques to direct and guide the balance of uses in our commercial and industrial core area, that we can assure a well planned commercial and industrial area for many years. I believe with the recommendations above we will take the first step in assuring that prosperity. Respectfully bm'tted, Gerald G. Splin er, City Manager MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JANUARY 17, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER - 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION The 1984 Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:39 p.m. ROLL CALL 1984 Planning Commission Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas, Mike Nelson and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES _ December 20, 1984 Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Manson to approve the minutes of the December 20, 1984 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Manson, Ainas, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Malecki. The motion passed. ADJOURN 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the 1984 Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE The Secretary then administered the oath of office to Commissioners Lucht, Ainas and Bernards for two year terms which would end at the end of 1986. CALL TO ORDER 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION The 1985 Planning Commission was then called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:42 p.m. ROLL CALL 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas, Mike Nelson and Wallace Bernards. ELECT 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN Chairman Lucht then opened the floor for nominations for 1985 Planning Commission Chairman. George Lucht was nominated by Commissioner Manson and seconded by Commissioner Malecki to be Chairman of the 1985 Planning Commission. Chairman Lucht asked whether there were any other nominations. Hearing none, he called for a vote on whether to approve George Lucht as the 1985 Planning Commission Chairman. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. George Lucht was elected to be 1985 Planning Commission Chairman. ELECT 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN PRO TEM Chairman Lucht then opened the floor for nominations for Planning Commission • Chairman Pro tem. Nancy Manson was nominated by Commissioner Ainas and seconded by 1 -17 -55 -1- Commissioner Malecki to be Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem for 1985. Chairman Lucht asked whether there were any other nominations. There was a motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close nominations. The motion passed unanimously. A vote was then taken on the nomination of Commissioner Manson to be 1985 Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. Nancy Manson was elected 1985 Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem. APPLICATION NOS. 85001 AND 85002 (Ryan Construction Company /Target) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the two items of business on the agenda, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 105,000 sq. ft. Target store and a 38,960 sq. ft. attached retail center on Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin Drive and Summit Drive; and a request for a special use permit to construct and operate an auto center at the proposed Target store at approximately 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway. The Secretary then reviewed the contents of both staff reports (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 85001 and 85002 attached). Commissioner Nelson asked what area of the parcel would be most affected if the City's storm sewer system could not handle the drainage from the site. The Director of Public Works answered that the main concern with drainage was in the area south of the retail center by John Martin Drive. He stated that there were concerns regarding the capacity of the line in that area and also, the poor location of a catch basin in a high traffic area. The Director of Public Works stated that the overall capacity in the City's system is adequate, but that any problems would depend on how the drainage was distributed to the storm sewer lines and John Martin and Summit Drives. He explained, in turn, that distribution problems can be calculated until more design information is submitted. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Jeff Rice of Ryan Construction Company stated that the applicant had met with staff on Friday of the previous week and that some changes as requested in the staff report were being made. He stated that he concurred with the tabling recommendation. He added that the traffic analysis for the development was still under study and that more answers would be available in the future. Chairman Lucht then asked whether consideration was being given to relocating the auto center. Mr. Darrel Creamer of Target stated that the plan was being revised in all aspects. He stated that he could not respond to the question of relocating the auto center, but that it was under study, Chairman Lucht asked whether a screening device other than a vinyl chain link fence was being considered for the garden center. Mr. Creamer responded in the affirmative, reiterating that all aspects of the plan were being reconsidered. Commissioner Nelson asked whether the issue of trailers for storage would be a problem. Mr. Creamer acknowledged that such storage was not allowed by City ordinance and, therefore, would not be permitted. Chairman Lucht commented that the Target in Crystal, while an older store, was the example that the people on the Commission thought of when they thought of a Target store and that some of the problems associated with that store were concerns of the Commission in reviewing this application. Commissioner Manson added that she did feel that the Ridgedale store was very nice. Mr. Creamer stated that this store in Brooklyn Center would be even better, more like the new store in Eden Prairie. 1 -17 -85 -2- PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85002) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to continue the public hearing. MOTION CONTINUING PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Nelson to continue the public hearing regarding Application No. 85002. The motion passed unanimously. The staff Planner then asked the applicant whether any consideration had been given in the redesign of the site plan to possible pedestrian movements between the Target store and retail center and the neighboring shopping center proposed to the east. He stated that it might be necessary to split the buildings to allow such pedestrian traffic to reach the fronts of the buildings. Mr. Jeff Rice responded that such movements could be dangerous with the truck traffic that would occur behind the buildings. He recommended against encouraging such pedestrian movements. Mr. Rice went on to say that the trailers serving the proposed retail use and LaBelle Is and the proposed shopping center to the east would all be screened from Shingle Creek Parkway by the Target and retail center buildings. Commissioner Manson inquired as to the possible need for a signal at the Summit Drive entrance to the Target site. The Secretary and the Director of Public Works then discussed the location of the access on Summit Drive relative to the location of Earle Brown Drive and stated that if a signal were necessary, the best location would be at Earle Brown Drive. It was pointed out that the possibility of a right- in /right- out access on Shingle Creek Parkway if properly designed, might relieve some of the traffic problems that would require a signal on Summit Drive. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 85001 (Ryan Construction Company) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to table Application No. 85001 and direct the applicant to respond to the recommendations of the staff report. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 85002 (Target) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Nelson to table Application No. 85002, with direction of the applicant to respond to the concerns raised in the staff report. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS The Secretary then briefly discussed the application by Brooklyn Park for a special use permit for placement of fill in the flood plain on the Crystal Airport property. He stated the application was now in order and would be considered at the January 31, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Lucht then explained to Commissioner Bernards the function of the Neighborhood Advisory Group with respect to rezonings and handed out the assignments to each of the Commissioners. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Manson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Chairman 1 -17 -85 -3- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85001 Applicant: Ryan Construction Company Location: 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a 105,000 sq. ft. Target store and a 38,960 sq. ft. attached retail center on the six parcels of land east of Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin Drive and Summit Drive. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded by vacant C2 zoned land and LaBelle Is on the southeast, by John Martin Drive on the southwest, by Shingle Creek Parkway on the northwest, and by Summit Drive on the north, northeast. Retail sales is a permitted use in the C2 zoning district. There is also a proposed auto center in the Target store that is a special use in the C2 district. A 4,250 sq. ft. restaurant is indicated on the plan, but no details are provided. This element is not comprehended in any approval. Access to the site is proposed off John Martin Drive and two access points off Summit Drive. The easterly access on Summit Drive is primarily a truck access and meets the normal ordinance maximum of 30' in width. Because of the volume of traffic entering and leaving the site, the westerly access on Summit Drive is proposed to be 58' with a 4' median and the access on John Martin Drive is proposed to be 46' with a 4' wide median. Openings of wider than 30' have been allowed in other instances where a median is utilized. No access has been proposed off Shingle Creek Parkway and such an access would be out of kilter with the parking layout. However, it may be that a right -in /right -out access off Shingle Creek Parkway, with no median cut, would take some of the burden off the other accesses, particularly with respect to left turns into the access on John Martin Drive. Such an access off Shingle Creek Parkway should only be approved if there is a realignment of parking within the site. The applicant has submitted a traffic analysis for the proposed site prepared by Barton- Aschman Associates. It projects peak hour traffic volume at the site to be 478 trips inbound and 444 outbound (p.5). Figure 5 of the report shows important traffic movements associated with peak hour site trips. The busiest access is projected to be on John Martin Drive with 578 total movements in and out (309 of these are left turns). The main Summit Drive access is projected to have 391 total movements during peak hour, 190 of which are left turns. The major traffic problems posed by the development will be at the John Martin Drive access and at the intersection of John Martin Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway. Signals are tentatively planned for the John Martin Drive /Shingle Creek Parkway intersection. This development will likely affect the type of signal and possibly the design of the intersection. The currently proposed development is likely to increase traffic volumes to the Summit Drive /Shingle Creek Parkway intersection to the point of warranting the installation of permanent traffic signals at this intersection. The additional traffic volumes generated by the proposed development will also add significantly to traffic problems in at least the following locations: - C.S.A.H. 10 and Shingle Creek Parkway -John Martin Drive at the service road /ramp Easterly of T.H. 100 - weaving problems along John Martin Drive and Summit Drive between Shingle Creek Parkway and the entrances to the development -1- Application 11o. 85001 continued In addition to the traffic generated by the proposed Target and retail center, the City must look at the potential traffic generated by future uses on other vacant land in this area. The City has requested an evaluation of the traffic analysis by Glenn Van Wormer with Short - Elliott- Hendrickson. Mr. Van Wormer feels that the overall peak hour traffic projection is realistic, but would like to have further information on projected traffic patterns at various times. He feels that the direction of approach to the site will be less from the Highway 100 south corridor than projected by the analysis and there will be more traffic from the north. Although the report projects a level of service in the " A " range (no problems) , Mr. Van Wormer feels the result will probably be a "B" or "C" level of service (problems, but acceptable). Mr. Van Wormer has commented that the layout of the site creates difficulties and that the proposed arrangment of accesses is poor with traffic ultimately becoming confused and clogged on site and possibly off. He also recommends consideration of a right -in /right -out access on Shingle Creek Parkway. It is noted that City staff met with representatives of Ryan Construction on 12/17/84 to review an earlier version of the site plan. At that meeting, staff requested the developer to amend the plan to reduce the severe traffic problems associated with the then- proposed driveway to Summit Drive directly opposite Earle Brown Drive. Our objection was not to the location of the driveway with respect to our roadway system - rather to the congested entrance area on -site which would result in expansion of that congestion into the intersection. The current plan shows two alternate locations for the driveway - both removed from the Earle Brown Drive alignment. It is our opinion that neither of these alternates provide any improvement because both still are poorly designed within the site. In fact, the original location may be better than either of these alternates because that would allow a future traffic signal system installed at the Summit Drive /Earle Brown Drive intersection to also serve the Target entrance. At the 12/17/84 meeting, staff also presented the developer with an outline of elements to be included in the requested traffic generation study. Analysis of the Barton - Aschman report indicates that many of these elements have not been addressed, while others have not been answered satisfactorily. One very important area which is not addressed by the Barton - Aschman study is the question of additional trips which will occur between this development and Brookdale - by "comparison shoppers" etc. The proposed plan provides parking for 890 cars. This is to provide parking for 143,960 sq. ft. of retail space (the combination of Target and the attached retail center) and for an approximate 100 seat restaurant. (Note: The 100 seat restaurant would have to be reduced in seats by the number of employees on the maximum shift. Staff are also concerned over the size of 4,250 sq. ft. relative to the number of seats in the restaurant which indicates some excess capacity. However, this element of the plan is not subject to approval at this time and further consideration maybe deferred.) It should be noted that the site plan maximizes the utilization of this 13.4 acre parcel of land. This results in all available areas being covered by either building or parking. Minimum green areas are provided. Furthermore, the parking lot is out of kilter with the major traffic generator, Target. The parking is mostly located in front of the strip shopping center. The result may be that some tenants in the center will suffer because their customers will be crowded out by Target traffic. It should be noted that the flow of traffic on the site is likely to be confused and -2- f Application No. 85001 continued ' clogged by the way the accesses at both Summit Drive and John Martin Drive lead into the parking lot. At the Summit entrance there is a poorly defined open area in front of the access that leads at various angles to parking stalls and the main driveway in front of the building. The access at John Martin Drive would seem to handle outbound traffic well, but inbound traffic will either dead end into the south end of the shopping center or fork left in front of the building. The main flow of inbound vehicles should be toward the driveway in front of the building. There is also a poorly defined traffic area immediately outside the proposed auto center at the north corner of the Target building. This area is very poorly defined compared to the K -Mart auto center on Earle Brown Drive. Staff recommend a total rethinking of the auto center location. In summary, it is the opinion of City staff that the site plan is very poorly designed and will result in significant traffic congestion problems on the site and at the entrance areas. We recommend that the developer be requested to develop alternate site plans for consideration, starting with a committment to properly designed access points, then designing the site accordingly. The landscape plan calls for 52 shade trees including Summit Ash, Norway Maple, Greenspire Linden, American Linden and Skyline Locust. Most of these shade trees are in the perimeter greenstrip areas though there are 12 Skyline Locust and 4 Greenspire Linden proposed in the pavement area in front of Target and the retail center. The plan also calls for 8 Radiant Crab, five clustered along John Martin Drive and three along Shingle Creek Parkway. In addition, 26 Black Hills Spruce are proposed in greenstrip areas adjacent to public streets, 12 in the area opposite the proposed Auto and Garden centers. Finally, there are over 150 shrubs proposed, including Seagreen Juniper, Compact Spreading Yew, Compact Euonymus and Compact Viburnum. These shrubs are located in planting beds around a freestanding sign at • the corner of Summit Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway, in front of the proposed Target store, and in front of the attached retail center. Staff would note in passing that the landscape plan uses tree stamps that are out of all proportion with the size of the plantings to be installed on the site. The tree stamp for decorative and coniferous trees scales about 25' in diameter. The stamp for shade trees is almost 40' in diameter. If these trees ever reach this size, the building will probably either have been razed or be a historic site. Therefore, in spite of the appearance of generous landscaping, staff feel that more trees could be proposed, especially along the property lines adjacent to LaBelle's and a proposed neighboring shopping center. Also, no trees or landscaping have been proposed in parking lot areas. Some visual breakup of the lot is needed. The grading plan provides fairly generous berms in a couple larger green areas and minimal one foot high berms along most of the greenstrip areas. These berms should be maximized to a slope of 3:1 which normally allows for a 2.5 ft. high berm in a 15' greenstrip. Drainage on the site is to be collected in four series of catch basins connected by private storm sewer to the City storm sewer in either Summit Drive or John Martin Drive. One catch basin that seems questionable is the one immediately inside the John Martin Drive access. While this is not a major drainage basin, its location in a high traffic area will be a nuisance. It must be pointed out that the drainage that would be produced on the site with this development may exceed the storm sewer capacity presently available in the City system. The present system cannot be analyzed because design criteria have not been submitted. With respect to curbing, the plan shows curb and gutter around the perimeter of the parking lot, but none is indicated around parking lot islands as required and the plan notes do not indicate curb and gutter. -3- Application No. 85001 As to water and sewer service, an 8 water line will loop from Summit Drive to John Martin Drive. Sanitary sewer service splits with the Target line going to Summit and the shopping center line to John Martin. One hydrant, served by an isolated line off Shingle Creek Parkway, is proposed in front of the retail center. Another hydrant is proposed behind the center. The City Engineer recommends installing a further hydrant along Shingle Creek Parkway. The proposed building exterior for the complex is not uniform. The proposed exterior of the Target is an exposed aggregate panel with a painted accent band about the middle of the wall and a narrower band near the top. The proposed exterior of the retail center is to be a saxon brick. The Commission should evaluate the consistency of these treatments and the quality of materials in lieu of past policy of consistent quality of, exterior treatments. The plan notes that rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened as required by the City. A trash compactor is to be located behind the building and will be screened by a masonry wall. No trash enclosures are shown for the retail center. The plan proposes a fenced in garden center and an auto center with five overhead doors on the Summit Drive side of the Target building. The garden center is to be screened by a vinyl coated chain link fence and the auto center by the Spruce trees in the Summit greenstrip. Staff consider this to be totally inadequate screening and recommend that the auto and garden centers either be relocated entirely to the rear of the building and /or that much better screening be provided. The proposed plan provides for three loading berths at the southeast corner of the Target building. However, the City's traffic consultant feels it will be very difficult to maneuver more than one trailer into this dock area. It should also be pointed out that other Target stores in the metropolitan area utilize numerous i trailers for outside storage of inventory. Such outside storage is not permitted under Section 35 -412 of the Zoning Ordinance. It is recommended that the applicant work with neighboring property owners to possibly arrange a joint access for trailer trucks behind both buildings and a consolidated loading dock space for better maneuver ability. Staff have met with the applicant and representatives of Target to discuss the foregoing concerns regarding the plan. No revised drawings were available when this report was typed. At present we can only recommend that the application be tabled with direction to the applicant to submit a revised plan addressing the concerns outlined above no later than two weeks prior to the Commission's February business meeting. -4- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85002 Applicant: Target Location: 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to construct and operate an auto center at the proposed Target store at 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway. This application is subsidiary to Application No. 85001. The auto center is proposed for the northerly corner of the Target store, set back about 42' from Summit Drive. A letter from Darrel Creamer of Target has been submitted (attached) in which it is explained that the service area is a "TBA" (Tires, Batteries and Accessories) and is primarily for installation and service of these items in addition to routine services such as oil change, lube, and tune -up. Regarding the Standards for Special Use Permit, Mr. Creamer states that the public welfare will be benefitted by a full service Target store. He states that Target has TBA's in all 15 existing stores in the Twin Cities and they have never been a problem. He points out that adjacent property should not be adversely affected since it is zoned intensely. Mr. Creamer states that the proposed TBA will not impede normal and orderly development of surrounding property and notes that the owner of the adjacent property to the east is entirely in favor of the development. Regarding parking and traffic, the letter states that the plan has been discussed in great detail with staff and that those concerns have been responded to. Finally, Mr. Creamer points out that no variances are being sought with this application. Staff would point out that the special use permit is for the auto center only and the benefits and detriments of Target as a whole are not really under consideration with this application. As to impact on surrounding property, it is true that the auto center is to be located in a highly zoned area. However, it is also an area of potentially and existing high quality commercial development. An auto service use does not impress staff as a beneficial use to abut high rise office development and the Earle Brown Farm, particularly if it faces these uses across Summit Drive. Staff have requested that the auto center be relocated to another, less obvious area in the building. We have been told that such a relocation is not possible because the footprint and floor plan of the building are fixed. We question whether such an alteration of the plan would be impossible if the interest of the applicant were at stake. Although we cannot quantify the benefit, staff feel it would be in the public interest to minimize the exposure of the auto center to Summit Drive and instead present a more attractive building face to neighboring properties and those traveling along Summit Drive. Regarding the normal and orderly development of surrounding property, the applicant cites the approval of the owners of neighboring adjacent property to the east. We would point out, however, that the proposed auto center does not face the neighboring property to the east, but faces Summit Drive. The vacant properties across Summit Drive are owned by Ryan Construction which also owns the proposed Target site. Staff's concern is that the auto center being so close to Summit Drive (set back only 42') may make office development somewhat less likely on the north side of Summit Drive. Office development in this area is called for by the Comprehensive is Plan, though the zoning is I -1. -1- Application No. 85002 Finally, regarding traffic, staff have indeed expressed a number of concerns regarding this entire site to the applicant. The response, thus far, has not met • our concerns. Further efforts, however, are likely. If the auto center stays on the north side of the building, we would definitely recommend that a proposed driveway connection leading right into the main entrance off Summit Drive be closed as it seems quite unnecessary and dangerous. In summary, we do not recommend approval of the special use permit at this time. We recommend that this application be tabled, along with the site plan application, and that the applicant be urged, if not directed, to consider an alternate location for the auto center and /or much more effective screening of the auto center from Summit Drive and neighboring properties. -2- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 14, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:38 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Carl Sandstrom, Mike Nelson, and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioners Manson and Ainas were excused from the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 31, 1985 Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Bernards to approve the minutes of the January 31, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. Not Voting: Commissioners Malecki and Sandstrom. The motion passed. F APP L ICATION NOS. 85001, 85002, AND 85003 (RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY) owing the Chairman's explanation, there was a motion by Commissioner Nelson nded by Commissioner Sandstrom to remove Application Nos. 85001 and 85002 from table. Voting in favor: ChairmanLucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, on, and Bernards. Voting against. . none. The motion passed. The Secretary then introduced Application Nos. 85001, 85002, and 85003 for consideration. He reviewed the staff report for Application No. 85001, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 105,000 square foot Target store on 34,160 square foot attached retail center on the land east of Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin Drive and +Summit Drive (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85001 attached) . The Secretary also reviewed many details of the site plan that had been negotiated with Target and Ryan Construction Company. He also reviewed the definitions for various levels of service and discussed the traffic analysis prepared by Barton Ashman. Chairman Lucht noted that no handicap parking stalls had been indicated on the plan, except near the restaurant site. The Secretary acknowledged this and stated that the plan would have to be revised to show those stalls. Commissioner Sandstrom referred to a recommended 17th condition regarding negotiations between Target and LaBelle's or the purpose of providing a common loading facility area. He asked whether this condition was mandatory or simply an encouragement. The Secretary responded that it was more in the way of an encouragement. In response to a question from Commissioners Bernards regarding the location of the sidewalk, the Secretary pointed out the location of the existing sidewalk along Summit Drive and the area of sidewalk on Shingle Creek Parkway to be relocated. He also noted that the applicant would provide a sidewalk entrance to the Target store off Summit Drive. Commissioner Bernards expressed concern that landscaping be set back enough so that it does not present a visibility problem for pedestrians or motorists coming to and from the site. The Secretary agreed with this concern and stated that he did not think there would be any visibility problems with the proposed landscape plan. 2 -14 -85 _1_ Commissioner Nelson inquired as to the location of Earle Brown Drive relative to the Target site. The Secretary pointed out that the Earle Brown Drive intersection with Summit Drive would be immediately across from the Target access. Commissioner Nelson stated that he thought such an access arrangement was being discouraged. The Secretary explained that the problems with the original access arrangement across from Earle Brown Drive were more with the design on the site than with the location of the access across from Earle Brown Drive. Commissioner Nelson asked whether the traffic analysis indicated that there was a need for traffic signal at that location. The Secretary responded in the negative. He stated that a subdivision agreement should plan for the possibility of signals at that location. The Secretary then introduced Application No. 85003 and reviewed the staff report for the preliminary plat (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85003 attached). Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Thomas Bonneville of Target asked whether the City preferred right -of -way dedication to an easement for sidewalk along Shingle Creek Parkway. The Secretary stated that the easement would be acceptable to the City. Mr. Bonneville asked about the need to upgrade existing signals as a result of the Target development. The Secretary stated that the main concern was that regarding the possible installation of signals at Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive. Mr. Bonneville expressed some concern regarding the sharing of costs for signals when Target does not cause all of the traffic demand that results in the signalization of an intersection, even though they may have added the increment that justifies the signal. The Secretary stated that he understood the concern of Target and that the portion of the cost of any signal assessed to Target would be proportional to the benefit received by Target from those signals and would be provided for in the Subdivision Agreement. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85003) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on the preliminary plat application and asked whether anyone present wished to speak. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. There was a brief discussion regarding Application No. 85002, the request for a special use permit for an auto center in the Target store. Mr. Bonneville explained that a smaller version of the auto center was being considered, and that a final decision as to whether to make a new proposal for the auto would be made in the near future. He asked the Commission to table the application indefinitely until Target would either propose a smaller auto center or withdraw the application entirely. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 85002 INDEFINITELY AND CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Nelson to table Application No. 85002 and continue the public hearing indefinitely at the request of the applicant. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85001 (Ryan Construction Company) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend 0 approval of Application No. 85001, subject to the following conditions: 2 -14 -85 -2- 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of 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. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. . 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all si ner which is PP g Y 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. s 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. The applicant shall amend the name of the development and the plat so as not to be confused in any way with the City of Brooklyn Center prior to preliminary plat approval. 11. Plan approval excludes the restaurant portion of the project which is subject to future review and approval. 12. All 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. 0— There shall be no outside storage of semi trailers on the site with the exception of trailers parked at the loading docks. 2 -14 -85 -3- 13. 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). 14. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to install all on-site traffic control signs as approved by the Director of Public Works. 15. The landscape plan shall be modified prior to City Council consideration, 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. 16. That exterior modifications to the Target building, such as rounded corners, be indicated on the site plan prior to City Council consideration. 17. The applicant is encouraged to continue negotiation with LaBelle's for the purpose of providing a common loading area. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85003 (Ryan Construction) _ Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 85003, 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 plat shall be modified to include sidewalk easements in accordance with the recommendations of the Director of Public Works. 4. The name of the preliminary plat shall be revised so as to avoid any confusion with the City of Brooklyn Center prior to preliminary plat approval. 2 -14 -85 -4- I 5. 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 (west). b. installatin of deceleration lanes serving accesses on Shingle Creek Parkway and on Summit Drive. C. relocation of public sidewalks as necessary. 6. 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: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary then explained that because a moratorium on retail development would go into effect on February 23, 1985, the applications would not be considered by the City Council until the May 20, 1985 meeting when the moratorium would expire. i Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85001 Applicant: Ryan Construction Company Location: Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin and Summit Drives Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a 105,000 sq. ft. Target store and 34,160 sq. ft. attached retail center on the parcel of land east of Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin Drive and Summit Drive. The land in question is zoned C2 and the proposed retail use is a permitted use in that zoning district. This application was reviewed by the Commission at its January 17, 1985 meeting and tabled with direction to the applicant to revise the proposed plan in accordance with the recommendations of the staff report submitted at that meeting. Most of those recommendations have been acted on favorably and still more revisions are being considered. The most significant revision to the overall proposal has probably been the elimination of the auto center on the northeast side of the building. (This results in the withdrawal of Special Ilse Permit Application No. 85002.) The garden center which is to remain on the northeast side will be surrounded by an 8' high masonry wall to provide effective screening. In addition, the building exterior of the Target store is to be brick, compatible with the brick exterior of the retail center. Rounded corners will provide some vertical relief on the Target building similar to the retail center. The retail center has been shrunk in size by 4,800 sq. ft. at the south end to allow better truck movements to and from John Martin Drive. Another significant change in the plan is regarding the access arrangements. A right- turn -in access and right- turn -out access on Shingle Creek Parkway are proposed. No median cut will be granted. A deceleration lane adjacent to northbound Shingle Creek Parkway will be installed requiring a relocation of the public sidewalk onto the Target property within an as- yet- to -be- obtained easement. Parking stalls adjacent to Shingle Creek Parkway will be left in the green - strip, counted as proof- of- parking.(Staff recommend this based on a traffic analysis by Dean Wenger of Barton- Aschmann Associates for this project which projects a total parking demand on the site of 772 spaces while 880 are possible.) Concrete medians in two parking rows are also provided to reduce cut - through traffic. The accesses on John Martin Drive and Summit Drive now have extended throats with no intersecting driving lanes or parking for appro:-,i- mately 100' in from the property line. Medians have also been extended. A third access on Summit Drive is also proposed to serve the Garden Center. Staff recommend this access rather than a con- nection between Garden Center and the main Summit Drive access which could cause difficulties in the proper function of the main access. The latest plan submitted provides 880 parking stalls which meets the retail parking requirement for 139,150 sq. ft. of retail space and a restaurant of up to 120 seats. (This number of seats works "Z7 out to 35.4 sq. ft. per seat with a 4,250 sq. ft. restaurant which is more realistic than the earlier estimates. Again, however, no approval of a specific restaurant is implied by this action.) 2 -14 -85 -1- Application No. 85001 continued Some reduction in the number of parking stalls is probably necessary to accommodate truck movements south of the building to exit the site onto John Martin Drive. This stall reduction will presumably impact the restaurant seating. Regarding the traffic analysis for the site, Dean Wenger has provided further information as requested by the City. Mr. Wenger has in- corporated alternate assumptions about the direction of approach of the customer traffic coming o the Target site. te. Based on either g assumption, however, Mr. Wenger concludes that the level of service at all relevant intersections will be "A ". Staff and the City's traffic consultant (Glen Van Wormer of Short - Elliott - Hendrickson) are more of the opinion that the level of service will be "B" and perhaps "C" during certain peak periods at certain intersections. This, however, is still an acceptable level of service. It appears, therefore, that traffic impact should not be a reason for denying or altering he project. g P e ct. J Regarding the landscaping plan, the new plan uses smaller tree stamps and some increased landscaping will be provided adjacent to the garden center. Staff have also asked for a reduction in the number of Ash trees (with a concomitant increase in other shade trees), more berming along Shingle Creek Parkway, more landscaping in front of the restaurant pad and landscape islands in the parking lot. All but the landscape islands have been agreed to. The grading plan has been modified to provide higher berms in the large green areas and normal berms approaching a 3:1 slope in most greenstrip areas. The catch basin in front of the John Martin Drive entrance has been relocated. The plan notes curb and gutter around all parking and driving areas. The applicant wishes to be excused from the requirement to provide curb and gutter around parking lot islands. However, this is a long standing policy that should not be altered without further review apart from consideration of this application. Staff have also drawnattention to the high finished floor elevation of Target and have warned the applicant that this may lead to grade problems from the main Summit Drive access to the store entrance. The applicant has assured us that this matter will be considered to try to minimize these grade problems. In general, the plans for the proposed Target development do appear to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: I. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility - nd 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 b the e Cit Y Y Manager) shall be submits ; ; -.d 7 to the issuance of permits to assure compl.�tion cif is -proved site improvements. 2 -14 -85 -2- Application No. 85001 continued 4. An outside e 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 accord ance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 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, including parking lot islands. 9. The re plat of t p he ro ert shall receive final approval P P Y PP b the City y y and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of buildin g permits. 10. The applicant shall amend the name of the development and the plat so as not to be confused in any way with the City of Brooklyn Center prior to preliminary plat approval. 11. Plan approval excludes the restaurant portion of the project which is subject to future review and approval. 12. All 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. i 2 -14 -85 -3- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85003 Applicant: Ryan Construction Company Location: Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin and Summit Drives Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to combine six lots and resubdivide into two lots the land east of Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin and Summit Drives. The land in question is zoned C2 and is the site of the proposed Target store and retail center (see Application No. 85001). The proposed legal description of the property is simply Lot 1 and Lot 2 of Block 1, Brooklyn Center Village Addition. Staff have requested an alternate name to avoid confusion with the City. Lot I is the location of the retail center. Lot 2 is the location of Target. The total area of the plat is 13,432 acres. No lot areas have been provided, but Lot 2 is by far the larger lot. Existing grades are provided on the preliminary plat survey. A 10' wide utility easement is provided along John Martin Drive and along Shingle Creek Parkway. We are seeking sidewalk easements along Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive to accommodate sidewalks in areas where turn lanes are proposed. In general, the plat appears to be in order and approval is recom- mended subject to at least 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 plat shall be modified to include sidewalk easements in accordance with the recommendations of the Director of Public 'Works. 4. The name of the preliminary plat shall be revised so as to avoid any confusion with the City of Brooklyn Center prior to preliminary plat approval. 5. 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 (west). b. installation of deceleration lanes serving accesses on Shingle Creek Parkway and on Summit Drive. C. relocation of public sidewalks as necessary. 2- -14 -85 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MAY 9, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7 :33 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom, Mike Nelson and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer James Grube, and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 25, 1985 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to approve the minutes of the April 25, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas and Bernards. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Sandstrom and Nelson. The motion passed PRESENTATION OF VOLUNTEERISM AWARD TO COMMISSIONER BERNARDS Chairman Lucht tthen presented an award on behalf of the Brooklyn Center Rotary to Commissioner Wallace Bernards for his activities in the community on a volunteer basis. APPLICATION NO. 85010 (Dawn Weum) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for special use permit approval to operate a nursery in the basement of the Brooklyn United Methodist Church at 7200 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85010 attached). Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether she had anything to add. The applicant responded in the negative. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85010) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. The Secretary asked Mrs. Weum if she had a lease with the church. Mrs. Weum responded in the affirmative, stating that it was a one year lease. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the operation would be the same as that conducted by Anne Book. Mrs. Weum again responded in the affirmative. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85010 (Dawn Weum) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 85010, subject to the following conditions: 5 -9 -85 _1_ A 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 stalls 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: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 85009 (Foundation Stone Ministries, Inc.) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for an approval to rezone from R1 to R5 the vacant 4.5 acre parcel and the southwest corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85009 attached). The Secretary added that staff had received a conceptual plan for development of the property. He showed a transparency of the conceptual layout for a 750 seat church in the first phase and a second phase beyond. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant if he had anything to add. Mr. Mark Anderson of Church on the Move stated that he felt the church makes sense in this location because of the access problems. He stated that an office use would add traffic to the peak, whereas a church would be an off -peak traffic generator. He also noted that there would be more area on the site available for parking than was shown on the conceptual plan. He also noted that there would be fewer seats than a similar size building could accommodate. Commissioner Sandstrom asked where the church was located now. Mr. Anderson responded that it was located in the Camden area and that it had outgrown four previous buildings. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85009) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Paul Holmlund of 6536 Indiana Avenue North stated that the lack of neighbors present at the public hearing did not indicate a lack of concern. He stated that it was more likely an indication that people do not feel the proposal is serious. He reviewed how neighbors in the area attended public hearings last year and the year before on an office condominium development which has not gone forward. 5 -9 -85 -2- r Mr. James Pearson, the owner of the property, stated that he had expected the office development to go forward, but that financing problems prevented the project from being built. He stated that the church approached him and made an offer which he felt was reasonable. He stated that the church would be less of a traffic problem than the office buildings. Ms. Esther Jensen of 4213 65th Avenue North also stated that the Planning Commission would have to consider traffic as a major concern. Chairman Lucht asked her whether she considered the church to be less of a traffic concern. Ms. Jensen answered that she was not sure. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the church would have any daytime programs. Mr. Anderson stated that there were none at present. He stated that the church has a Wednesday night Bible study and Sunday services. Chairman Lucht asked whether the neighbors would be invited to the Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone else wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to continue the public hearing. MOTION CONTINUING PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85009) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to continue the public hearing on Application No. 85009. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Anderson asked about the neighborhood committee. Chairman Lucht explained that the Neighborhood Advisory Groups review rezonings, take comments from applicants along with the City information and react to suggestions by residents of the neighborhood. He stated that it is an attempt to resolve problems. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 85009 (Foundation Stone Ministries, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to table Application No. 85009 and refer it to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 85011 (Uhde /Nelson, Inci) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a two phase office development on the old City Hall property at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report for the site plan (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85011 attached). The Secretary added that a conceptual plan for the property was submitted about a year ago at the time the property was sold. At that time, he explained, the Planning Commission had commented on the compatibility of various proposed office developments with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for that area of the Boulevard. He added that the neighbors in the area commented when the old City Hall building burned down and stated a preference for an office development. He explained that property was sold to Uhde /Nelson, Inc. on the basis of the concept for an office development. The Secretary then read a memorandum from Rick Hartmann of H. E. Homes, Inc., who had also bid on the old City Hall property expressing his feeling that the bidding for the property should be reopened on the basis of a change in plans. (see memorandum from Rick Hartmann attached). The Secretary explained, however, that the City has already sold the property and cannot reopen the bidding. He stated that the 5 -9 -85 -3- F l Planning Commission had accepted all of the office concepts as compatible with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the City Council sold the property to Uhde /Nelson, Inc. on the condition that the plans submitted be built or that modifications be approved by the City Council. The Secretary explained that there was no formal bidding process as such and that no formal design competition had been held. APPLICATION NO. 85012 (Uhde /Nelson, Inc.) The Secretary then introduced Application No. 85012, a request for preliminary plat approval to combine into a single lot the parcels of land that make up the old City Hall site at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report pertaining to the plat (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85012 attached). The City Engineer added that the boundary discrepancy noted in the report is not uncommon in platting of property. He stated that, since the property was formerly owned by the City, the City has a concern that everything be done in the open and that the proposed plat be reviewed by the County land surveyor and possibly commented on by the City Attorney. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Dave Nelson of Uhde /Nelson stated that the surveyor is confident that the boundary location shown on the preliminary plat is accurate. He added, however, that his firm would not require neighboring property owners to move their fences should it be determined that they are located on the property he has purchased. Regarding the change of plans from the original concept, Mr. Nelson pointed out that he always discussed a two - storey building with brick exterior and ribbon windows and this concept has been continued with the proposed development plans. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 85011 and 85012) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on both the special use permit for the office development in the R5 zone and for the preliminary plat. He asked whether anyone present wished to speak. Mr. Rick Hartmann briefly addressed the Commission. He stated that he was not opposed to the project as such, but that he simply wished to express his opinion about the procedure that has been followed. He stated that he had told buyers of his office condominium units to the south that the building to the north would be a two - storey brick office building. Mr. Dave Nelson state that hat he hoped to work out an easement agreement for utilities through the corner of the Boulevard Plaza property. He also explained that Edina Realty, which had been one of the parties interested in buying the City Hall site, had approached Uhde /Nelson, Inc. before they bought the property. He explained that Edina Realty had wanted to buy the property in order to dictate the style of building that it wanted built on the property. He explained that his firm had wanted a modern style building and that this is what would be built. He explained that Edina Realty would lease the building from them. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There being no other comments, Chairman Lucht called for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Nelson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he would not be voting on approval or disapproval of the application. The Planner also noted that the plans have been modified in accordance with the recommendations of the staff report, but that there was still a need to show an extension of the landscape hedge along the north property line slightly. There followed a brief discussion regarding the screening from neighboring properties. 5 -9 -85 -4- In response to a question from Chairman Lucht regarding the property line discrepancy, the City Engineer recommended that the Planning Commission simply acknowledge the question and that it would be reviewed by the County surveyor. The City Engineer expressed his concern that the matter be handled in the open and that people in the area not feel that six inches of property is being taken from them. ACTION RECO14 ENDING APPOVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85011 (Uhde /Nelson, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of 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 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 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 around 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 5 -9 -85 -5- 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. 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 submit 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 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: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas, Nelson and Bernard. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Sandstrom. The motion passed. a ACTION RECO"EI NDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85012 (Uhde /Nelson, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend approval of 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 -9 -85 -6- 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: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Nalecki, Manson, Ainas, Nelson and Bernards. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 85013 (Uhde /Nelson, Inc.) The Secretary then introduced the last item of business, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a two - storey 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. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85013 attached). Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Dave Nelson of Uhde /Nelson responded in the negative. The Secretary noted the need to add a utility hookup agreement. Commissioner Manson asked whether the building has tenants yet. Mr. Nelson answered that the building was 50% leased so far. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85013 (Uhde /Nelson, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 85013, subject to the following conditions: i 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of 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 accordnance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 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. 5 -9 -85 -7- 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 applicant shall enter into a standard utility hookup agreement for the payment of utility hookup charges prior to the issuance of building permits. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Ma lecki, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNNENT Following a brief discussion of upcoming business and development activities, there was a motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Chairman x 5 -9 -85 -8- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85010 Applicant: Dawn Weum Location: 7200 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate a nursery school at the Brooklyn United Methodist Church at 7200 Brooklyn Boulevard. The church is zoned R1 and is surrounded by single - family homes on the north and east, by the old City Hall property (zoned R5) on the south, and by Brooklyn Boulevard on the west. The proposed nursery school operation will replace the operation carried on by Anne Book since 1981. There will be little change in the nursery school from that which was approved under Application No. 81043. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which she describes some aspects of the proposed nursery school operation. Mrs. Weum explains that the nursery school is located in three downstairs rooms of the church. Two exits are available from the building. The school is to be in session September through May. The hours would be 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., Friday. The school is to have one full -time head teacher and two part -time assistant teachers. The school enrollment is 80 students in four classes. Thirty stalls of parking are available at the church and there is an outdoor play area behind the church. Students are from 3 to 5 years old. Staff see no reason to deny the special use permit as it is essentially a continuation of the current nursery school with only a change of operator. Approval is, therefore, recommended, subject to at least 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 1.1:30 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 stalls 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. s Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85009 Applicant: Foundation Stone Ministries, Inc. Location: Southwest corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Rezoning The applicant requests approval to rezone from R5 to Cl the 4.5 acre vacant parcel of land at the southwest corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is bounded on the north by I -94, by Brooklyn Boulevard on the east; and by single - family homes on the south and west. This parcel was the subject of Appli- cation No. 83037 by Cramer Company for site and building plan and special use permit approval to build an office condominium development. The present application arises out of a desire.to use the property for a church. Churches are not allowed in the R5 zone as either a permitted or a special use. Churches are allowed by special use permit in the R1 and R2 zoning districts and "religious uses" are a permitted use in the C1 district. Staff have advised that a rezoning to C1 would be more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan for Brooklyn Boulevard than a rezoning to R1 or R2. The applicant, in the person of Mark Anderson, President of Church on the t1ove Inter- national, has submitted a letter (attached) addressing the guidelines for evaluating rezonings from Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance (also attached). The letter states that each guideline for rezoning is met in this case. It notes that the Comprehensive Plan recommends either office or townhouse development in this area of Brooklyn Boulevard and, therefore, the Cl zoning classification is appropriate. The letter points out that the intended use of the property is for a 1,000 seat church, the members of which reside primarily in Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park and north Minneapolis. Mr. Anderson also points out that the proposed C1 zoning is consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classification since much of the land along Brooklyn Boulevard is zoned C1 or C2. Mr. Anderson also states that the subject property will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the C1 zoning district and that the property is better suited to C1 zoning than to R5 because of its proximity to major traffic arteries. No proposed site layout has been submitted with this application as supporting infor- mation. In theory, it would seem that a 1,000 seat church could fit on the subject property. The building itself is expected to be about 40,000 sq. ft. in area. Park- ing for 1,000 seats would be 333 spaces at one stall per 3 seats. With driving lanes, each stall occupies approximately 300 sq. ft. of land. Parking area would, therefore, be approximately 100,000 sq. ft. This leaves about 50,000 sq. ft. for greenstrips and recreational space. Some churches in the community have consider- able area for recreational space, but many do not and there is no ordinance require- ment for such space. A major question confronting any use of the parcel in question, of course, is access to the site. The City has refused, in the past, to allow any access to this property through the residential neighborhood to the west along Indiana Avenue North. Access must, therefore, be off Brooklyn Boulevard and this access is very difficult because of the level of traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard and because of the proximity of a high- way exit ramp. Approval of the office condominium proposal was subject to the developer installing a deceleration lane north of the access and extending the median in Brooklyn Boulevard southward to make the access to the site right -in /right -out only. Access to the parcel will certainly have to be closely examined if the rezoning is approved and development plans are submitted. 5 -9 -85 -1- Application No. 85009 continued Regarding the general question of the use of the property raised by the application to rezone to Cl, staff see some merit in the proposal, especially in light of the specific use contemplated. The Comprehensive Plan, prepared in the late 1970's and adopted in 1982, originally recommended mid - density residential (townhouse) develop - ment in the area of Brooklyn Boulevard between 63rd Avenue North and I -94, except the K -Mart site. The application by Cramer Company (Application No. 83037) for an office condominium development on this property stimulated a review and eventual amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to allow either office uses or townhouses inter- changeably along areas of Brooklyn Boulevard recommended for either service /office or townhouse development (see City Council Resolution No. 83 -130 amending the Com- prehensive Plan, attached). The proposed rezoning to C1 is, therefore, consistent with the amended Comprehensive Plan. We also certainly agree that a residential use at the intersection of two major traffic arteries and with direct access to one of them is not really appropriate. The existing R5 zoning of the property is, therefore, probably inappropriate. The merit of allowing service /office uses in this location has already been accepted in the granting of a special use permit for office condominiums. Rezoning the property to C1 would eliminate the option of residential use of the property, but we do not feel this is much of a loss to the public welfare in this particular location. Service /office uses would tend to add to peak hour traffic volumes, however. In light of this traffic concern and the particularly difficult access problems with this property, the contemplated church use has positive merit. We would recommend that any rezoning approval be withheld until an acceptable development plan has also been submitted, reviewed and approved. As to the zoning scheme for this general area, the rezoning of this individual parcel to C1 does not seem to constitute spot zoning since there is other C1 zoned property in the vicinity. The question arises as to whether it might be appropriate to rezone other parcels in this area of the Boulevard to C1 at the same time. The general policy regarding rezonings along Brooklyn Boulevard has been to wait until a specific development proposal is presented and then consider rezoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. We would recommend continuing that policy in this case. If other parcels along Brooklyn Boulevard must be acquired to provide suitable access, the rezoning would, of course,have to be extended to cover them. The parcels immediately south of the 4.5 acre parcel at the corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard are covered by a private covenant which prohibits commercial use of those lots without the consent of all parties that are a part of the covenant. The City is not obligated to observe the restrictions of the covenant in its zoning of property, but development of the lots may be curtailed by private enforcement of the covenants through civil suit. Nevertheless, it may be that a church use of these lots would be considered noncommercial and, therefore, not barred by the restrictive covenant. It might be beneficial for all parties if additional land could be attached to the site in question for the purpose of providing better access to the site. As is the procedure with all rezonings, it is recommended that the Commission con - tinue the public hearing, table the application and refer it to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. It is also recommended that the applicant be directed to submit development plans for the proposed church use by or before reconsideration of the rezoning application by the Planning Commission. 5 -9 -85 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85011 Applicant: Uhde /Nelson, Inc. Location: 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard Request. Site and Building Plan /Special Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to con- struct two office buildings totalling 21,180 sq. ft. on the former City Hall property at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is zoned R5 and is bounded on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard; on the north by the Brooklyn United Methodist Church parking lot and by single - family residences; on the east by the back yard of a residence and parking area for the Boulevard Plaza office condominiums; and on the south by those office condominiums. Offices are special uses in the R5 zoning district. Access to the site would be from a single driveway at the southwest corner of the site where the old City Hall entrance is located. The applicant proposes to build the project in two phases. The first and larger phase is a two - storey, 13,920 sq. ft. office building on the westerly side of the property. The expected tenant for that building is Edina Realty which presently offices at 7000 Brooklyn Boulevard and is looking for a larger building. The parking requirement for this building is 70 spaces. Seventy (70) spaces are provided within the area to be completed with phase one. The second phase is to be a two - storey, 7,260 sq. ft. office building on the easterly portion of the property. The parking requirement for the second phase is 36 spaces. The plan provides 44 spaces in the area for phase two. Therefore, some medical use could be allowed in the second building. The second phase area covers approximately the easterly 150' of the property'. Until construction proceeds on the second building, this area will be graded and seeded and improvements will be deferred. The landscape plan for the site calls for 12 shade trees (Japanese White Birch, Pin Oak, or Green Seedless Ash), all within phase one. A 30" diameter oak tree just north of the entrance is to be preserved. There is a dense, existing hedge of cedar trees along the east property line and the easterly half of the north property line. Staff recommend that this hedge be extended somewhat to the west with new plantings to provide complete screening of the end residence to the north from the parking lot. The plan schedules 13 coniferous trees (Colgrado Green Spruce) and two ornamental trees (Canada Red Cherry, Red Splendor Crab) on the westerly Phase I area of the site. Seven ornamental trees are scheduled for the easterly Phase II portion of the site. Numerous shrubs are also proposed around the foundation of the buildings, in parking delineators and some in perimeter greenstrip area. A trash enclosure is proposed in the parking lot at the northeast corner of the PhaseI (Edina Realty) building. A 3' to 4' berm is indicated in the front 35' greenstrip adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard. Berming on the grading plan is almost nonexistent and should be augmented to match the landscape plan. However, berming should be kept back about 25' from the access to keep sight lines open. The grading, drainage and utility plan proposes that most runoff from the parking lot will drain toward the northeasterly portion of the site. One catch basin is to be located on the westerly portion of the site and will be connected to storm sewer in Brooklyn Boulevard. Two catch basins on the easterly portion of the site will convey drainage to a City storm sewer line which runs along the west edge of the St. Alphonsus Church property. The connecting storm sewer line will have to cross the Boulevard Plaza property. An easement will have to be granted for that storm sewer connection and a copy of the easement document should be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. A 6" waterline will also extend through the property from Brooklyn Boulevard to the St. Alphonsus property and will be covered by the same easement. This will provide better water pressure by looping the system. Sanitary sewer service for both buildings will be connected to sanitary sewer in Brooklyn Boulevard. 5 -9 -85 _1_ Application No. 85011 continued The buildings proposed on the plan meet all setback requirements. The exterior elevations of the Edina Realty building are to be brick with a pre- finished metal mansard around the top of the building. No elevations for the second phase building have been provided, however, we assume that it will be similar and compatible. Approval of the second phase is not final until full information on the building has been provided. Regarding the Standards for Special Use Permits, the applicant has submitted no letter addressing the standards. Neighboring property owners have been consulted in the past as to preferred use of the property. It was agreed that the preferred use of the old City Hall site would be office rather than a multi - family residential use. Staff certainly agree that an office use is consistent and compatible with surround- ing land uses. Traffic generated by the site will add to peak hour traffic volumes on Brooklyn Boulevard, but the size of the development should not actually cause an interruption in the flow of traffic on the public streets. Altogether, we feel the application is in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of 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 sypporting 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 around all parking and driving areas. is 10. The plat for the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to issuance of building permits. 5 -9 -85 -2- Application No. 35011 continued 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 4' high opaque fence. 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 submit 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 permits. 16. The site and building plans shall be certified by a registered architect prior to the issuance of building permits. 5 -9 -35 -3- A Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85012 Applicant: Uhde /Nelson, Inc. Location: 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to combine into a single lot the parcels which make up the old City Hall site at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is zoned R5 and is the location of the office development proposed under Application No. 85011. The existing legal description is a metes and bounds description of Lot 7 and other portions of Auditor's Subdivision No. 57. The proposed legal description is Lot 1, Block 1, 7100 Corporate Plaza Addition. The lot is approximately 1.67 acres. The City Engineer has transmitted a memo dated May 2, 1985 addressing both the plat and site and building plan for the 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard site (attached). He recommends that a 5' wide drainage and utility easement be established along the north, east, and south property lines and a 10' easement along the west property line. An 8' wide sidewalk easement along Brooklyn Boulevard is also recommended. The City Engineer also notes that there are discrepencies in locating the property corners for the north property line. He recommends that property corners be placed along the north property line's intersection with the side lot lines of the resi- dential lots. Accuracy of the plat survey should be subject to approval of the Hennepin County land surveyor. In general, the preliminary plat is in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least 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. 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. 5 -9 -85 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85013 Applicant: Uhde /Nelson, Inc. Location: 5600 block of Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a two - storey, 8,900 sq. ft. office building north of the Girl Scout offices (5601) on the west side of the 5600 block of Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is zoned Cl and is bounded on the east by the Brooklyn Boulevard frontage road, on the south and west by the Girl Scout offices, and on the north by the Brooklyn Law Center office building. The proposed office use is a permitted use in the C1 zoning district. Access to the site will be from the Brooklyn Boulevard frontage road. Because the site fronts on a service road, the setback and greenstrip requirements are the normal 35' and 15' respectively, rather than the greater requirements for developments adjacent to a major thoroughfare (50' setback and 35' greenstrip). This is because of an ordinance amendment a few years ago which allows for normal setbacks adjacent to major thoroughfares in cases where there are mitigating circumstances such as frontage roads, noise walls, etc. The site plan calls for 44 parking stalls and one proof -of- parking stall west of the building to meet the regular office parking requirement of 45 spaces. One handicapped stall will be placed near the south access to the building. The landscape plan calls for nine (9) deciduous shade trees (Sugar Maple, Red Royal Maple, White Ash) along the south and west perimeter greenstrips. These should be especially effective in providing parking lot shading. Two ornamental trees (Canada Red Cherry, Red Splendor Crab) are scheduled at the southeast corner of the building and another along the west side. A number of evergreen trees (Norway Spruce, Colorado Green Spruce) are proposed in the major green areas to the east and north of the building. Deciduous shrubs (Goldflame Spirea, Redtwigged Dogwood, Purple Leaf Sandcherry) are proposed in clusters within the perimeter greenstrip areas and around the building. A gravel mulch strip is also indicated around most of the building. No area for a trash enclosure has been indicated on the plans. The grading, drainage, and utility plan calls for runoff to drain toward the south side of the site where it will be collected by a single catch basin. That catch basin will be connected to City storm sewer by a private storm sewer line which will run to the southeast corner of the property and then within the Brooklyn Boule- vard right -of -way for 140' to the public storm sewer line. The City Engineer has also noted, in a memo dated May 2, 1985, that, since the property was formerly used for residential purposes, additional utility charges may be required to provide for connection to municipal water and sanitary sewer systems. We recommend a condi- tion requiring the developer to enter into a utility hookup agreement prior to the issuance of permits in the event that such hookup charges are necessary. The building elevations indicate a brick exterior to the building with a two - storey glass atrium area at the south entrance to the building. A basement mechanical room is not counted toward gross floor area so long as it does not extend more than 4' above ground level and is not regular office space. Plan notes indicate that the entire building will be fire sprinklered. Site lighting is provided by four lighting fixtures on 20' high poles, two in the west greenstrip and two in the south greenstrip. Altogether, the plans appear to be in order and approval is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 5 -9 -85 -1- Application No. 85013 continued 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of 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. 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. 8612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The site and building plans shall be certified by a registered archi- tect 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. 5 -9 -85 -2- CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BR'00KLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: Jim Grube, City Engineer DATE: May 17, 1985 RE: Final Plat - Shingle Creek Center (Planning Commission Application No. 85003) Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. has requested that the City Council approve the final plat of Shingle Creek Center (the proposed Target development site) in conjunction with the approval of the preliminary plat and site and building plan proposals under Planning Commission Application Numbers 85003 and 85002, respectively. Conditions placed upon the plat by the Planning Commission are as follows: 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 plat shall be modified to include sidewalk easements in accordance with the recommendations of the Director of Public Works. 4. The name of the preliminary plat shall be revised so as to avoid any confusion with the City of Brooklyn Center prior to preliminary plat approval. 5. 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 (west). b. installation of deceleration lanes serving accesses on Shingle Creek Parkway and on Summit Drive. C. relocation of public sidewalks as necessary. 6. The applicant shall execute cross easements for access and parking between Lots 1 and 2 prior to final approval by the City Council. Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 have been met. Regarding Condition No. 5, City staff has negotiated a Subdivision Agreement (copy attached) which somewhat modifies the responsibilities for construction of turn lanes and traffic signals, but which we feel is in full compliance with established City policy and beneficial to the City's interests. The City Attorney has reviewed a registered property abstract submitted by the developer. The Attorney has noted that the owner of record for the proposed development site is Byerly's, Inc., and a review of current County records indicates that no change of ownership has taken place. The legal counsel for Ryan Construction Company has indicated that Ryan Construction Company intends to purchase the property (see attached) prior to plat filing at the county, and a review of the submitted plat indicates that Ryan Construction company is the only signatory party. Based upon the circumstances outlined above, it is apparent that Ryan Construction Company intends to purchase the land from Byerly's, Inc. if the platting and site and building plan approvals are granted by the City. Since all other conditions have been met b Ran y y Construction Company, staff recommends the City Council: 1. approve the plat contingent upon receipt of verification that the property ownership transfer has been completed and subject to execution of the Subdivision Agreement; and 2. approve the Subdivision Agreement. A resolution for this purpose is submitted for Council consideration. Respectfully submitted, Rec mme ded for Approval, Jim Grube Sy Knapp City Engineer Director of Public Works JNG:jn,� JI dti I f 0 roc 1.: .r _ '"HINGLE CREEK CENTER [j GI1 lJfa s- 'i', L G v., :'�i�r ,.f I � '., i_ivl \ �:,�_I fah __•_ _. _ ,_r, � 7R RLS NO V � , �1 !yi rvri r L �- j W c o — o ti so 79 r: / Vii„ SS O ° Cr n p / me a�rn ✓a c ne.- I oF Src, 2. T /•0, R2/ ' ` / \ ✓Nsnne 1 - n Ca n , P u �on i h / �S ti li., °r r �� — O`_�_7.'+e nor/n hne of the ,vc 7toF 1 1 5,C. Z, T / /B. R2/ , .�0 Trc n:v/n /in+ o! fhe ,r7 N �� I ,..4°, j0 Z �^ ,$67 ° /6'45'E _S 5(' oo I Y / r r yt — i�� fnD / i 4v A \\ // 11 `I L- / g l,' ,,'s•� S• !� f ' ,� o G✓cnorr5 :ron Mnnun� n! � E T � a � ' tin `� L• ^ S 2 ° � pay h6 me .nosr 1 The northwesterly t.lension of the — rlhrastr•rly O o I line of Tract 1, 9 NV 11. L 0 S. No. 1175 n nso�m d hr •oo y � n, ,- y (' 77r nor�h� s/r / one have a bearing of O° 7' S"W. t, . r A yJl/ 22 r °Ate / � oX 77oco �/ S N . 1325 The bearing of the above d--h-1 line has a a, _ bearing of NVV° 11' 54 as referenced to Cnd 'Iff1 pE rN!y Norlh, Minnesota Coordinate Syslem South P.ne. '�• 0 t ° CC/ � o j —nr n / I / e C \\ DORSEY & WHITNEY A Partnership Including Professional Corporations 2200 FIRST BANK PLACE EAST MINNESOTA 55402 510 NORTH CENTRAL LIFE TOWER MINNEAPOLIS, 201 DAVIDSON BUILDING 445 MINNESOTA STREET (612) 340-26500 8 THIRD STREET NORTH $T. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 ( TELEX 29 GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 P. 0. BOX 848 7 - 8017 TELECOPIER: (612)340 - 2868 (406) 727-3632 P. O. B 340 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING 304 TRANSWESTERN PLAZA III ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55903 (507) 288 550 NORTH 31- STREET P. 0. BOX 1179 315 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING BILLINGS, MONTANA 59103 WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 DUANE E. JOSEPH, P.A. (612) 475 -0373 (612) 340 -2749 (406) 252 -3800 350 PARK AVENUE 30 RUE LA BOETIE NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022 75008 PARIS, FRANCE (212) 415-9200 011 331 562 32 50 April 12, 1985 Mr- Richard Schieffe_r City Attorney City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota - 55430 Re: Target Development Plat Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Dear Mr. Schieffer: Pursuant to the request of Mr. James Grube, I am enclosing a registered property abstract with respect to the above referred -to property. Ryan has an agreement with Byerly's, Inc. to acquire the property. At the time of acquisition the mortgage referred to in the registered property abstract will be paid. After the plat is filed, Ryan will convey the Target tract to Dayton- Hudson. Ryan and Dayton- Hudson have agreed upon the terms of a Construction, Operation and Reciprocal Easement Agreement with respect to the common area. A draft of this Agreement will also be sent to you for your review. Very truly yours, �D �GGwi� Duane E. Josep DEJ:dav Enclosure CCs: '- Mr . Sy Knapp Mr. Ron Warren Mr. Joe Oster Mr. L.P. Crane, Jr. Mr. James R. Ryan 9c � Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR SHINGLE CREEK CENTER ------------------------------------------------- BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the Subdivision Agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. is hereby approved. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 4 f� ti SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into the day and year set forth hereinafter, by and between Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation hereinafter called the "Owner ", and the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, a Municipal Corporation in the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called the "City", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Owner is the Owner of the following described property: Tracts A, B, C, and E, Tract D, except the southeasterly 108 feet thereof; Tract F, except that part of the southeasterly 108 feet thereof which lies southwesterly of the following described line to wit: Beginning at the most southerly corner of said Tract F; thence North 44 degrees 07 minutes 59 seconds West along the. northwesterly extension of the northeasterly line of Tract J, for a distance of 110 feet and there terminating. All in Registered Land Survey No. 1325, Files of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin. wishes to resubdivide the property as part of a new Plat hereinafter called the "Subdivision "; and WHEREAS, Section 15 -109 of the Brooklyn Center City Ordinances requires the Owner to enter into agreement with the City to provide for the construction of improvements required to provide service to the Subdivision, and to provide for a method of payment for such improvements: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: t DIVISION 1 - APPLICATION OF THIS AGREEMENT 1.1 That the provisions of the agreement shall apply to all portions of the Subdivision. All references to portions or tracts within the Subdivision shall be deemed to apply to all portions or tracts of the Subdivision, unless the context in which such reference is used clearly indicates it applies to only specified portions or tracts. 1.2 The provisions of this agreement shall run with the land and shall bind the Owner, its heirs, executors, and assigns. DIVISION 2 - IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE BY THE CITY, WITH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED AGAINST SUBDIVISION 2.1 That the Owner hereby petitions the City to construct those improvements itemized in Exhibit A; and that the City hereby agrees to prepare plans and specifications for the construction of said improvements, to take bids for the construction thereof and to complete construction thereof by July 31, 1986. 2.2 That the City will construct those improvements itemized in Exhibit A, and will levy special assessments against those tracts of the Subdivision as outlined in said exhibit A, pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 as amended. The Owner acknowledges the benefits received from the improvements as itemized in Exhibit A, and acknowledges responsibility for the payment of these special assessments. 2.3 That the Owner, before any contract for construction of the improvements described in Exhibit A, is awarded shall pay the City CASH in the amount of $10,600.00 which amount represents 20 percent of the estimated total costs of said improvements exclusive of capitalized interest. Such payment shall be applied by the City to the total 1' assessments for the improvements. 2.4 That actual assessments will be based on actual costs incurred 0 by the City (for construction, engineering, legal, administrative, capitalized interest, and contingent costs) and that the balance of said costs remaining after application of the aforementioned cash payment will be levied as special assessments over a 15 year period with equal annual principle payments. Interest shall be charged at the rate established by the City Council at the time of adoption of the assessment roll. DIVISION 3 - UNPAID CURRENT ASSESSMENTS 3.1 That Exhibit B, attached hereto, summarizes the unpaid portions of current special assessments which have been levied against the Subdivision for improvement projects previously completed by the City. That the Owner hereby acknowledges the benefits received from these projects. That these assessments will be apportioned to the various tracts of the Subdivision as summarized in the attached Exhibit C. DIVISION 4 - ADVANCE PAYMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 4.1 That advance payment of all special assessments on the Owner's .property shall be made at the time the Owner sells said property, unless the City Council approves assumption of the special assessments by the purchaser at the time of sale. 4.2 That upon such sale of said property, the Owner shall pay to the city CASH, in the amount equal to one and one half times (1 -1/2 x) the estimated total of all assessments for said property if the assessment roll has not been adopted by the City Council. 4.3 That in the event the payment made in advance of the adoption of the assessment roll is greater than the actual assessment levied, the 0 City will return such excess to the Owner within 30 days after the 1` i adoption of the assessment roll. 4.4 That in the event the payment in advance of the adoption of the assessment roll is less that the actual assessment levied, the Owner shall make payment in the amount of the difference within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment roll. DIVISION 5 - FUTURE UTILITIES CONNECTIONS AND HOOKUP CHARGES 5.1 That there will be no hookup charge for water or sanitary sewer service other than the "SAC" charges as described in Exhibit D. It is the responsibility of the Owner to install all water and sanitary sewer laterals and service connections as may be required to provide service to any portion of the Subdivision. DIVISION 6 - OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OWNER 6.1 That; prior to signature of the Plat by the City, the Owner shall execute covenants which provide for installation of traffic control systems, at a time not to exceed 10 years from the date hereof to control traffic movements at Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive to and from the Subdivision and on John Martin Drive to and from the Subdivision. The Owner, its successors or assigns shall be responsible for 50 percent of the cost of furnishing and installing the Summit Drive /Earle Brown Drive system and 100 percent of the cost of furnishing and installing the John Martin Drive system. Said covenants, included herewith as Exhibits E and F, shall be filed with the Registrar of Titles', Hennepin County, Minnesota. 6.2 That the decision to install traffic control signal systems is to be made by the City. 6.3 The Owner shall construct a right turn lane along eastbound Summit Drive adjacent to the access drive to the Subdivision at Earle Brown Drive as proposed under Planning Commission Application No. 85003. The timing, nature, design, plans, specifications, construction procedures, contract documents, and all other details of the said construction shall be subject to the approval of the City. In the event the Owner is unwilling or unable to construct the right turn lane by June 1, 1986 the City shall have the option of undertaking and completing said construction without interference from the Owner. The Owner shall provide a financial guarantee within 30 days of approval of the final Plat by the Brooklyn Center City Council in the amount of $15,750.00 representing 150 percent of the estimated construction costs. Said financial guarantee includes the estimated construction, engineering, legal, administrative, capitalized interest, and contingency costs. In the event that the City decides to exercize its option to construct the right hand turn lane, the financial guarantee will be foreclosed and the costs of construction will be applied against said guarantee. If the guarantee is not sufficient to cover all I cost previously mentioned, the Owner will be invoiced for any excess and the Owner agrees to make payment in full within 30 days of the date of invoice. The City will release the balance of the financial guarantee against which it has no claim within 30 days of final approval of the right hand turn lane. 6.4 That the Owner shall provide for installation of survey monuments as comprehended under Chapter 15 of the Brooklyn Center City Ordinances. Said monumentation shall consist of installation of cast iron monuments at all block corners and cast iron or steel pipes or rods at all interior lot corners, points of deflection of block lines, and points of deflection lot lines. The Owner shall provide a financial guarantee in the amount of $2,500.00 to guarantee said monumentation shall be installed within 30 days of approval of the final Plat by the Brooklyn Center City Council. Said financial guarantee shall be provided in conjunction with those improvements considered necessary under paragraph 6.5. 6.5 That, upon installation of lateral water mains and /or lateral sanitary sewer mains within the subdivision, the Owner shall provide an as -built survey on reproducible medium (i.e. mylar or sepia), accurately depicting the location of said utilities. In addition, the Owner shall execute a Water, Sewer and Hydrant Maintenance and Inspection Agreement, included herewith as Exhibit G, for all utility installations, both existing and proposed. 6.6 That the Owner will also be required to enter into a financial performance agreement included herewith as Exhibit H, and provide a financial performance guarantee to assure that all other on -site improvements within the Subdivision will be constructed, developed, and maintained in conformance with the plans specificiations, and standards as required by the City's zoning and platting ordinances, and as approved by the City Council on May 20, 1985, through Planning Commission application No. 85002. That the Owner, in executing said financial performance agreement, acknowledges the conditions under which said guarantee has been provided and will be released. 6.7 That the Owner shall be responsible for installation of all on -site traffic control signs as directed by the Director of Public Works. 6.8 That the Owner shall construct necessary structures to direct traffic movement, in accordance with the the requirements of the City Engineer, in such a way as to insure that traffic congestion on the City streets will be minimized. 6.9 That the Owner will be required to pay SAC charges as described in Exhibit D. DIVISION 7 - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 7.1 That, in the event the Owner violates any of the provisions of the agreement after expenditure by the City for the doing of any part of all of the work described in Exhibit A, the City is hereby granted the right and privilege to declare such amounts expended to be due and payable as liquidated damages in full, and the City may immediately bring legal action against the Owner to collect such sums; and shall have a lien against the Subdivision for the entire amount then due. 7.2 That the Owner agrees to pay to the City reasonable legal, engineering, and administrative fees, to be fixed by the court, in the event that suit or action is brought to enforce the terms of this agreement. 7.3 That the following exhibits, attached hereto, are made a part hereof by this reference: Exhibit I - proposed Plat of Shingle Creek Center (Planning Commission Application No. 85003) Exhibit J - proposed site plan (Planning Commission Application No. 85002) 7.4 That, in the event of presently unforeseen circumstances brought about by causes beyond the control of the Owner or the City, which makes the development of the Subdivision impractical or impossible prior to the expenditure of any monies by the City for the improvements listed in Division 2, this agreement may be voided. Majority vote of the City Council shall be required for recognition that such unforeseen circumstances in fact exist, such action to void this agreement shall not be taken if, in the judgement of the Council, irreparable damage to the City and the public interest would result from such action. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands this day of , 19 RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, INC. a Minnesota Corporation BY ITS President STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before this day of 19 by , the President of Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation. Notary Public My commission expires i CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER BY Dean A. Nyquist ITS Mayor BY Gerald G. Splinter ITS City Manager (SEAL) WITNESSED: STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this day , 19 , before me a Notary 0 Public within and for said County, personally appeared and , to me personnally known who, being each by me duly sworn they did say that they are respectively the and of the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed�to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by its authority of its and said and acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public My Commission Expires EXHIBIT A ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ADJACENT TO SUBDIVISION Improvements to Shingle Creek Parkway to be accomplished by the City of Brooklyn Center and paid for by the levy of special assessments against the Subdivision include: 1) DESCRIPTION Right Turn Lane Construction: A right turn lane shall be constructed along northbound Shingle Creek Parkway adjacent to the access drive to the Subdivision. The turn lane shall consist of a 67.5 foot taper and 167.5 foot storage lane. Included with the turn lane construction is the construction of the access within the street right of way and the relocation of public sidewalk along Shingle Creek Parkway to accommodate said construction. Refer to Exhibit A -1 depicting the work comprehended under this section of the Subdivision Agreement. 2) COST ESTIMATE Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter 950 L.F. x 3.50 = 2205.00 Remove Bituminous Pavement 320 S.Y. x 3.00 = 960.00 Remove Concrete Sidewalk 334 S.Y. x 3.00 = 900.00 Sawcut Pavement 950 L.F. x 1.50 945.00 Concrete Curb & Gutter (B618) 1000 L.F. x 8.00 5560.00 4" Concrete Sidewalk 3000 S.F. x 3.00 = 8700.00 Aggregate Base 200 Ton x 8.50 = 850.00 Bituminous Base 160 Ton x 27.00 = 2322.00 Bituminous Binder 160 Ton x 28.50 = 3135.00 Bituminous Surfacing 50 Ton x 32.00 = 1600.00 Utility Adjustments L.S. x5000.00 = 5000.00 Transplant Trees 16 Each x 100.00 = 1600.00 Sod 2000 S.Y. x 2.00 = 3600.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $37377.00 Contingencies = 5606.00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $42983.00 Engineering Costs (@ 9% of Construction Cost) 3868.00 Administrative Costs (@ 1% of Construction Cost) 430.00 Legal Costs (@ 1% of Construction Cost) 430.00 Capitalized Interest (@ 12% of Construction Cost) 5158.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $52869.00 3) APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS The estimated assessment for turn lane and access construction shall be apportioned to Lots 1 and 2 based upon parcel area. The resultant estimated assessments are: Parcel Area (Sq. Ft.) Estimated Assessment Lot 1 192,171 $ 17,365.00 Lot 2 392,920 35,504.00 TOTAL 585,091 $ 52,869.00 Actual assessments will be based on actual costs incurred by the City in the completion of the improvement. ' (r OTUOKO rip Docks k.. 1 c ... ARGET Sfie t ✓ s. \� / EKISTi;Jc, LAFSELLE'S e G G o Y . 112 0 '° z 1w RETAIL • Z o!o it. r c - A , 1 , / zz r 40 � wvc /•.`` /� i + a ftr. v �5 �T�37��`� '� v � i R + � 4 .1 / r G m ,e Z f r / •/ y r � / T Z 1 , 1 `� � , t 1 i r t .`• !' T 1 1 lruMI u y5: �ur�ca� `t rs m D : r m J w 111 r M m Z +' _ 21 asl i y 1 ;�a~.�4AMIUyT• ^r i I TAft:a AT e. iQ 'so �w. ie '.Greek, P ,. �� Shin9 l� f. ,.., arkwav EXHIBIT B SUMMARY OF LEVIED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST THE PROPERTY Principal Payment Due With Original Principal Balance Property Taxes Parcel Amount After 1985 Tax Payment Payable in 1985 Tr A, RLS 1325 $ 8,913.21 $ 1,861.79 $ 594.27 Tr B, RLS 1325 18,205.69 3,802.45 1,213.69 Tr C, RLS 1325 8,818.40 1,841.98 587.99 Tr D, RLS 1325 25,176.97 5,238.92 1,678.49 Tr E, RLS 1325 29,015.35 6,060.17 1,934.25 Tr F RLS 1325 � 38,483.45 � 8,007.64 2,565.58 - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- $128,613.07 $ 26,812.95 $ 8,574.27 x EXHIBIT C SUMMARY OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Prinicpal Balance After Proposed Original Amount 1985 Tax Payment Lot 1, Block 1 $ 42,242.56 $ 8,806.68 Lot 2, Block 1 86,370.51 18,006.27 TOTAL $128,613.07 $ 26,812.95 EXHIBIT D SERVICE AVAILABILITY CHARGE The Service Availability Charge (SAC) shall be levied against the parcel at the time a building permit is issued. The SAC charge is a one time charge to pay the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for the debt service on reserve, or unused capacity available for future wastewater flow to the area's interceptors and treatment plant in accordance with the provisions of Subdivision 3 and 4 of Minnesota Statutes 473C.08. Information taken from submitted building plans and appropriate related data shall be used in the determination of the number of SAC units attributed to each structure (in accordance with g uidelines established by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission). A SAC unit has been determined to equal 274 gallons of daily sewage volume, and the charge of 1985 is $425 per unit. EXHIBIT E DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, AND CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT FOR A TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL THIS DECLARATION and Agreement is made by and between the City, as hereinafter defined, and Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation hereinafter called the Owner, on the date hereinafter set forth. This Declaration and Agreement may be filed by the City with the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles, provided that such filing shall occur no sooner than 30 days from the date of execution of this agreement by all parties. DEFINITIONS 1. The Subdivision The Subdivison of Tracts A, B, C, D, E, and F of Registered Land Survey No. 1325 into Lots land 2, Block 1 of Shingle Creek Center Addition in accordance with Planning Commission Application No. 85003. 2. Summit Drive Summit Drive, a City Street abutting the Subdivision and having its westerly terminus at Shingle Creek Parkway and its southerly terminus at Minnesota Highway 100. 3. Earle Brown Drive Earle Brown Drive, a City Street as shown within the Plat of Brockdale Corporate Center. 4. The Clay The City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation. 5. The Owner One or more persons or entities, holding a fee simple interest in the Subdivision, or holding the vendees interest in a contract for deed on the Subdivision, which interest has been recorded in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County. 6. Traffic Control Signal A semaphore including all appurtenances and apparatus necessary for its operation designed in accordance with the terms of this agreement. PURPOSE 1. The Owner The Owner desires approval by the City of its plat of the Subdivision, including ingress and egress at Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive, with the intention and purpose of developing the Subdivision by construction of a commercial center, said construction eventually resulting in a substantial increase in vehicular and pedestrian traffic in and to the Subdivision. 2. The City The City, in approving a plat for the Subdivision desires to make provision for the installation, at an appropriate time in the future, of a Traffic Control Signal to regulate ingress and egress of vehicular and pedestrian traffic to the Subdivision's northerly access at the intersection of Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive. 3. Declaration and Agreement The Owner hereby declares and the City hereby agrees that the Subdivision shall be held, sold and conveyed subject to the following covenants, conditions, agreements and restrictions which are for the purpose of providing ingress and egress to the Subdivision, and which shall run with the land described as the Subdivision, and which shall be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest in the Subdivision, or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and which shall inure to the benefit of the Owner thereof and to the benefit of the City. In furtherance of said covenants, conditions, agreements and restrictions, the Owner and the City make the following agreements. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE 1. Construction The City shall construct a Traffic Control Signal controlling ingress and egress to the Subdivision, at Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive to and from the Subdivision. The timing nature design, plans, e g , p specifications, construction procedures, contract documents, and all other details of the said construction shall be determined by the City. 2. Timing Construction of the Traffic Control Signal shall be completed on or before January 1, 1995, provided that the City in the reasonable exercise of its discretion, and based upon sound traffic engineering principles, determines that construction of the Traffic Control Signal is necessary. In the event that the City, in the reasonable exercise of its discretion, based upon sound traffic engineering principles, determines that construction of the Traffic Control Signal is not necessary or convenient prior to January 1, 1995, then and in that event, this agreement shall be null and void. 3. Maintenance Upon construction of the Traffic Control Signal the Owner shall bear no further responsibility for repair, operation and /or maintenance of said signal,. Control of the Traffic Control Signal shall be the responsibility of the City. FINANCING 1. Pro'ect Costs Financing of costs incurred in the construction of the Traffic Control Signal shall be equally divided between the City and Owner. Said costs shall include but not limited to contracted n racted construction, engineering design and inspection, administrative, legal and capitalized interest. 2. Payment bV Special Assessment The City shall assess the said costs against the Subdivision in accordance with Chapter 429 of Minnesota Statutes, as amended. The said costs shall be payable under Chapter 429 with appropriate interest is over a e a en period not to ex ten (10) years. P ym P Geed 2a. Waivers The Owner waives notice of hearing on the improvement, waives notice of the assessment, and waives all other notices and rights, whether legal, equitable or constitutional, which might impair the validity of the assessment. The Owner hereby petitions for the installation of the improvement, said petition to be operative in the event that special assessments are contemplated by the City for the financing of the improvement. 2b. Acknowledgement of Benefit The Owner acknowledges that the intersection of Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive benefits the Subdivision and that as traffic volumes at this intersection and in and to the Subdivision increase, the Subdivision will benefit from the installation of the Traffic Control Signal, such benefit being equal to or greater than the cost of materials and labor necessary to construct the traffic control signal. 2c. Pending Special Assessments The City shall prepare a current estimate of the construction costs of the Traffic Control Signal, based upon 1985 costs and shall prepare an estimate thereof each year thereafter and notify the Owner of the amount of such estimate. The City's estimate, each year, shall be carried on the books of the City's Special Assessment Clerk as a Pending Special Assessment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands this day f Y 1983. RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, INC. a Minnesota Corporation BY ITS President STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by , the President of Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation. Notary Public My commission expires CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER BY Dean A. Nyquist ITS Mayor BY Gerald G. Splinter ITS City Manager (SEAL) WITNESSED: STATE OF MINNESOTA ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this day of 19 , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared and , to me personnally known who, being each by me duly sworn they did say that they are respectively the and of the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by its authority of its and said and acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public My Commission Expires EXHIBIT F DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT FOR A TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL THIS DECLARATION and Agreement is made by and between the City, as hereinafter defined, and Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation hereinafter called the Owner, on the date hereinafter set forth. This Declaration and Agreement may be filed by the City with the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles, provided that such filing shall occur no sooner than 30 days from the date of execution of this agreement by all parties. DEFINITIONS 1. The Subdivision The Subdivison of Tracts A, B, C, D, E, and F of Registered Land Survey No. 1325 into Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 of Shingle Creek Center Addition in accordance with Planning Commission Application No. 85003. 2. John Martin Drive John Martin Drive, a City Street abutting the Subdivision and having its northwesterly terminus at Shingle Creek Parkway and ist southerly terminus at Minnesota Highway 100. 3. The City The City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation. i 4. The Owner One or more persons or entities, holding a fee simple ! interest in the Subdivision, or holding the vendees interest in a contract for deed on the Subdivision, which interest has been recorded in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County. 5. Traffic Control Signal A semaphore including all appurtenances and apparatus necessary for its operation designed in accordance with the terms of this agreement. PURPOSE 1. The Owner The Owner desires approval by the City of its plat of the Subdivision, including ingress and egress at John Martin Drive with the intention and purpose of developing the Subdivision by construction of a commercial center, said construction eventually resulting n a substantial increase in vehicular hicular and pedestrian traffic c in and to the Subdivision. 2. The City The City, in approving a plat for the Subdivision desires to make provision for the installation, at an appropriate time in the future, of a Traffic Control Signal to regulate ingress and egress of vehicular and pedestrian traffic to the Subdivision's southerly access at John Martin Drive. 3. Declaration and Agreement The Owner hereby declares and the City hereby agrees that the Subdivision shall be held, sold and conveyed subject to the following covenants, conditions, agreements and restrictions which are for the purpose of providing ingress and egress to the Subdivision, and which shall run with the land described as the Subdivision, and which shall be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest in the Subdivision, or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and which shall inure to the benefit of the Owner thereof and to the benefit of the City. In furtherance of said covenants, conditions, agreements and restrictions, the Owner and the City make the following agreements. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE 1. Construction The City shall construct a Traffic Control Signal controlling ingress and egress to the Subdivision, at John Martin Drive to and from the Subdivision. The timing nature, design, plans, specifications, construction procedures, contract documents, and all other details of the said construction shall be determined by the City. 2. Timing Construction of the Traffic Control Signal shall be completed on or before January 1, 1995, provided that the City in the reasonable exercise of its discretion, and based upon sound traffic engineering principles, determines that construction of the Traffic Control Signal is necessary. In the event that the City, in the reasonable exercise of its discretion, based upon sound traffic engineering principles, determines that construction of the Traffic Control Signal is not necessary or convenient prior to January 1, 1995, then and in that event, this agreement shall be null and void. 3. Maintenance Upon construction of the Traffic Control Signal the Owner shall bear no further responsibility for repair, operation and /or maintenance of said signal. Control of the Traffic Control Signal shall be the responsibility of the City. FINANCING 1. Project costs The Owner is responsible for all costs incurred in the construction o the he Traffic Control Signal. Said costs shall include, but not limited to, contracted construction, engineering design and inspection, administrative, legal and captialized interest. 2. Payment by Special Assessment The City shall assess the said costs against the Subdivision in accordance with Chapter 429 of Minnesota Statutes and its successors. The said costs shall be payable under Chapter 429 with appropriate interest payments over a period not to exceed ten (10) years. 2a. Waivers The Owner waives notice of hearing on the improvement, waives notice of the assessment, and waives all other notices and rights, whether legal, equitable or constitutional, which might impair the validity of the assessment. The Owner hereby petitions for the installation of the improvement, said P petition to be operative in the event that special assessments are I contemplated by the City for the financing of the improvement. 2b. Acknowledgement of Benefit The Owner acknowledges that John Martin Drive benefits the Subdivision and that as traffic volumes in and to the Subdivision increase, the Subdivision will benefit from the installation of the Traffic Control Signal, such benefit being equal to or greater than the cost of materials and labor necessary to construct the traffic control signal. 2c. Pending Special Assessments The City shall prepare a current estimate of the construction costs of the Traffic Control Signal, based upon 1985 costs and shall prepare an estimate thereof each year thereafter and notify the Owner of the amount of such estimate. The City's estimate, each year, shall be carried on the books of the City's Special Assessment Clerk as a Pending Special Assessment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands this day of , 1983. RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, INC. - a Minnesota Corporation BY ITS President STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by , the President of Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation. Notary Public My commission expires CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER BY Dean A. Nyquist ITS Mayor BY Gerald G. Splinter ITS City Manager (SEAL) WITNESSED: STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this day of , 19 , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared and , to me personnally known who, being each by me duly sworn they did say that they are respectively the and of the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by its authority of its and said and acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public My Commission Expires i r Exhibit G WATER AND SEP7ER MAIN AND FIRE HYDRANT 2 L` , I:JT�: ;ANCE A:JD INSPECTION - E� /AGREEi1ENT THIS EASEMENT /AGREEMENT is entered into this day of a 9 municipal Corporation under the Minnesota, hereinaftee referred to as the "City ", and of the State of b r a corporation under the laws Minnesota, its successors and assigns, here- inafter referred to as the "Owner ". It is intended that the term "Owner" shall apply to subsequent or part owners. WHEREAS, the Owner holds title to certain property within the City of Brooklyn Center, County of Hennepin, described as: WHEREAS, the above described property is served by the City sanitary sewer, storm drainage and water systems and the connection thereto is made through lateral mains and drainage ways constructed upon said private property; and WHEREAS, because damage to or faulty operation of said lateral mains and drainage ways constructed on private property could result in loss of water, contamination, loss of pressure, infil- tration, flooding, or other damage to the City systems or Other properties, it is necessary that the City have control over and access to said mains and drainage ways for the purposes of mainte- nance, inspection, and repair; THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED between the parties hereto: 1. The City shall have access to said lateral mains and drainage ways and to the accessories connected thereto for the purposes of inspection, repair and maintenance whenever the Director of Public Works in the exercise of reasonable discretion shall determine that such access is necessary; 2. Whenever inspection, repairs, or maintenance are necessary, the City may, upon request of the Owner or after reasonable notice to the Owner, under the circumstances, on its own volition, perform such work as is necessary, and the owner shall reimburse the City for the cost of labor, materials and equipment used in the work, plus a fixed charge of forty per cent (40 %) of said costs as re- imbursement for the proportionate cost of insurance, PERA contributions, vacations, sick leave, clerical, and other miscellaneous costs. 3. The Owner agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claim for damages or other relief arising out of or in connection with any work done by the City on said lateral mains and drainage ways and the acces- sories connected thereto, unless arising out of the negligence or wrongful act of the City or its agents. 4. The Owners hereby convey to the City, its successors and assigns, an easement for the purposes hereinabove set forth, over, under and across that tract of land herein - above described. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Owner has caused these presents to be executed the day and year first above written. (Name o Corporation By: Its 8y: STATE OF MINNESOTA ItS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ss. On this day of 19 before me appeared to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that he the of a corporation, that the seal affixea to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was executed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of ; and that said acknowledged said instrument to be the Free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public State Deed Tax due hereon $ Torrens /Abstract Property s s Exhibit H PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT File No. This Agreement is entered into by hereinafter called the Developer and the City of BrooKlyn Center, a Mum cipal Corporation, unoer the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereafter called the City. THE WORK The Developer has received approval of its Development Plans by the City Council of the City (pursuant to City Ordinances), subject to the execution of this Performance Agreement, pursuant to the City Council approval of and in accordance with said Development Plans all of which are made a part hereof by reverence. In consideration of such approval, the Developer, its successors and assigns, does covenant and agree to perform the work as set forth in the Development Plans, in the aforesaid Approval, and as hereinafter set forth, upon the real estate described as follows: The Work shall consist of the improvements described in the Development Plans, in the aforesaid Approval (to include any approved subsequent amendments) and shall be in compliance with.all applicable Statutes, Codes and Ordinances of the City. COMPLETION DATE The undersigned Developer agrees that the said Work shall be completed in its entirety on or before the day of 19 , and no extension of time shall be valid un- less the same shall be approved in writing by the City Manager. Said extension of time shall be valid whether approved by the City Manager before or after the completion date and failure of the City to extend the time for completion or to exercise other remedies hereunder shall in no way work a forfeiture of the City's rights hereunder, nor shall any extension of time actually granted by the City Manager work any forfeiture of the City's rights hereunder. It shall be the duty of the Developer to notify the City of completion of the Work at least 10 days prior to the Completion Date and to call for final inspection by employees of the City. !, MAINTENANC The Performance Agreement, in its entirety, shall remain in full force and effect for a period of one year after actual completion of the Work to determine that the useful life of all Work performed hereunder meets the average standard for the particular industry, profession, or material used in the performance of the work. Any work not meeting such standard shall not be deemed complete hereunder. Notice of the date of Actual Completion shall be given to the Developer by the Director of Planning and Inspection of the City. FINANCIAL GUARANTEE The Developer agrees to furnish the City with a Financial Guarantee in the form of a cash escrow, a bond issued by an approved corporate surety licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota and executed by the Developer as principal, or other Financial Guarantee as approved by the City Managerof the City, in the amount of g . Such Financial Guarantee shall continue in full force and effect until the City Council shall have by motion approved and accepted all of the Work undertaken to be done, and shall thereby have released the Surety and /or Developer from any further liability; provided however, that the City Council may by motion reduce the amount of the Financial Guarantee upon partial completion of the work, as certified by the City Manager. Such Financial Guarantee shall be conditioned upon the full and faithful performance of all elements of this Agreement and upon compliance with all applicable Statutes, Codes, and Ordinances of the City, and shall further be subject to the following provisions which shall be deemed to be incorporated in such Financial Guarantee and made a part thereof. NOTICE The City shall be required to give prior notice to the corporate surety and the Developer of any default hereunder before proceeding to enforce such Financial Guarantee or before the City undertakes any work for which the City will be reimbursed through the Financial Guarantee. Within 10 days after such notice to it, the surety shall notify the City in writing of its in- tention to enforce any rights it might have'uncer this Performance Agreement or any Performance Bond by stating in writing the manner in unicn the default will be cured and the time within - which such default will be cured, said time not to exceed 60 days unless approved by the City. (over please) t REMEDIES FOR BREACH At any time after the Comoletion date and any extensions thereof, or during the Maintenance Period, if any of the work is deemed incomplete, the City Council may proceed in any one or more of the following ways to enforce the undertakings herein set forth, and to collect any and all overhead expenses incurred by the City in connection therewith, including but not limited to engineering, legal, planning and litigation expenses, but the enumeration of the remedies here- under shall be in addition to any other remedies available to the City. 1) C ompletion by the City The City, after.notice, may proceed to have the Work done eltner oy contract, by day labor, or by regular City forces, and neither the Developer nor the Corporate Surety may question the manner of doing such work or the letting of any such contracts for the doing of any such contracts for the doing of such work. Upon completion of such Work the Surety and /or the Developer shall promptly pay the City the full cost thereof as aforesaid. In the eventthat the Financial Guarantee is in the form of a Performance Bond, it shall be no defense by the Surety that the City has not first made demand upon the Developer, nor pursued its rights against the Developer. 2) Specific Performance. The City may in writing direct the Surety or the Developer to cause the work to be undertaken and completed within a specified reasonable time. If the Surety and /or the Developer fails to cause the Work to be done and completed in a manner and time acceptable to the City, the City may proceed in an action for Specific Performance to require such work to be undertaken. 3) Deoosit of Finacial Guarantee In the event that the Financial Guarantee has been suomitted in the form or a Performance Bond, the City may demand that the Surety deposit with the City a sum equal to the estimated cost of completing the work, plus the City's estimated overhead expenses as defined herein, in- cluding any other costs and damages for which the Surety may be liable hereunder, but not exceeding the amount set forth on the face of the Performance Bond, which money shall be deemed to be held by the City for the purpose of reimbursing the City for any costs incurred in completing the Work as hereinbefore specified, and the balance shall be returned to the Surety. This money shall be deposited with the City within 10 days after written demand therefor, and if the Surety fails to make the required deposit within 10 days, the City shall have the right to proceed against the Surety with h whatever legal action is required 9 equi ed to obtain the deposit of such sum. A Funds on De o i p S t. In the event that the financial Guarantee is in the form of cash, certified check, or other arrangement making the Financial Guarantee im- mediately accessible to the City, the C.ity may, after notice to the Developer, deposit the Financial Guarantee in its General Account. The City may then pro - ceed to complete the Work, reimburse itself for the cost of completion as de- fined hereunder, and return the balance to the Developer. PROCEDURES A copy of this Performance Agreement shall be attached to the Corporate Surety Bond, if any, and reference to this Performance Agreement shall be made in any such bond, but no corporate surety shall assert as a defense to performance hereunder, any lack of reference in the bond to this Performance Agreement. The original and two copies of this Agreement, properly executed, together with the appropriate Financial Guarantee shall be submitted to the City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer and the City have executed this Agreement this day of 19 Witness Witness Subscribed and sworn to before me this ^ day of 19 Zoning Official P/I Form n No. 23 Cc v. - 6 77 S HINGLE REEK CENTER B DALE _ \ I 72 ' I i�i_S it lJ 6 13 63079 rmrosu�e•dJ _ ,V ,.,, 1} I \ \ /��`��5 ,.. .,p, A.. / \ \— V v _7 ___._-'--— • —,_`�— __---_-- .___I_ o I,', ,., ,,. E �. O` / - T` noun /,ne of the NCYroF i 0 1 00 Z�'y 1 7rc n. -6' /i •+� of fnc ,�7 tP /� 1 c.v, '.h / L,. /00 0 - *D �J`(� i�q' c a. / ` ,5 t t bl 1i•, O f 0 t ot ._/ / �'n /�,� •'�_ //(�'+]� \� // �., 1 �I �_ Vi i) p' ,. 0 ,• id ' ' 1 9 s • n f ,� Gt!no /r5 :•on Mnnum.^n J ti a ��y 3 h W � / ^ t G7 �JO 5 2 2 p t ' h —me most soutr.�r - /r/ / l p .r i•_�/ O // Corner- of Tocr f The northwesterly a "tension of the norlhr.ntrrly pF \ line of Tract 1, R. L. S. No. 1375 is asuuned h, y' � rT/K no�MeoS� /y brie he a bearing of NYV° 07' 54 "W. .� t� � m � ,t..•'„ , �l 2 2 y ,O t /� have It r p The bearing of the above described linr has a p 1 d f t / `.' bearing or Nuu° u' 54 as referenced to Grid \ •� 0 b ° r,,1 0 ' ,�y North, Minnesota Coordinate System South :one. o 2, ah p Gam/ + ,i / F \ '' "�, �/ •.- ,, / 57 11 / \ \ 1 0 1 \ o \ .XHiBIT I \ e a ' O .. •n.,o.tio rtP 0 , .. i '"TARGET , °• k i w 105,000=S F E•KISTIWc, LAP5 ELLE - :5 (CONSTRUCT IURN'LANE 9 ACC ESS k Lit ant . y a / j 'ta , , .,, n` ♦� RE ?AIL / o it �. 17 LA 15 19- r'► corn L r ,�:�n Cts�Vr c.r�. �T'R'IU �, :� � ` j 7I HID I 1 � mltur.JluuS �ucaz�ca�• � . l Q1 ^` �. . •31 /' ' t v- � �::._. 2 �+ 2r /! ; f :' j Q \ y � pNSTRUCT TURN LA z c EXHIBIT J •.� -. ::: / �.. r' S +.r .. �. '1 • •r'.>` I - 'fit' -^ �� _ •.�.�•� , r7 /4- y n SITE PLAN.,. rA '" "Greek Pa `5 _ \� Shingle rkway ^r �.h DEPARTMENT CITY OF OF B ROOKLYN FINANCE C� ENTER MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Director of Finance DATE: May 13, 1985 SUBJECT: UMBRELLA INSURANCE As you know, the insurance market has embarked once again upon one of its "crazy" cycles. After several years of relatively low premiums, the cost of municipal insurance coverage is right back to the high levels of 1977. We are very fortunate that we carry our general liability and property coverages with the League of Minnesota Cities Trust (LMCIT) and were, therefore, able to renew those coverages on January 1, 1985 with only a very slight cost in- crease. However, we are not so fortunate with our .umbrella coverage, which expires on May 19, 1985. Our current carrier, the Integrity Insurance Company, has notified us that they will not renew our umbrella coverage on that date. (Umbrella insurance provides coverage when the limits of the primary insurance coverages have been exceeded because of a catastrophe or unusually large judgements against the City.) Our agent, Jerry Coughlin, has tried to place our coverage with other companies but, to -date, he has not been successful. We did receive one proposal from the LMCIT, but I don't believe that it is an acceptable proposal. We are currently paying an annual premium of $10,000 for $5,000,000 of insurance coverage on all of our risks. The umbrella carrier would pay all claims after our primary insurance coverage of $600,000 was exhausted. The proposal from the LMCIT asks for an annual premium of $45,000 for $1,000,000 of coverage on all of our risks, but excludes coverage on our liquor liability We dropped our umbrella insurance coverage in 1978, because of the spiraling costs of municipal insurance, and resumed it again in 1981 when it again be- came affordable. It is my recommendation that we let our umbrella coverage lapse on May 19th and do not purchase umbrella coverage until it once again is affordable. Of course, that decision is for you and the City Council to make. „ Ile Sos�cetlsi.cg �l oae �� ,� Memorandum to Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager May 13, 1985 Page Two These are the criteria which the Council should consider before reaching a decision: Facts (1) There is no Liability Statutory Limitation for liquor sales. (2) General Liability Statutory Limitation is $200,000 per person, $600,000 per occurrence. (3) The City carries insurance for $500,000 per occurrence for liquor and $600,000 per occurrence for general liability. Advantages of Umbrella Insurance (1) Our present coverage for general liability-is based on an "occurrence" basis, therefore there is no limit on how many occurrences the insurer may be called on to pay to the policy limits. However, certain lia- bility coverages such as personal injury, products liability, con - tractual liability and liquor liability are based on "annual aggregate" basis, therefore, the coverage for these liabilities would be exhausted after $600,000 had been aid out b the insurer in one ear. P Y y (The liquor stores are covered to a maximum of $500,000 per location If the City has no umbrella coverage, then all claims after the $500,000 had been exhausted would have to be paid from other City funds. (2) There is always the chance of the statutory limitations being overturned in court. (3) There is the chance that the liquor liability statutory limitation may be increased by the Legislature. (4) There may be some slight broader, coverage under the umbrella beyond primary coverage. (5) Perhaps the City has a "moral obligation" to insure for a catastrophe. Disadvantages of Umbrella Insurance: (1) The high cost of the annual premium. (2) The possibility that the fact that it is known that the City has excess coverage may attract more and higher claims. (3) The existence of insurance coverage over the statutory limit for liquor liability might make it more likely that a court would overturn the statutory limit. (4) The existence of insurance coverage over the statutory limit for general liability waives the limit to the extent of the insurance. Memorandum to Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager May 13, 1985 Page Three As I stated earlier, our current umbrella coverage expires on May 19th. At the time the Council last met, we were still pursuing proposals with the very slight hope that we would be able to come up with an acceptable proposal. That has not happened. Since the Council does not meet until May 20th, I recommend that you poll the City Council to see whether they agree with my recommendation that we allow our umbrella coverage to lapse on the 19th. If they agree, then that decision can be formally confirmed at the May 20th meeting. If, however, they wish to accept the LMCIT proposal, then I would notify LMCIT and the Council could confirm that decision at the May 20th meeting. (If we wait until May 20th, and then accept the proposal, we may have one day without umbrella coverage). In any event, the final decision on whether to carry umbrella insurance coverage should be on the May 20th Council agenda. I apologize for taking this one down to the wire, but I felt it necessary to wait until the last moment in hopes that something new would develop. Respectfully submitted, Paul W. Holmlund PWH:ps A CITY OF /o C _ _ N HOP 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533 -1521 May 7, 1985 Gerry Splinter, Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Enclosed is a copy of the Joint Powers Agreement, after input from New Hope's legal staff. In order to keep moving on this project, this agreement should be considered for approval by all councils this month, if at all possible. As soon as this agreement is signed, we'll meet to finalize the hiring process and discuss the RFP. As I said before, the RFP is with our legal staff now to save time, so if you have comments, and /or changes, please get in touch with me or Shari French as soon as possible. You will receive a final copy of the agreement if there are any changes. The RFP will not be mailed until after the Joint Powers Agree- ment is signed. 1 Dan Donahue City Manager dd /jsb enc. Family Styled Village For Family Living JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FIVE CITIES SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT This JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT is being made and entered into as of the day of , 1985, by and between the cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, and Robbinsdale, all municipal corporations of the State of Minnesota, (hereinafter referred to as the five cities). WHEREAS, the five cities lie in close proximity to each other, juxtaposed in various locations; and WHEREAS, each of the said five cities have determined that their populations age 60 and older have unmet transportation needs; and WHEREAS, each of the five cities currently sponsor and support programs for their populations age 60 and older; and WHEREAS, it would be a benefit to each and all of the said five cities to combine resources for the purpose of providing a senior transportation program on a limited basis and have determined that it is in their best interests to undertake this project as a joint and cooperative project under Minn. Stat. section 471.59; and WHEREAS, the program would meet specific needs for the populations of 60 years and older and would complement existing transportation programs provided by other area agencies; and WHEREAS, an executive committee, consisting of the City Managers from the five cities, or their representatives, would administer the Senior Transportation Program; and WHEREAS, each of the five cities would have equal representation with one vote on program policies, budgets, and management; and WHEREAS, each of the five cities would receive a minimum of 15% of the availability of the Senior Transportation Program services of its residents. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement do mutually agree as follows: SECTION 1 GENERAL PURPOSE It is the general purpose of the parties to this Agreement to jointly and cooperatively plan, provide, and administer a senior transportation program in order to reduce to the greatest practical extent the public expenditures necessary to provide such a program. SECTION 2 FIVE CITIES SENIOR TRANSPORTATION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2.1 Establishment There is hereby established the "Five Cities Senior Transportation Executive Committee" whose membership shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of this section and whose duties shall be to carry out the purposes contained herein. The "Five Cities Senior Transportation Executive Committee ", hereinafter referred to as the "Committee ", shall be constituted as described in Section 2.2. 2.2 Membership; Appointment The governing body of each of the Cities shall appoint their City Manager or chief administrative officer and one additional representative to serve on this Committee to administer the Senior Transportation Program., Each member shall have equal representation with one vote on program policies, budgets, and management. Appointment to the Committee shall be evidenced by resolution of the governing body of each member, filed with the Committee. 2 2.3 Lead City A lead city will be determined by a majority vote of the Committee. The lead city will assume the responsibility for fiscal management and daily operations of the Senior Transportation Program within the rules and guidelines established by the Committee. 2.4 Term The representatives on the Committee shall not have a fixed term but shall serve at the pleasure of the governing body of the member appointing such representative to the Committee. 2.5 Vacancies A vacancy on the Committee shall be filled by the governing body of the member whose representative position on the Committee is vacant. 2.6 Compensation and Expenses The Committee representatives shall not be entitled to compensation or reimbursement for expenses incurred in attending meetings, except to the extent that the governing body of a member might determine to compensate or reimburse the expenses of the representative it appoints, in which case the obligation to make such payments shall be that of the member and not that of the Committee. 2.7 Officers The Committee shall elect from its membership a chair, vice - chair, a secretary and a treasurer and such other officers as it deems necessary to reasonably carry out the purposes of this Agreement. All such officers shall hold office for a term of one year or until their successors have been elected by the Committee. An officer may serve only while a representative on the Committee and may be re- elected to an office. 'A vacancy in an office shall be filled from the membership of the Committee by election for the remainder of the unexpired term of such office. 3 2.8 Quorum A majority of all voting representatives to the Committee shall constitute a quorum, but less than a quorum may adjourn a scheduled meeting. 2.9 Meeting Regular meetings of the Committee shall be held at least once per year on a day selected by the Committee. Meetings will be held at the call of the chair or by any three members by giving not less than forty -eight (48) hours written notice of the time, place and purpose of such meeting delivered or mailed to the residences of the Committee representatives. All meetings of the Committee are subject to Minn. Stat. section 471.705. SECTION 3 COMMITTEE POWERS AND DUTIES 3.1 Employment The Committee may contract for services, may utilize, upon consent, existing staff of the members, and may employ such other persons as it deems necessary. Where staff services of a member are utilized, such services shall not reduce the financial commitment of such member to the operating fund of the Committee unless utilization of staff service is substantial and the Committee so authorizes. 3.2 Rules and Regulations The Committee shall promulgate rules and guidelines for conducting its business, including but not limited to the establishment of sub - committees and their duties, the duties and responsibilities of the Committee's officers, the detailing of meeting procedures, notice thereof, preparation of minutes and other related staff functions. 3.3 Financial Matters 3.31 Method of Operation The Committee may collect and receive money and services subject to the provisions of this 4 Agreement from the members and from any other sources approved by the Committee and it may incur expenses and make expenditures and disbursements necessary and incidental to effect the purposes of this Agreement. Funds may be expended by the Committee in accordance with procedures established herein. Order, checks and drafts shall be signed by the treasurer and either the chair or vice -chair or delegated to the lead city per section 2.3. If this responsibility is delegated to the lead city, its municipal procedures for approving such expenditures shall be followed. Other legal instruments shall be executed on behalf of the Committee by the chair and secretary. 3.32 Operating Funds On or before August 1 of each year, the Committee shall prepare an operating budget for the following year for the purpose of providing funds to operate the Committee's business. The budget shall be recommended to the members for ratification only upon 2 /3rds of approval of all voting representatives of the Committee. After approval, the secretary shall certify the recommended budget to each member on or before September 1 of each year, together with a statement showing the amounts due from each member. Each member shall pay over to the Committee the amount owing in two equal installments, the first on or before January 31 and the second on or before July 31, in accordance with the tax year for which the amount due is being paid. 3.4 Audit and Annual Reports The Committee shall cause to be made an annual audit of the books and accounts of itself and shall make and file an annual report to its members at least once each year including the following information: 5 a. the financial condition of the committee (the audit); b. the status of all Committee projects; C. the business transacted by the Committee and other matters which affect the interests of the Committee. Copies of said reports shall be transmitted to the clerk of each member. All of its books, reports and records shall be available for and open to examination by any member at all reasonable times. 3.5 Gifts, Grants, Loans The Committee may, within the scope of this Agreement, accept gifts, apply for and use grants or loans of money or other property from the United States, the State of Minnesota, a unit of government or other governmental unit or organization, or any person or entity for the purposes described herein; may enter into any reasonable agreement required in connection therewith; may comply with any laws or regulations applicable thereto; and may hold, use and dispose of such money or property in accordance with the terms of the gift, grant, loan or agreement relating thereto. 3.6 Contracts The Committee may make such contracts and enter into any such agreements as it deems necessary to make effective any power granted to it by this Agreement. Every contract for the P urchase or sale of merchandise materials or equipment by the Committee shall be let in accordance with the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law, Minn. Stat. section 471.345 and the Joint Exercise of Powers Statue, Minn. Stat. section 471.59. No member or employee of the Committee or officer or employee of any of the parties shall be directly or indirectly interested in any contract made by the Committee. 6 3.7 Certificates, Warrants, Bonds The Committee shall not have the power to issue certificates, warrants or bonds. I� SECTION 4 TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement may be terminated by approval of two - thirds vote of the governing bodies of each voting member hereto, provided all such approvals occur within a ninety (90) day period. Withdrawal of any member may be accomplished by filing written notice with the Committee chairman and managers of the other members. Withdrawal shall become effective sixty (60) days after proper notice has been given to the Committee and each member as provided herein. No withdrawal from this Agreement shall be effective until the withdrawing member has met its full financial obligations for the year of withdrawal and prior years. SECTION 5 DISSOLUTION OF COMMITTEE The Committee shall be dissolved by termination of this Agreement or upon unanimous agreement of all members. Upon dissolution, all ersonal property of the Committee P P .. Y shall be sold and the proceeds thereof, together with monies on hand after payment of all obligations, shall be distributed to the members. Such distribution of assets shall be made in approximate proportion to the total contributions to the Committee for such costs made by each member. All payments due and owing for operating costs or other unfilled financial obligations, shall continue to be the lawful obligation of all the members. 7 SECTION 6 AMENDMENT The Committee may recommend changes in and amendments to this Agreement to the members. Any amendments to this Agreement shall be by unanimous vote of the members and shall be acted upon by the members within ninety (90) days of referral. Action on amendments shall be evidenced by appropriate resolutions of the members filed with the Committee and if approved shall become effective as of the date all such filings have been completed unless a different effective date is otherwise stated in the amendment. SECTION 7 CONTERPARTS This Agreement and any amendment may be executed in several counterparts and all so executed shall constitute one Agreement or amendment, binding on all of the parties hereto notwithstanding that all of the parties are not signatory to the original of the same counterpart. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day of completed execution hereof by the parties. 8 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By Seal: Attest: Dated: City Clerk CITY OF CRYSTAL By Seal: Attest: Dated: City Clerk CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By Seal: Attest: Dated: City Clerk CITY OF NEW HOPE By Seal: Attest: Dated: City Clerk CITY OF ROBBINSDALE By Seal: Attest: Dated: City Clerk 9 A Y A CITY OF v v NEW HOPE 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533 -1521 April 1985 The five cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope and Robbinsdale hereby invite you to bid on the project as described within. Proposals must be written to respond to the specifications of this Request for Proposal in the order that they are presented herein. Proposals must also include firm name, address and phone number; contact name and phone number; and a list of references. Sealed bids will be received by the five cities until 2:00 p.m. on May 30, 1985. The proposal must be delivered to New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota, 55428, by the aforementioned date and time. Any bids received after that time will not be considered and will be returned unopened. According to the attached specification for bid, one company will be selected to operate the service. Furthermore, the specification for bid does not commit the five cities to award a contract, to procure or contract for supplies or services, or to pay any time or cost incurred in the pre- paration of a proposal. The five cities reserve the right to: accept with any qualified source'or cancel, in part or in its entirety, this re- quest for bid. The five cities may require the selected bidders to part- icipate in negotiations and to submit such price, technical or other inform- ation as may be required. A pre -bid conference will be held at New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota, on May 14, 1985, at 1:00 p.m. The purpose of this conference is to allow all interested parties an opportunity to discuss the specification for bid, including requests for change in the specification. The five cities senior transportation project is funded by all five cities, consequently, the selected contractor and contract will be subject to the approval of said five cities. Please direct all questions and correspondence to Shari French or Dan Donahue, New Hope City Manager. .Sincerely, Dan Donahue New Hope City Manager Family Styled Village For Family Living 4 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FIVE CITIES SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT Notice is hereby given that the five cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope and Robbinsdale will receive sealed bids at New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota, 55428, until 2:00 p.m., May 30, 1985, for the exclusive right and privilege of operating a transportation system in the said five city area. All bids shall be in accordance with specifications available from the five cities through the City of New Hope. Bids shall be accompanied by a certified or cashier's check, or bid bond payable to the order of the City of New Hope, in the amount of $500.00 to be forfeited as liquidated damages in the event that the bid be accepted and the bidder fails to enter into a written contract and furnish the required performance bond within ten (10) days after notice of acceptance of bid. Bids shall be accompanied by additional materials as detailed in the specification. Bids shall be directed to the City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota, 55428, and boldly endorsed on the outside wrapper "SEALED BID - FIVE CITIES TRANSPORTATION PROJECT ". Bids will be opened publicly in the New Hope City Hall at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at New Hope"City Hall on May 30, 1985 and read by two duly authorized officials. The five cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope and Robbinsdale reserve the ri.ght to reject any and all bids. The contract may be awarded to the lowest qualified bidder or in the best interests of said five cities. "s SPECIFICATION FOR BIDS FIVE CITIES SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DATED MAY 30, 1985 FOR BID OPENING 2:00 P.M. t REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FIVE CITIES SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT Table of Contents Page Project Summary I 1. General Information 2 II. Service Requirements 2 ill. Changes in Service 2 IV. Equipment 3 V. Personnel 3 VI. Corporate Background 3 VII. Operation and Maintenance of Vehicles 3 Vlll. Licenses and Taxes 3 IX. Marketing 4 X. Fares 4 XI. Insurance 4 XII. Idemnifi.cation 4 a XIII. Financial Considerations and Payment by the Five Cities 4 X1V. Conditions, Limitations, and Restrictions 4 XV. Terms 4 XVI. Reports, Records, and Communications 5 XVII. Schedule of Deliverables 5 XVIII. Management Assistance and Cooperation 5 XIX. Proposal Evaluation Criteria 5 PROJECT SUMMARY The five cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, and Robbinsdale have entered into a Joint Powers Agreement to jointly sponsor a program offering transportation to their adult population age 60 and older. The purpose of the program is to provide transportation from areas of high senior adult residence to congregate dining, city sponsored activities, major shopping excursions, and other special events. For the most part, the service will be a variable fixed route. In the beginning, people will be transported from known areas of high senior residence, such as apartment complexes, to recreation activities, congregate dining, and shopping areas, either in a transit bus or a mini -bus, depending on numbers of people. Through outreach the program coordinator will be able to identify seniors who live on or near the route so that they may be serviced. It is the cities' intention to serve handicapped people, while working in close conjunction with Metro Mobility. One important factor will be to contract with a provider with buses equipped to transport the handicapped available. The program would operate by people needing transportation calling the program 9 P 9 ram P 9 coordinator at least 24 hours in advance and reserving a spot on the bus according to the published schedule. The published schedule would be established according o activities tivities offered within the cities and according to priorities set by the local Senior Coordinators to begin w' h program i with. As the o r s fine - 9 9 P tuned, the schedule may be changed to better meet the need if the initial schedule doesn't prove to be the best. Priority will be given to the city sponsored activities and congregate dining. The key administrators of the proposed program include the five city managers as an executive committee, and the staff person. The program format will be dictated by the Joint Powers Agreement signed on behalf of each city. The details of the program operation will be coordinated by a part -time staff person. An Executive Committee comprised of one representative from each City will ad- minister the ro ram P g on an on going basis. One of the cities will serve as the fiscal agent for the program on an on -going basis. Page 1 DETAILED SPECIFICATION I. GENERAL a.) The Operator will participate with the five cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope and Robbinsdale in the operation of a transportation project, for one year in the five cities area, (Attachment 1), approximately 33 square miles which shall provide for local circulation needs. b.) The Operator's basic responsibilities include: some administration, providing the vehicles, insurance, driver training, and other responsibilities described in this specification. c.) A final grant application (Attachment 1) for this project indicates the parameters of the system and can, therefore, be used as a quide for the preparation of the bid. d.) There is no money available for capital equipment for this project. e.) Bids are to be based on a cost per hour of actual passenger service. Hours of service must not include travel from operator's base to first pick -up or travel from final passenger destination to operator's base. f.) Size of vehicle provided by Operator must meet the need for the given day. Estimates based on available information indicate that vehicles able to transport up to 45 one -way passengers will be needed. School buses will not be acceptable. Bids should be presented on vehicles carrying over 25 passengers plus bids on vehicles carrying less that 25 passengers. g.) The service may expand beyond the 1,040 estimated hours of actual passenger service for a year. Due to that possibility, the bids must include an hourly rate for service if the project expands beyond the estimate. h.) Bids must include the rate for service if transportation is needed beyond the confines of the said five cities total boundaries. Bids must also include rates if transportation is needed occasionally on nights or weekends. II. SERVICE a.) The Operator will provide a variable, fixed route service in the five cities area as shown within Attach- ment 1. The service will be operated during the weekdays, approximately four hours per day ofactual passenger service during off -peak hours. Occasionally an evening or weekend vehicle may be needed. The annual hours of actual passenger service will be 1,040. b.) The Operatorw Ill be expected to serve specified facilities in the five cities area on a scheduled basis. These locations will be agreed upon by the Operator who is awarded the contract and the Project Executive Committee, after the contract is awarded. c.) The Operator is to provide two -way radios for every vehicle to be used within the system. d.) The two -way radio system must be capable of transmitting over the total designated area of operation. e.) A person utilizing the service will call the cities' dispatch center at least 24 hours in advance of the trip. The dispatcher will obtain from the user, the pickup point and the destination. The dispatcher will then inform the person of the approximate pickup time. The passenger can be expected to be picked up within 15 minutes after the approximate time. When the vehicle arrives at a pickup point, the ambulatory passenger will have three (3) minutes to board the vehicle. The dispatcher will plan tours effectively so as to promote group loading. The cities' dispatcher will contact the Operator to report any deviation from the regular route for each day. f.) The five cities dispatcher will not make a change in the size of vehicle needed for any given day without giving the Operator at least eighteen (18) hours notice. III. CHANGES IN SERVICE Without prior approval of the five cities, the Operator shall make no changes in the method of operation of the system which would affect operating costs during the period of this agreement. This includes, but is not limited to, adding or diminishing services, increasing or decreasing fares or service changes, modifying advertising agreement, reducing or improving passenger amenities. The Operator shall request approval of any proposed changes from the five cities not less than thirty (30) days prior to the intended implementation date. Page 2 j IV. EQUIPMENT a.) The Operator will provide vehicles suitable for this service. Some vehicles will be accessible to the handicapped. School buses will not be acceptable. b.) The Operator will make available back -up vehicles, suitable for this service, in the event of a break- down or when maintenance is required on one of the other vehicles. c.) The Operator shall furnish a two -way radio in each vehicle. d.) The Operator shall furnish all fare col lection equipment. e.) The Operator shall furnish any other equipment such as automobiles or trucks necessary in the day -to -day operation, supervision and maintenance of the service to be provided. V. PERSONNEL a.) The Operator will furnish qualified, courteous drivers to maintain the service. The criteria which will be used to select drivers and the training program used to instruct the drivers shall be made available to the Executive Committee upon request. b.) The Operator shall also attach to this proposal the professional qualifications of key personnel in the company who will be directly working with this system. c.) The Operator shall supply and furnish all other personnel necessary for the continued operations, super- vision, and maintenance of the service as outlined, including but no limited to, supervisory, mechanics, schedules, purchases, dispatchers, checkers, researchers, cleaners, accounting, legal, clerical, administrative and managerial personnel. d.) All personnel furnished by the Operator in connection with the performance of the service shall be and remain the employees of the company and not the five cities. The Operator shall pay all of the wages, salaries, and fringe benefits, including pension costs, medical and hospitalization insurance and such other benefits as the Operator presently and from time -to -time shall provide its employees. It shall also pay, in respect to such employees, all social security taxes and unemployment compensation contributions required by law to be paid by the employer. The Operator shall be considered an independent contractor as that term is used under the laws of Minnesota. VI. CORPORATE BACKGROUND a.) The Operator shall give a description of the company, its resources, and any relevent experience which would be of assistance in operating such a system. b.) The Operator shall enclose a company organizational chart. c.) The location of the Operator's office (existing or proposed), shall be given in this proposal. VII. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF VEHICLES a.) The Operator shall operate and maintain all vehicles and related equipment in compliance with admini- strative regulations and maintenance procedures promulgated by the five cities and all lawful orders, sales, and regulations of properly constituted authorities governing the operation thereof and in a manner reasonably suitable for transportation of passengers. b.) The Operator shall furnish all fuel, oil, lubricants, supplies, materials, components and accessories necessary for the operation of said vehicles. c.) The Operator shall provide for the inspection, cleaning and maintenance of all vehicles, to insure the comfort and safety of the passengers as specified by the five cities. VIII. LICENSES E TAXES The Operator shall procure and keep current any and all licenses, permits, or certificates which are or may be required by properly constituted authorities for the performance of the service. The Operator shall meet all operating standards for transportation providers. Furthermore, the Operator shall be responsible for all taxes assessed on property owned by it, including storage facilities and vehicles, to be used in connection with the furnishing of the service. Page 3 IX. MARKETING The Operator will designate a representative of the firm to attend any Executive Committee meeting, if invited, and to assist in marketing. X. FARES a.) A fare /donation policy will be established by the five cities. b.) It will be the responsibility of the cities' dispatcher /call taker to inform the passenger of the fare for the trip. c.) The Operator is required to keep an accurate record of all fares and /or tickets collected since these will be deducted from the monthly reimbursement to the Operator by the five cities. XI. INSURANCE The Operator will be required to provide the following insurance coverage as a minimum. a.) Liability Insurance -- the Operator shall maintain during the term of this contract, liability insurance covering all owned,non- owned,hired, or leased vehicles to be used in this project of at least $1,000,000 in amounts not less than $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, and $50,000 per occurrence for property damage. The Operator, when the contract is awarded, shall furnish a current certificate of insurance that indicates the type and amount of insurance. All insurance policies shall be issued by the companies authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota. Alternatively, an approved self - insurance plan will be accepted, provided it meets the requirements set forth above. The five cities shall be named as additional insured. The five cities require notice of any change to the insurance coverage and policies 30 days prior to cancellation or termination or implementation of such change. b.) The Operator will maintain Workmen's Compensation Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. XII. INDEMNIFICATION The Operator shall indemnify and save harmless the five cities from and against any and all claims or demands of every nature on the account of injury to or death of persons or damage to or loss of property, caused by or resulting in any manner from any acts or gmissions of the Operator, its agents or employees, in performing or failing to perform any of the services, duties or operations to be performed by the Operator whether under this agreement or otherwise. The Operator shall also indemnify and hold harmless the five cities against risk or loss of all kinds through injury to the Operator's employees while in the course and scope of their employment under this agreement. XIII. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PAYMENT BY THE FIVE CITIES The five cities will make one payment to the Operator each month. The payment will include reimbursement for the operating expenses for the system minus the revenue collected. The contract will provide for reimbursement of expenses incurred by the Operator if the program is terminated. XIV. CONDITIONS, LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS The furnishing of all services and the charges to be made to passengers in connection herewith are expressly subject to the approval of the five cities and any other governmental body or authority having legal juris- diction over any such matters. The Operator will furnish to the five cities copies of all reports required by law or regulation or necessary for evaluation purposes to be furnished to the five cities or any other governmental body or authority having legal jurisdiction over operational matters over the Operator at the same time as such reports are required to be furnished to the other governmental body or authority. XV. TERMS a.) The term of the contract will be for one (1) year and may be renewed yearly upon successful performance and providing state or federal grants become available specifically for the continuation of this service and if the five cities determine the project should be continued. Page 4 � -r b.) At any time during the contract period, the five cities may terminate the project, in whole or in part, if the five cities have determined that the Operator has failed to comply with the conditions of the contract or if the five cities and the Operator agree that the continuation of this project would not produce results commensurate with the future expenditure of funds. The five cities will notify the Operator in writing thirty (30) days before the termination date. Reason for termination of the project shall be included. Upon receipt of such an order, the Operator shall comply with the order and shall take all reasonable steps to minimize the incurrence of costs beyond the termination date. Reasonable losses suffered by the Operator, and mutually agreed upon by the five cities due to early termination of the project shall be reimbursed by the five cities. XVI. REPORTS, RECORDS AND COMMUNICATIONS a.) The Operator shall submit a monthly progress report summarizing the results of the month's activities as a forward to the monthly invoice. This report should include problem areas, plans to resolve them, and recommendations for improvements in the program. b.) The monthly invoice that the Operator submits shall be supported by the following data: (Attachment 2) * Fare revenues Number of passengers carried. (These must be categorized as to senior adults and handicapped) * Number of miles operated by vehicles Numbers of hours that passengers were carried * Productivity per vehicle hour * Any other data or reporting procedure which may be required by the five cities. XVII. SCHEDULE OF DELIVERABLES a.) The Operator shall deliver monthly progress reports and invoices, commencing one month after effective date of contract, due by the IOth of each month for the preceding month. b.) Two copies of each report shall be delivered prepaid to the Project's Lead City XVIII. MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION The Operator agrees that major problems and occurrences will be discussed with the five cities. Promotion, service changes, and other significant changes to the system by the Operator, whether proposed by the Operator or the five cities, shall be made only with prior consultation between the Operator and five cities. The Operator specifically agrees to assist the five citiesiin any matters which, in the discretion of the five cities, are in the interest of improving ridership and service by way of survey, public notice, publicity, or public education. XIX. PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA The basis for the evaluation of proposals received will include all the following considerations: 1. The vendor's performance record -to -date in meeting the requirements of their existing customers. 2. The financial stability, longevity, and strength of the vendor. 3. The thoroughness of the proposal as well as the format of the presentation. 4. Equipment capabilities and capacities. 5. The vendor's ability to be flexible with vehicles for the occasional evening,weekend, or longer day need. 6. The ability of the vendor to expand service if need be. 7. The ability of the vendor to be flexible with the size of vehicles needed for any given day. 8. The vendor's capability of providing monthly reports, management assistance and cooperation as out- lined in Sections XVI, XVII, and XVIII. 0 Page ATTACHMENT "1" =j` } t WEST METRO ORDINAIC � t -4 TRANSPORTATION 3614 Bryant Av. S. Minneapolis, MN 55409 827 -1721 APPLICATION FOR PURCHASE OF SERVICE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS TO IaEST METRO COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATION NAME N. W. Suburbs Senior Transportation ADDRESS 4401 X lon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 DATE OF APPLICATION March 1, 1985 AMOUNT REQUESTED $ 12,000 CONTACT PERSON (S) Dan Donahue TITLE (S) City Manager PERSON COMPLETING APPLICATION_ Shari French Working to Coordinate, develop and support transportation resources for the eiaerly / PURCHASE OF SERVICE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS APPLICATION West Metro Coordinated Transportation 1) SUMMARIZE YOUR REQUEST. (Include history of organization, time period funding covers, documentation of need, proposed service, goals and objectives.) The cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, and Robbinsdale will form a joint powers organization to jointly sponsor a program offering transportation to their adult population, age 60 and older. The program objectives will be to serve seniors who participate in: - Recreational and social service programs sponsored by the five cities, - congregate dining, -major shopping excursions, and -other special events. The transportation services will be provided through a contract with a transportation vendor through a variable fixed route system. In the beginning people will be trans- ported from known areas of high senior residence, such as apartment complexes, to recreation activities, congregate dining, and shopping areas, either in a transit bus or a mini -bus, depending on numbers of people. Through outreach the program coordinator will be able to identify seniors who live on or near the route so that they may be serviced. One possibility for the future for the people living in more isolated areas may be for the program coordinator to add a car - pooling component to the program. It is the cities' intention to serve handicapped people, if at all possible, while working in close conjunction with Metro Mobility. One important factor will be to look to contract with a provider with buses equipped to transport the handicapped. The per ride fare system will be on a donation basis with 50fi per one - ride recommended. The actual cost will be identified for the users. People who can not pay the fare would not be turned away. The cities are requesting $12,000 from the West Metro Coordinated Transportation Agency. $2,000 for fiscal year 1984 -85 and ; $10,000 for fiscal year 1985 -86. It is estimated that with the grant money. requested, money budgeted by each city, and donations from the fares that about 608 hours of bussing can be provided in 1985 from June through December, as hopes are to be "on the road" by June 1st. The program plans to provide 5,840 one -way trips during this seven month period at a cost of $5.65 per trip before donations. This cost includes all preliminary planning and set -up costs. The present mass transportation system in the five cities area is primarily a "spoke and wheel" model where buses travel on the spokes from the suburban area to the hub of downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul. It can be very difficult for people to obtain bus transportation from their residence to a recreation program or to congregate dining due to this spoke and wheel set -up. Last summer Tom Bublitz, Administrative Assistant to the Brooklyn Center City Manager, put together an extensive needs analysis regarding transportation for the elderly in the five city area. (Report attached.) The conclusion reached was that transportation to recreation /social services and congregate dining is a need not being met and that the older population would use the transportation if it were provided. Last summer New Hope's Citizen Advisory Commission identified transportation as a real need for New Hope's older population through means of a survey. Based on the results of that survey an experimental program was set up to bus seniors to Brookdale from three housing complexes renting exclusively to people over age 55 years. The funding for this program came from $500 in community donations and the 50� per round trip fare charged. The program transported people to Brookdale eleven times with an average of 32 riders per bus. The Advisory Commission concluded that if bussing were made available that the people would use it with consistency. A good number of letters are on file from the users requesting that the bussing be started again and continued on a permanent basis. A few are attached. The demographics within the needs assessment show that the percentage of the popula- tion of older people is growing and that a number of households with older people have no vehicle available, making those people isolated and dependent on others for whatever transportation they receive. PURCHASE OF SERVICE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS APPLICATION West Metro Coordinated Transportation — Page 2 2) DESCRIBE THE BACKGROUND OF YOUR AGENCY. (Include history of organization, transportation experience with senior citizens, information on key administrators of the proposed service.) The cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope and Robbinsdale are inner ring suburbs of Minneapolis. As the demographics show, the percentage of senior adult population is growing in the five cities. As the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Task Force on the Needs of the Elderly found, transportation is considered the greatest unmet service for older people in Hennepin County. As the attached shows, the transportation programs now in existence provide for medical trips as first priority. Some indicate that as a last priority . p t Y they'd provide for recreational /social rides, but the need for medical is so high that only rarely can an individual be serviced for a non - medical trip purpose. Experience with transporting older adults by the cities includes years of offering outings for senior clubs and seniors within the general population, the New Hope transportation project to Brookdale last summer, and referring people to the other providers such as Red Cross and the Senior Ride Program. The key administrators of the proposed program include the five city managers as an executive committee, t e a d n the staff person. The program format will be dictated by the joint powers agreement signed on behalf of each city. The details of the program operation will be coordinated by a part -time staff person. That employee will be supervised by a staff person from the City in which the office will be housed. An Executive Committee comprised of one representative from each City, including the staff supervisor, will administer the program on an on -going basis. One of the cities will serve as the fiscal agent for the program on an on -going basis. s PURCHASE OF SERVICE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS APPLICATION . :Metro Coordinated Transportation - Page 3 3) IDENTIFY THE TARGET GROUP AND PROPOSED SERVICE AREA. (Include • geographic service area, specific group of people you wish to serve, time period grant request covers.) The target group proposed to serve is the population age 60 and over living within the approximately thirty -three square mile area encompassing Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, and Robbinsdale. (See attached map.) This request is for $10,000 for the fiscal year 1985 -86, or July 1, 1985 through June 30, 1986 and $2,000 for fiscal year 1984 -85. � ' � � • _ L �� _� 1111 %� IJiI %%% i�Y ' y man ua �� ' � � i!a _ � j :i�+�mc�u� cur �ia.�r��.. ' , : ' ' • �' s WWO. Ir m �� : �� ! i 3. '. � _ �� • , �� B�IItY� �� E l�rrr�t ! [� -- �e7 � _ wa MYL7• Cl sow PURCHASE OF SERVICE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS APPLICATION West Metro Coordinated Transportation — Page 4 4) DESCRIBE YOUR COORDINATION EFFORTS WITH OTHER AGENCIES. (Include current efforts, future plans.) The basic premise of this proposed program is that five cities will join together to cooperatively provide transportation to their older residents. This program is meant to complement what services are already provided in the area. The Regional Transit Board has been and will continue to be kept informed of the status of the program. The Community Focal Point people for the five cities, Melinda Ludwiczak from the Robbinsdale Community' Education Senior Services, Barbara Bailey from the City of Golden Valley, and Carol Dale from CEAP have already been communicated with and would continue to be updated and called upon in an advisor capacity as to needs Y P Y of the older people in the five cities. PURCHASE OF SERVICE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS APPLICATION West Metro Coordinated Transportation - Page 5 5) DOCUMENT THE NEED FOR THIS SERVICE. (How do you know it is not being met? What is the need? Why isn't it being met ?) "Transportation is considered the greatest unmet service need for older people in Hennepin County „ according to findings of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Task Force on the Needs of the Elderly in June of 1983. Couple that with the fact that between 1970 and 1980 the suburban elderly population increased by 62.6% and one can only agree that affordable trans- portation programs for the elderly are needed in these five cities. Because there are agencies providing for medical trips, the cities plan to help alleviate the need for transportation for recreational, social, and major shopping trips within the 33 square mile area of the 5 cities. At the present time, the mass transportation provided is one of the "spoke and wheel” concept which makes getting from one's suburban residence to congregate dining, the local "Dale" or the city sponsored recreation activity difficult at best. Because many of these people are on a limited income, the taxi fares are prohibitive at best. They are out of the question for many people. The needs assessment conducted by Tom Bublitz, Summer of 1984, concluded that transportation is a very real need among the older population in the five city area. The report also stated that transportation to recreation /social services and congregate dining is not adequate and that the people will use transportation if it's provided. In the survey conducted by New Hope's Citizen Advisory Commission in Spring of 1984, the results showed that transportation is a problem for New Hope's elderly and that after medical trips, social outings and shopping rank next in priority of need. New Hope's summer bussing project to Brookdale showed that if the service is provided, the people will use it. An average of 32 people per bus rode to Brookdale to shop. In discussing this proposed program wiith the five cities.' senior citizen coordinators and senior citizen building managers, all indicated that "their" people have a very difficult time in finding adequate transportation if they don't own their own cars. All indicated that such a transportation program as outlined is needed and would be used heavily if offered. PURCHASE OF SERVICE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS APPLICATION -u West Metro Coordinated Transportation - Page 6 6) HOW WILL THIS SERVICE MEET THE DOCUMENTED NEED? (Include service hours, number and type of vehicles administration istration of r 0 priority, fare P gr' trip P y, policy, role of volunteers.) The proposed program will begin to help meet the documented need by bussing people from areas of high senior residence to the city-sponsored recreation activities, congregate dining, and major shopping areas. Service hours proposed are daytime, during the week days. Each day hours will correspond with activities being offered in the cities, with a planned 608 hours of bussing in 1985. The types of vehicles will be mini -buses and transits depending on the number of riders each day. This program plans to provide 5840 one -way trips during the last seven months of 1985 at a cost of $5.65 per one -way trip, before donations. The program would operate by people needing transportation calling the pro - gram coordinator at least 24 hours in advance and reserving a spot on the bus according to the published schedule. The published schedule would be established according to activities offered within the cities and according to priorities set by the local Senior Coordinators to begin with. As the program is fine- tuned, the schedule may be changed to better meet the need if the initial schedule doesn't prove to be the best. Priority will be given to the city- sponsored activities and congregate dining. The fare policy will be one in which the exact costs of the program will be identified and the users will be asked to make a donation of fifty cents per one -way trip. People will not be turned away if they cannot pay the donation asked for. They may pay what they can afford for that day. Volunteers would be utilized in helping to advertise the program as well as explain the details of it. They would also be used to assist in the periodic surveys of the users for evaluative purposes. Helping with phone coverage may get to be a real need, too, as the program grows. PURCHASE OF SERVICE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS APPLICATION West Metro Coordinated Transportation - Page 7 7) LIST MEASURABLE ACTIVITIES TO MEET YOUR GOALS. (Include objectives.) The goal of the proposed program is to assist the senior residents age 60 & over of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope and Robbinsdale in better meeting their transportation needs for social /recreational and major shopping. Program objectives include: Provide approximately 608 hours of bus services in 1985, - Transport at least 5,840 people in 1985, - Service each community with at least 15% of the resources available for this senior transportation program, - Coordinate the provision of service with other providers to avoid duplication of effort, - Develop program publicity •by April 15th for area residents. PURCHASE OF SERVICE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS APPLICATION West !Metro Coordinated Transportation - Page 8 8) DESCRIBE HOW YOU INTEND TO EVALUATE THE PROGRAM. (How will you know your goals and objectives are being met ?) The program would be evaluated on an on -going basis. The bus company con- tracted with will provide monthly reports on numbers of riders per bus per day as well as on fare monies collected. Periodic surveys will be done to ascertain rider reactions and input for needed change. The executive committee will provide input and direction towards keeping the communities updated on the service as well as advertising the program to the appropriate people. Quarterly reports would -be written and would include: - Numbers of rides provided, - Numbers of miles driven, - Passenger demographics, -Total fares collected, -Rider survey findings, - etc. i PURCHASE OF SERVICE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS APPLICATION West Metro Coordinated Transportation - Page 10 10) LIST OTHER NOS,? -NEST METRO COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION APPLICATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING THAT YOUR AGENCY HAS MADE. (Include date of application, amount requested, amount received.) None. PURCHASE OF SERVICE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS APPLICATION :gest Metro Coordinated Transportation — Page 11 4 11) DESCRIBE YOUR AGENCY'S PLAN FOR PROVIDING THIS SERVICE TWO (2) YEARS FROM NOW. (Include other sources of funding, any possible expansion.) Two years from now, if demand has proven to be what is expected, the cities would continue to provide the service as monies would allow. Other grants would be applied for, including funding from the Regional Transit Board. If monies are available, the program could be expanded to include some cab -type service for people in the more isolated areas of the cities, those who don't live in areas of high senior population. If monies for the cab - type service are not available, the program coordinator may be able to add a car - pooling component to the program. PURCHASE OF SERVICE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS APPLICATION N. Yves c Metro Coord Transportation — Page 12 12) DESCRIBE YOUR PLANS TO MEET TjjE LOCAL MATCH REQUIRE:=. Plans to meet the local match requirement would be for each city to provide dollars in the amount of between $5,000 and $7,000 per year. In -kind services could be provided by a City in lieu of the cash support (in part or in total). a ATTACHMENT "2" A TRANSIT OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES FOR THE MONTH OF 198 1. Operating Days 2. Total Miles for Month 3. Average Miles per Day 4. Ridership for Month (a) Total Number of Riders for the Month (b) Number of Handicapped Riders for the Month 5. Number of Riders per Vehicle Mile 6. Revenues Tickets Fa rebox Other (Explain) Total Revenues $ 7. Operating Cost for the Month $ 8. Operating Cost for the Month Less Revenues Collected $ 9. Performance Measures (a) Cost per Mile (b) Cost per One -way Trip (c) Riders per Mile (d) Cost per Hour (e) Riders per Hour certify that the transit operating costs and revenue data for this month of 198_ are true and correct and request reimbursement. SIGNATURE W icenses to be approved by the City Council on May 20, 1985 CATERING FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE It Bridgeman's 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. Sanitarian CIGARETTE LICENSE Video Review 5810 Xerxes Ave. N. Q : Q City Clerk FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE r3- idgeman's Brookdale Center_ B. C. American Little League 6800 France Ave. N. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops Brookdale Center Good Earth Restaurant Westbrook Mull Hickory Farms Brookdale Center 1 Potato 2 Brookdale Center Perkins Cake & Steak 5915 John Martin Dr. Rocky Rococo Brookdale Center T. J. Applebee r s Brookdale Center Uncle Bob's Quick 6 6600 West River Road C ani arian W ,,cCHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Hayes Contractor's Inc. 1010 Currie Ave. Buildin fficial 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. Poly Optics 6800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Red Owl Country Store 3600 63rd Ave. N. Twin City Hose 2700 Freeway Blvd. Sanitarian O RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Renewal: Anna May Turnacliff 6507 Ewing Ave. N. Mike Sonnack 6637 Humboldt Ave. N. Jerry Fischer 4700, 04 Lakeview Ave. acy Rice 6907 Morgan Ave. N. �,awrence 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. l..- /� Director of Planning and Inspection SWIMMING POOL LICENSE Lyn River Apartments 201 65th Ave. N. t EU� Sanitarian GENERAL APPROVAL: Ataas-A�� Gerald G. Splinte City C erk Sir