HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 09-12 CCP Regular Session r s
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOYLYN CENTER
SEPTEMBER 12, 1983
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 b' one motion. There will be no separate
Y Pte'
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.
q g
* 6. Approval of Minutes — August 22, 1983
7 Performance Bond Releases /Reductions
Releases:
a. National Auto Parts (Big Wheel), 6822 Brooklyn Boulevard
b. Q Petroleum, 1 505 69th Avenue North
C. Meriwether's Restaurant, 2001 Freeway Boulevard
d. Pontillo's Pizzeria, 5937 Summit Drive
e. Red Lobster, 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard
f Earle Brown Farm Estates, Plats 1 and 2, Freeway Boulevard
west of Xerxes
Reductions:
a. Earle Brown Farm Estates, Plat 3, Freeway Boulevard & Xerxes Place
b. Shingle Creek Plaza II, 2700 Freeway Boulevard
* 8. Proclamation Declaring September 17 through September 23 as Constitution Week
9. Resolutions;
a. Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $930,000 General Obligation Tax
Increment Bonds of 1983
j -This resolution rovides for the sale of bonds for the Elder Housing
p 1,Y g
Project.
*b- Accepting Work Performed Under Contract 1983 -F (Lions Park Tennis
Court Improvement Project No. 1982 -20, Phase II)
-This contract provided for the paving of the Lions Park Tennis Court.
x
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- September 12, 1983
*c. Accepting Work Performed Under Contract 1983 -H (51st Avenue Water Main
Improvement Project No. 1 982 -07)
-This contract provided for the installation of a water main along 51st
Avenue North from Fast Twin Z,al:e Boulevard to the residence 4100 51 st Avenue
North
*d. Accepting Work Performed Under Contract 1983 -C (Well No. 3
Reconditioning Project No. 1 -03)
-This contract provided for replacement of the well pump and motor and
various electrical and mechanical alterations within the pumphouse.
*e. Establishing Earle Brown Farm Estates Sidewalk Improvement Project No.
1983 -13 and Accepting Bid for Construction of Sidewalk in Earle Brown Farm
Estates Townhouse Development
-This resolution provides for the construction of a public walkway through
the Earle Brown Farm Estates Townhouse Development from "old" Xerxes Avenue
to Freeway Boulevard. It is recommended the low bid of Thomas & Sons
Construction in the amount of $6,657.50 be accepted.
f. Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1982 -G (Water Tower Improvement
Project 1982-15)
- Contract 1982 -G provided for the painting of water tower No. 3 located
south of Highway 100 in the Lions Park area.
g. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract 1983 -I (Park Shelter Improvement
Project No. 1983 -10)
-This resolution provides for shelter building improvements at Kylawn,
Bellvue, and Freeway Parks, and construction of trash enclosures and
comfort station screening at various parks.
-h. Accepting Engineer's Report, Establishing Central Park Tennis Court
J
Improvement Project No. 1983 -12, Phase I, Approving Plans and
P
Specifications, and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1 983 -J)
-This resolution provides for soil corrections for the Central Park Tennis
Courts
i. Amending 1983 Employee Position and Classification Plan
-This resolution provides for the establishment of the "Maintenance
Worker" position as provided within the 1983 Budget for the Government
Buildings Division.
j. Authorizing the Brooklyn Center Volunteer Fire Department to Use the House
at 5501 Aldrich Avenue North in the City of Brooklyn Center for Training
Purposes
10. Public Hearing on Applfcation for a Private Kennel License to be Located at
6325 Brooklyn Boulevard (7:30 p.m.).
11. Public Hearing on Annual Budget and Federal Revenue Sharing Funds
(8;00 p.m.).
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA —3- September 12, 1983
12. Planning Commission Items (8:30 p.m.)
a. Planning Commission Application Nos. 83033 and 83034 submitted by Hilltop
Builders for site and building plan approval and a request for a variance to
construct an apartment building on the north side of Bass Lake Road and a
parcel addressed 5839 Major Avenue North. The City Council tabled
consideration of Application Nos. 83033 and 83034 at its August 22, 1983
meeting at the request of the applicant in order to provide the applicant
time to submit a new site plan. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of Application Nos. 83033 and 83034 at its July 14, 1983 meeting.
b. Planning Commission Application No. 83045 submitted by Ramada Inn/Al-
Beisner for site and building plan and special use permit approval to
construct a 13 storey, 174 room hotel on a proposed tract of land at the
northeast corner'of Freeway Boulevard and Creek.
c. Planning Commission Application No. 83046 submitted by Ramada Inn /Al
Beisner for preliminary R.L.S. approval to subdivide into seven tracts the
parcel of land at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway
Boulevard.
d. Planning Commission Application No. 83047 submitted by Ramada Inn /Al
Beisner for a special use permit for off- -site accessory parking for 98
stalls to serve the Ramada Inn Hotel . The Planning Commission recommended
approval of Application Nos. 83045, 83046, and 83047 at its August 11, 1983
meeting.
13. Discussion Items:
a. Recommendations for Amendments to.the City Charter from the City Charter
Commission
b. Request for Additional Business Promotions under the City Zoning Ordinance
—The request .was initiated by Mr. Walter Frances, Manager of the Goodyear
Service Store in Brooklyn Center.
14• Gambling License Application
— Application for a Class B gambling license from the Earle Brown P.T.A.
(requires majority vote of the City Council to pass)
waiver of the $10,000 fidelity bond (requires unanimous vote of the City
Council to pass)
* 15. Licenses
16. Adjournment
f
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
AUGUST 22,1983
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The �rook — lyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by
Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7 :01 p.m.,
ROLL CALL Also
�r - Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis.
present were City Manager 'Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp,
Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren,
Assistant City Engineer Jim Grube, James Thomson, representing the City Attorney's
office, and Administrative Assistant Tom Bublitz.
Mayor Nyquist noted that Councilmember Gene Lhotka would be arriving later in the
meeting.
INVOCATION,
1 THe_ invocation was offered by Pastor Merritt of the Brooklyn Center Baptist Church.
OPEN FORUM
had not received
' st noted the council �Y requests to use the Open Forum
or N uz
Y t
session this evening. He inquired of the audience if there was anyone present who
wished-to address the Council. There being none, he proceeded with the regular
agenda items.
CONSENT AGFNDA
Mayor Nyquist inquired whether any'Council members had any agenda items they wished
removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Hawes removed item 7c from the
Consent Agenda, and T-ayor Nyquist removed items 7a and 7e from the Consent Agenda.
RESOLUTIONS
R 83-120
Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR 1983 DISEASED SHADE
TREE REMOVAL COSTS
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, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
t
ado P ed.
LICENSES .
There.was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Couneilmember Hawes to
approve the following list of licenses:
8 -22 -83 -1-
MIUSEPJI NT DEVICE LICENSE. - OPERATOR `
Pizza Factory 6816 Humboldt Ave. N.
FOOD FSTABLISHIIa'T LICENSE
T. — A. 1luer Corp. 2101 Freeway Blvd
MECHANICAL SYSTHIS LICENSE
Aran lieating i.r ondnc 6020 Culligan Way
Cedar Valley Heating & Air Cond. 4770 Nicals Rd.
Faircon, Inca 80 2nd Ave: S.F.
Kleve Heating & Air Cond. 13075 Pioneer Trail
RENTAL DIW=ING LICENSE
nnitials
C.J. Schaber 5341 Brooklyn Blvd.
Eugene J. Sullivan 5401 Brooklyn Blvd.
Roger K. Moberg /Bruce. Anderson 5320 Bryant Ave N. °
.Theodore & Rebecca Bye 5410 Girard Ave. N.
Julia G. Paulson 5315 Knox Ave. N.
Logan North Properties 5800, 5830 Logan Ave. N.
Logan North Properties 5820 Logan Ave. N.
Anthony & Marian Duran 6107 Quail Ave. lei.
Raymond & Betty Anderson 7113 N. Willow Lane
Genevieve Schultz 4201 Winchester In.
Robert & Patricia Bobleter 4807 Wingard P1.
Donald N. Kutz 6837 York Pl.
Howard Oien /Eugene Sullivan 3606 58th Ave. N:
Leo J. Vogel 2841 67th In.
Ruth Kalanquin 5348 70th Circle
Renewal:
Michael C. Sundby 6501 Brooklyn Dr.
Stone Investments 5500 Bryant Ave. N.
Clinton A. Sawinski 5918 Dupont Ave. N.
Michael L. Goodwin 5134 Ewing Ave. N.
Donald & Alberta Tousley 7149 Logan Ave. N.
Thomas & Bill Howe 3129 49th Ave. N.
Charles W. Fykson 904 53rd Ave. N:
Joseph J. Kennedy 505, 09 61st Ave. N.
Robert C. Johnson 905 61st Ave N.
M.P. Evanson 711 69th Ave. N.
SIGNHANG LICENSE
Arrow Sign Co. 18607 Highway 65 N.E.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed.
8- 22-•83 -2-
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1983
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of August 8, 1983 as submitted.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
RESOLU (CONTINUED)
The City Manager introduced a Resolution Accepting Bid and Approving Contract 1983-
J (Municipal Service Garage Improvement Project No. 1982 -28 Phase III).
Mayor Plyquist inquired whether the staff was confident with the low bidder on the
project. The Director of Public Works explained. the history of the contractor in
previous years as excellent, although the contractor has not performed much work
this construction season:
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -121
Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoptions
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1983 -J (MUNICIPAL SERVICE GARAGE
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -28, PHASE III)
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, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was duly passed and adopted.
The City Manager introduced a Resolution Accepting Bid and Approving Contract 1983-
K (Humboldt Avenue Street Improvement Project No. 1983 -11).
The Director of Public Works reviewed the project to improve Humboldt Avenue between
69th and 70th Avenues. He noted the projects intent was to improve the north and
southbound traffic movement along Humboldt Avenue. He reviewed the roadway
configuration and the. alternate bids received on the project. He then reviewed for
Councilmembers traffic counts taken in April of 1983. at the intersection of Humboldt
Avenue and 69th, and explained that the counts were 16 hour and 24 hour traffic
counts. The count showed 'a conflict between north /south traffic movement and left
turning movements. The Director of Public Works explained that, based on the peak
traffic counts at the intersection, there is not enough traffic to justify a traffic
control signal.
Councilmember Hawes stated it appears that T.H. 252 will draw a great deal of the
traffic away from the Humboldt and 69th intersection, especially the north /south
traffic. He stated that he believes the project is good but that the cost is too
great for the amount of good it will do for the short time prior to the T.H.. 252
construction, estimated at between three to five years. He added that he believes
the southbound lane does need improvement but he believed the cost of the project
does not justify the amount of good it will do. The Director of Public Works stated
that he could agree with Councilmember Hawes' point if the three to five year period
were the only factor considered. However, he pointed out, if a per vehicle cost
were calculated, the project would be cost effective. He stated that he agreed with
Councilmember Hawes in that the reconstruction of T.H. 252 will draw away traffic
from Humboldt but he stated that he believed the project should benefit the area for
more than three to five years, and that "with the project he believes the capacity
problem at the intersection will be solved for three to five or'more years.
8 -22 -83 -3-
Councilmember Lhotka arrived at.7:29 p.m.
Councilmember Hawes commented that, if the merging traffic on Humboldt is delayed
for 400 feet north of 69th Avenue, there will still be a problem. The Director of
Public Works stated that he believes. the public can handle the merging situation
adequately and that this was demonstrated in other places, such as along T.H. 252
near 66th Avenue North.' Councilmember Hawes inquired if the intersection is
updated in the future would the extension go to the northern corporate limits. The
Director of Public Works replied that he hoped that future traffic patterns would
not necessitate this extension, but any consideration of this would be based on
future demands. He added that he believed that Humboldt Avenue could remain a two—
lane street.
Councilmembers continued to discuss the proposed improvement project and reviewed
several items, including the necessity for an overlay to prevent a -structural
failure at the point where the roadway is widened, and at the request of
Councilmember Theis, the Director of Public Works reviewed traffic standards for a
two -lane versus a four -lane roadway. He noted 'the cut off point was 7, 000 vehicles
per day.
Councilmember Theis inquired as to the funding for the project, and the Public Works
Director explained that the project would be funded with PISA street funds.
The City Manager reviewed the bus stop areas along Humboldt Avenue, and noted that
the buses now pull far to the right of the roadway causing damage to the roadway,
especially in the spring and winter. He explained the slope of the ground and the
rolled blacktop curb which would be constructed with the project would prevent this
type of damage
Councilmember Hawes inquired when the T.H. 252 project would begin. - The Director
of Public Works explained that right -of -way acquisition for the project would begin
in 1984, construction would begin in 1985, and the project is scheduled for
tentative completion between 1 986 and 1987.
The Council reviewed a video tape of traffic at the intersection of Humboldt and 69th
Avenues North. The Director of Public Works noted that the video tape of traffic at
the intersection was taken over a period of hours and focused on the rush hour
traffic in the morning and during the evening.
RESOLUTION NO. 83-122
Member Gene I,hotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1983 -K (HUMBOLDT AVENUE STREET
IMPROVEENT PROJECT NO. 1983 -11)
In discussion of the motion, Councilmember Theis stated that he believed the
additional cost of alternate A would benefit longer than three to five years.
Mayor Nyquist called for a vote on the motion on the table. The motion for the
adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and
upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Ryquist,
Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same:
Bill Hawes, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
8-22-83 -4-
The City Manager introduced a Resolution Accepting Work Under Contract 1982-P
(Lions Park Tennis Court Improvement Project No. 1982 -20, Phase I, and Municipal
Service Garage Improvement Project No. 1982 -28, Phase I).
In response to a question from Councilmember Hawes, the Director of Public Works
explained that the staff perform the soil borings in the project area. He explained
that the borings were taken 50 feet apart which is closer than the normal 100 feet.
He noted that the actual soil conditions differed from the staffs interpretation of
the conditions between the soil boring samples for the Lions Park Tennis Court
Improvement Project and the Municipal Service Garage Improvement Project.
Councilmember Lhotka commented that he has had some experience with soil borings and
that at best they offer only a 50/50 chance of correct information.
RESOLUTION NO. 83-123
Member Ri& heis produced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTIlTG WORK UNDER CONTRACT 1982 -P (LIONS PARK TENNIS COURT
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -20, PHASE I, AND MUNICIPAL SERVICE GARAGE IMPROVIl+4ENT
PROJECT NO-1982-28, PHASE I)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and
the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared
duly passed and adopted.
The City Manager introduced a Resolution Establishing Sanitary Sewer Rate for the
Elderly.
Mayor Nyquist commented that on one attachment comparing water consumption of
senior citizens to other users for one quarter, the senior citizen usage was higher
than the single family usage. The Director of Public Works stated that he would
review the attachments and report back on the figures.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -124
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SB%TR RATE FOR THE ELDERLY
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was dulliy seconded by member
Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof:_ Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and
the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared
duly passed and adopted
The City Tanager introduced a Resolution Authorizing an Agreement for Professional.
Services with Brauer & Associates Ltd. Inc. for the Development of a Concept Plan for
a Plaza Area in Central Park.
Councilmember Theis inquired as to the extent of the consultant's role in the
development of the concept plan . The City Nianager explained the concept itself was
proposed in general by the staff, but the consultant would do -the design and
drawings.
8 -22 -83 -5-
,
Councilmember Lhotka asked what the future cost would be, assuming that the future
work on the project is not in the area of staff expertise. The City Manager replied
that the future cost of the consultant's work would be based on .a construction
estimate.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 --125
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGRE.11C tiTFOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH BRAUER R
ASSOCIATES LTD. INC. POR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPT PLAN FOR A PLAZA AREA IN
CENTRAL PARK
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 duly passed
and adopted.
The City Manager introduced a Resolution Amending the 1983 General Fund Budget and
Authorizing the Transfer of Funds from the Council Contingency Account to the Police
Department Equipment Account.
The City Manager reviewed a memorandum from the Chief of Police describing the
experience.of the police department with the damage caused to vehicles by the use of
the dry chemical fire extinguishers.
Councilmember Lhotka inquired how often the fire extinguishers are used. The City
Manager stated that the extinguishers are used approximately once a month by the
department. Councilmember Lhotka then inquired why it took so long to changeover
from the dry chemical to the Helon type extinguishers. The City Manager explained
that insurance companies had changed their policies, and would no longer pay for the
damage to vehicles done by the dry chemical extinguishers.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -126
Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1983 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF
FUNDS FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT TO THE POLICE DEPAR99VT EQUIPMENT
ACCOUNT
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the
following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was duly passed
and adopted,
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -127
em er brie —iota introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1983 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSPFR OF
FUNDS FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT TO TIC PARKS NIAINTENATICE ECUIPMT
ACCOUNT
8 -22 -83 _6_
i
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 duly
passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARI1 011 PROPOSED ASSESSI`'= FOR 69 -70TH AVENUE STREET, SANITARY SEWER,
A`i —7 fir, T PROJE TS
lie iirrector of Pu is orks 'reviewed for Council members the various projects
comprehended by the public hearing, including the Street, Sanitary Sewer, and Water
Main Improvement Projects for 69th -70th Avenues. He also reviewed the location of
the projects, the boundaries of the assessment districts, assessed costs,
assessment rates, and assessment periods for the projects.
The Director of Public Works stated that notices of the hearing had been sent to all
affected property owners and have been published in the City's official newspaper.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on the Proposed
Assessment for 69th -70th Avenue Street, Sanitary Sewer, and Water Plain Improvement
Projects.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Paul Rosso, who addressed the Council and stated that
his address was 7 Ortman Street, Southeast Minneapolis, and that he was representing
his sister, Melba Evanson. He stated that his sister's propertywas not adjacent to
any water main, but that the water main is in her property and was constructed in
1960. The Director of Public Works explained that the sanitary sewer and water main
lines were extended to coincide with the realignment of 69th -70th Avenues. He
explained that the properties assessed were the Hussman property and the Evanson
property. The Director of Public Works then proceeded to review the written
agreement between the City and Mrs. Melba Evanson. He pointed out that as part of
the negotiated settlement for a roadway easement over a portion of the property, it
was agreed that the assessment would be deferred for five years or until development
or title transfer takes place. He stated that the benefit to the property is
established on future use of the land. He added that the land could support a number
of residential lots, and that the assessment is based on a standard of assessment
which is determined by the front footage of the property.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak at the public
hearing. No one else appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the
public hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
-
close the public hearing on the Proposed. Assessment for 6 9 th 70th Avenue Street ,
Sanitary Sewer, and Water Main Improvement Projects. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: rione.
The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -128
Member Tia Sc — introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSFSSPO�T FOR 69TH -70TH AVENUE STREET, SANITARY SEWER, AND
WATER MAIN IMPROVIKENT PROJECTS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
8 -22 -83 -7-
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.
PUBLIC HEARING ON -PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 51ST AVENTJE NORTH WATER N,AIN Ir
R ECT`NO.. 1�982 -07
The CTEY Manager stated that notices of the public hearing have been sent to all
"affected property owners, and notice has also been published in the City's official
newspaper.
The Director of Public Works reviewed.for Council members the 51st Avenue North
Water Main Improvement Project No. 1982 -07, including the location of the project,
the assessment area of the project, and noted that the project is being installed on
an easement. He then reviewed for Council members a summary of the project costs,
including the assessment rates and assessment period for the pro ject.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Proposed
Assessment for 51st Avenue North Water Main Improvement Project No. 1982 -07 He
inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing.
Mr. Paul Rosso addressed the Council and inquired when the Board of Review meets so
he and his sister could appeal what he termed the "unauthorized action of the City
Council in the resolution." The City Manager informed Mr. Rosso that the Board of
Review of the City meets in June but that the Board of Review has nothing to do with
special assessments, and that an appeal on the special assessments would require a
separate legal action.
R continued his objection to the proposed. Mr. Paul Rosso continu � p po special assessments on Mrs.
j Evanson's property.
Mayor Nyquist informed Mr. Rosso that the hearing on the 69th -70th Avenue Street,
Sanitary Sewer, and Water Main Improvement Projects was closed, and that the Council
is now in another area. Mr. Rosso continued to speak and Mayor Nyquist used his
gavel to maintain order at the meeting, and again informed Mr. Rosso that the public
hearing on the 69th -70th Avenue project was closed.
Mayor Nyquist then inquired whether anyone else wished to speak at the public
hearing on the Proposed Assessment for 51st Avenue North Water Main Improvement
Project No. 1982 -07. No one appeared to speak at the public hearing, and the Mayor
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 the Proposed Assessment for 51 st Avenue north Water Main'
Improvement Project Teo. 1 982 -07. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers
Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed
unanimously.
The Director of Public Works recommended that the Council adopt the alternate
resolution prepared by the staff, and explained that because of the objection of the
Tri -State Iand Company to the proposed assessment, the resolution would adopt the
assessment roll with the exception of the Tri- State Land Company property. -He
8 -22 -83 -8-
added that the resolution would delay action until September 26, 1983 in order to
allow time to prepare additional information for the Council regarding the proposed
assessments.
Councilmember Hawes inquired what would happen if the Tri -State Land Company is
successful in appealing the assessment. Mr. Jim Thomson explained that at a later
date when the property is developed, there is a provision in the law to allow the
assessment against the property at that time.
The City Manager stated that the resolution stipulates that the hearing on the
protest of Tri -State Land Company as to the said property described in the
resolution would be adjourned until September 26, 1983 at 8:00 p.m. in the Brooklyn.
Center Council Chambers at 6301 Shingle Creek
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -129
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR 51 ST AVENUE NORTH WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NO. 1982 -07
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
RECESS
° e rooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:01 p.m.
PLANNING COD94ISSION ITEMS
B C07 , 1 1 iSSME . AI=ATION NO. 83037 SUBMITTED BY CRANMERR COMPANY FOR SITE AND
7T PLAN AND SPECIAL u SE PERMIT AAA_ To Z�S L TJCT AN OFFICE PA
=E N T =R -_5 'f) Rl' 5P1 ZF = T 1' ST QU DST' OF I -94 AN�0_ =
LLVARD — _
Me Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members
pages 1 through 3 of the August- 4, 1983 Planning. Commission meeting minutes, 10
through 13 of the July 14 Planning Commission meeting minutes and also the two
Planning Commission information sheets prepared for Application No. 83037.
The Planning Director proceeded to review the applicant's request, the location of
the subject parcel in the southwest quadrant of I -94 in Brooklyn Boulevard, and also
explained that the subject parcel was zoned R -5. He noted that office services uses
are considered special uses in the.R -5 zoning district.
The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed the conflict of the application with
the recommendations in the City's Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the plan
recommends mid - density residential development in the area of eight units per acre.
The Planning Director noted that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
August 4, 1983 to consider amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, and at the
meeting passed Resolution No. 83-3 which recommended to the City Council that the
Comprehensive Plan be amended to allow land designated for service /office to be
developed alternately as town houses, and land designated for town houses to be
developed alternately as low rise offices, but not as service or retail use. The
8 -22 -83 -9-
Planning Director then reviewed a proposed resolution adopting amendment of Council
Resolution No. 82 -255 relative to land-along Brooklyn Boulevard recommended for
office or mid - density residential development.
The Director of Planning R Inspection reviewed for Council members a transparency of
the landscape plans submitted by the applicant. He then reviewed the proposed
parking plan and traffic circulation on the site. He added that the applicant
proposes to condominiuminize the units.
The Director of Planning & Inspection then reviewed the greenstrip requirements for
the application, and explained that the Planning Commission recommended opaque
screening where abutting properties did not have any screening devices and. in other
areas with screening, additional landscaping would be installed.; He then reviewed
the proposed holding' pond and underground irrigation system and the exterior
construction and treatment of the units.
The Planning Director noted that the applicant would be required to extend the
median on Brooklyn Boulevard permitting a right turn in and right turnout only. He
added that, at the public hearing held by the Planning Commission, objections were
received from the neighbors to the south of the proposed project, and other
objections were addressed in the Planning Commission minutes.
The Director of Planning noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and that notices of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment were sent to the Metropolitan Council. - He stated that the staff at the
Metropolitan Council indicated that the amendment had no regional impact. The
Planning Director noted that the Planning Commission, at it's August 4, 1983
meeting, recommended approval of Application No. 83037, subject to conditions which
he reviewed for Council members. He added that the required public hearing on the
application has been scheduled for this evening, and that the required notices had
been sent to all affected property owners.
At the request of Mayor Nyquist, the Director of Planning &" Inspection reviewed the
Minnesota Department of Transportation's comments on the project.
In response to a question from Councilmember Scott, the Director 'of .Planning
reviewed the location of the entrance to the proposed project with regard to it's
distance from the I -94 ramp.
Councilmember Hawes inquired whether the existing restrictive covenants still
apply to the lots along Brooklyn Boulevard. The Director of Planning & Inspection
stated that the covenants are still applicable and noted that they were private
covenants prohibiting commercial use of the land. He added that it was his
understanding that the agreement to remove the covenants could be obtained if all
persons who are a party to the covenants agree. At the request of Councilmember
Hawes, the Director of Planning& Inspection reviewed the objections of the property
owners to the south of the proposed project, which centered on traffic circulation"
regarding the right turn in and right-turn out only on Brooklyn Boulevard.
Councilmember Ihotka inquired whether the proposed holding pond for the project was
a necessity. The Director of Public Works stated that the pond would be a necessity
to limit run -off .on the project.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning
8 -22 -83 -10-
Commission Application No. 83037. He recognized Mr. Iarry Cramer, the applicant.
Mayor lJyquist requested the applicant to respond to the certainty of the development`
of the project. Mr. Cramer stated that his development group has had a record of
accomplishing what they set out to do, and stated that the only way the project would .
not be constructed is if his group could not obtain financing for the offices. He
added that Council approval of the application is required before financing can be
secured. He then distributed photographs of a similar project he had constructed.
Councilmember Hawes inquired whether the applicant would possibly build only half
of the project. The applicant replied that the project would be phased and that he
would start on the building nearest the entrance to Brooklyn Boulevard.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Dawn Harrer, 6521 Brooklyn Boulevard, who stated that she
believed the deceleration lane proposed with the project will not work, especially
with the extra 100 cars expected from the project daily.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Russell Bottelson, who stated that he lives on the
corner of France and Brooklyn Boulevard, and has a problem with vehicles making U
turns pulling onto France and into his driveway to turn around. The City Manager
stated that he could appreciate Mr. BottelsonIs dilemma and added that, currently,
discussions are going on with the City of Brooklyn Park and MN /DOT regarding the
feasibility of a half diamond at Zane Avenue and I -94. He stated that the half
diamond constructed at this point would take pressure off the area of Brooklyn
Boulevard and I -94-
The Director of Public Works reviewed for Council members the modifications
discussed by 121 /DOT to modify the turn lane leading onto east 694 to accommodate high
occupancy vehicles, such as buses. He also reviewed Pit /DOT plans for modifying the
left turn lanes onto east I -94 for traffic traveling south on Brooklyn Boulevard.
Mayor Nyquist recognized an individual from the audience who identified himself as
an attorney, representing Mr. Gary Zimmerman, owner of property to the south of the
proposed project. He stated that he believes some inaccurate assumptions were made
about his client's property. He cited Minnesota Statutes 500.20 and stated that
the statute provides that when covenants become of nominal value they may be
disregarded. He proceeded to state that an assumption was made that the median
extension will mitigate the traffic situation. He pointed out that his. client has
demonstrated to him that it would not, and pointed out that his client now backs out
from his driveway onto Brooklyn Boulevard, and 'if the median is put in, he won't be
able to back out of the driveway. He stated he believes an extra lane will be needed
in front of the homes along Brooklyn Boulevard so they won't get hit by traffic
coming off the freeway. He requested that the Council layover the project until a
better plan can be obtained from P.2T/DOT, and added that he can't believe such an ill
conceived plan could be approved.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Blazek, 6515 Brooklyn Boulevard, who stated that he
dived in the third house from-the proposed project, and has observed cars at speeds
of 50 miles per hour coming off the freeway ramp onto Brooklyn Boulevard. At the
request of Mr. Blazek, the City Manager reviewed the date and procedure for the
public hearing on the ordinance amendment in conjunction' with the proposed
application.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Paul. Holmlund, 6536 Indiana Avenue North, who inquired
how the developer would propose to keep the water in the holding pond on the site, if
8 -22 -83 -11-
the project is approved, and-the type of fencing required for the project. The
Director of Planning & Inspection -explained that the Planning Commission
recommended a 4' hi opaque fence where no screening exists presently, and
� Paq g P
landscaping in the areas where screening already exists.
In response to P ^.r. Holmlund I s question regarding the holding pond, Mr. Cramer, the
applicant, stated that he would conduct soil investigations on the site and may use
bentonite or natural soils in the holding pond. He added that he has met with the,
highway department, and the maximum number of cars traveling east on Brooklyn
Boulevard is 200 cars per minute. He added that`P1V /DOT has.determined that his
development will not add significant traffic to this already existing traffic. In
conclusion, he stated that it his attorney's opinion that the private covenants are
valid.
Councilmember Theis posed a question, that if the project is approved and the
project is not built, what other possible uses could the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment open up in the area. The Director of Planning & Inspection replied that
the change would allow office uses no greater than two storeys. He explained the
present zoning of the land could accommodate a 72 unit apartment complex or a three
storey office use under a special use permit. .
Mr. Cramer explained that the type of fence he would construct on the project area
would probably be a cedar fence to match the exterior of the buildings.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Paul Holmlund who stated that he believed the concern
of the property owners in the area was for a security fence, and with regard to
condition No 2 of the Planning Commission's recommended, conditions, he requested
the condition to be amended to state that a fence would be constructed where desired
by property owners. He added that he would be happy to remove his 3' high redwood
fence for a security fence. The Director of Planning & Inspection explained that
the City's zoning ordinance requires screening and not security, but as part of a
special use permit, the Council could address the construction of a security fence.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak at the public
hearing. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public
hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember I,hotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83037. Voting in
favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers'hhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember hhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
approve Planning Commission Application No. 83037, 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. Opaque fencing shall be installed along property lines
abutting neighboring residences where none presently exists.
Where fences do exist, a dense row of shrubbery shall be
planted and maintained for screening purposes.
8 -22 -83 -12-
p
t
s 3. The median in Brooklyn Boulevard shall be extended 100' to
prevent left hand turns into and out of the proposed complex.
Said median extension shall be the responsibility of the
applicant under permit from PIN /DOT. The median extension
shall be approved by 1 /DOT prior to the issuance of building
permits and construction of the median shall be in conjunction
with the construction of the office complex.
4. Medical occupancy of the office complex shall be limited
by the parking available on the site or shown on a proof-
of-parking plan to be submitted by. the applicant.
5. The applicant acknowledges that no access to this site
from Indiana /66th Avenue North (to the west of the site)
shall be granted now or in the future.
6. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the
Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior
to the issuance of permits.
7. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject
to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the
issuance of permits.
8. 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 improve -
ments including median construction on Brooklyn Boulevard.
g. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop
mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened
from view.
10. The buildings are 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.
11. An underground irrigation system shall be' installed in
all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance
12. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is
subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
13. 8612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking
and driving areas.
14. -A deceleration lane shall be installed in accordance
with MI /DOT recommendations and-the sidewalk along the
west side of Brooklyn Boulevard shall be relocated onto
the applicant's property with the granting of an easement
for sidewalk purposes.
8 -22 -83 -13-
�j
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
amend condition No. 2 of the motion for approval of Application No. 83037 by amending
the condition to read that "opaque fencing shall be installed along property lines
abutting all neighboring residences where the residents desire. Where fences do
exist, and if residents desire, a dense row of shrubbery shall be planted and
maintained for screening purposes." Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Lhotka,�Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The
motion passed unanimously.
Upon a vote being taken on the motion for approval of Application No. 83037 as
amended, the following voted in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka,
Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -1:30
-,eT em'ber C is 7c7ott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENT OF COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82 -255 (COMPRE'HENSIVE
PLAN) RELATIVE TO LAND ALONG BROOKLYN BOULEVARD RFCO141ENDED FOR OFFICE OR MID -
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPfMT
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, 'Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the
following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was.declared
duly passed and adopted.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded. by Councilmember Hawes to
approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to
Allow Low Rise Offices in the R- Zoning District by Special Use Permit and to set a
public hearing date on the ordinance for 8:00 p.m. on September 26, 1983. Voting in
favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLIC ATION NOS. 83033 AND 83034 SUBMITTED BY HILLTOP BUILDERS
FOR SIT AND BUILDING PLAN AP PROVAL AM REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO C TRUCT AN
AM TSB ILDIN TIM NORTH 7D $ = AT A PARCEL ADDRESOFF
MAJOR A
7ne CCity Manager stated the applicant has requested that consideration of the
application be tabled to allow him time to submit a revised site plan.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
table consideration of Planning Commission Application Nos. 83033 and 83034
submitted by Hilltop Builders at the - request of the applicant until such time as the
applicant provides the necessary site plan. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The
motion passed unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NOS. 83042 - AND 83043 SUBMITTED BY ROBERT D. WELTY
FOR =771TRY PLAT APPROVAL TO SULK V iDE IN RCT''L'OFZAT AT =1
SOU -ST CUADRUT I' XT M' S AW3 h R : A77 - -94 'A1'T1D FUR A V R IAIXE F 1M SPUTIM
15 - 166 OFF T11L SUIT IV 1014 ORDITuAI CE TO W A T WITH U A GE DEPTH OF EESS TON
0 = M= TITF LFSS =1 0 N FRYi E
fide Director of Planning & Tnspe presented and reviewed for Council members
pages 1 through 3 of the August 11, 1983 Planning Commission meeting minutes, and
Y
8 -22 -83 -14-
also the Planning Commission information sheets prepared for the applications. He
then reviewed the location of the subject parcel, which is described as an outlot.
He noted that, by definition in the City's zoning ordinance, an outlot is
unbuildable.
The Planning Director reviewed the proposed legal descriptions and dimensions of
the three parcels proposed by the application. He then reviewed for Council
members the request for variances submitted by the applicant and noted the necessity
for a full 30' wide street extension to service the lots. He explained the
applicant had submitted a letter regarding the standards for a subdivision
ordinance variance. He then reviewed the Planning Commission's consideration of
the applicant's variance request.
Following a public hearing, the.Planning Director pointed out that the Planning
Commission recommended approval of Application Nos. 83043 and 83042, subject to
conditions which he reviewed for Council members.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application
Nos. 83043 and 83042. He recognized an individual in the audience who stated that
he was a resident who lived on the west side of the proposed application, and
inquired how the driveway would access the roadway. The Director of Planning &
Inspection reviewed the anticipated access to the roadway from the subject parcel.
Mayor Nyquist recognized a representative of Mr. Robert Welty who requested
clarification of the Planning Commission's discussion regarding the assessment for
the widening of Xerxes Avenue to Quarles Road. The Director of Planning &
Inspection reviewed the property owners which would be assessed for the street
widening. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to
speak at the public hearing. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to
close the public hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application Nos. 83042 and 83043.
Voting in favor; Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Ihotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember I,hotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve Application No. 83043 on the grounds that the standards for a subdivision
ordinance variance are met. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers
I,hotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed
unanimously.
There was a motion. by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve : Planning Commission Application No. 83042, 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 applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with
the City stipulating the widening of "old" Xerxes to a, full
street width and extension of public utilities to the
8 -22 -83 -15-
respective lots.- The cost of widening "old" Xerxes to a
full street width and extension of public utilities to the
respective lots shall be paid by-the applicant.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Irhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 83044 SUBMITTED BY THE SALVATION ARMY FOR A
SPECIAL TJSP fiZ) C=T AT
The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members
page 4 of the August 11, 1983 Planning Commission minutes, and also the Planning
Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 83044:. He then reviewed
the special use request submitted by the applicant and noted that the site is the old
Ethan Allen furniture store.
Councilmember Hawes left the table at 10:40.p.m.
The Director of Planning explained that the applicant submitted a letter outlining
the plan to relocate the Salvation Army's existixig administrative offices to the
site.
Councilmember Hawes returned to the table at 10:41 p.m.
The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed the available parking on the site,
and noted that 75 parking spaces would be required for the proposed use, and at
present there are 54 spaces on the site with proof of parking for 100 spaces.. He
stated that the Salvation Army has requested deferral of the 75 space requirement,
and that Major Speck of the Salvation Army has agreed to condition No. 3 recommended
by the Planning Commission in its approval of the application.
The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that the Planning Commission, after it
held a public hearing, recommended approval of the application, subject to four
conditions which he reviewed for Council members. He noted that a representative
of the applicant is present this evening, and that the required notices of hearing
had been sent.
Councilmember Ihotka inquired whether the building was sprinklered. The Director
of Planning & Inspection stated that the building was but that the administrative
office use may require some remodeling in the configuration of the sprinklers.
Councilmember I,hotka then inquired whether the intended use was for administrative
offices and not for distribution services. The Director of Planning & Inspection
stated that this was the intended use proposed by the applicant, and that the Council
could add this stipulation to the conditions of approval.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application
No. 83044• He recognized Major William Speck, of the Salvation Army, who stated
that he understands the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and that
the collection of clothing and other articles undertaken by the Salvation Army is a
sheltered workshop operation and could not be accommodated at the site, since it
requires housing and other items not available at this site.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak at the public
hearing. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public
hearing.
8 -22 -83 -16°
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott. and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
close the public hearing on Application No. 83044. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers I,hotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none.
The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
approve Application No. 83044, subject to the following conditions:
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances,
and regulations, and any violation thereof shall be
grounds for revocation.
2. The special use permit is issued to the Salvation Army
as the user of the facility and is nontransferable.
3. Special use permit approval acknowledges a proof of
parking fdr stalls sufficient to meet the require—
ment for office use of the entire building. In the
event that the City determines that the existing
spaces are inadequate, the applicant shall be required
to install parking stalls up to the office require —
ment of 75 spaces.
4. Building plans for the remodeling to office space are
subject to the review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to
the issuance of building permits.
5. Special use permit approval is contingent on the use of
the facility for administrative offices only and any
collection or distribution of clothing goods or
commodities is expressly prohibited.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
PLANNING COTUVIISSION APPLICATION N0. 83029 SUBMITTED BY WES' STANDARD FOR A SPECIAL
Tj I — CIS I OT �� At 1 6 AT '>=tP PA
ACCE SSORIES AT THE SERVICE STATION LOCATED AT 6 44 BROCKLYN BOULEVARD
The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members
pages 5 through 7 of the August 11 , 1983 Planning Commission meeting minutes and also
the June 30, 1983 Planning Commission meeting minutes. He then reviewed the
applicant's special use request and also the location and zoning of the subject
parcel.
The Planning Director noted that the Planning Commission first reviewed the
application on June 30, 1983 at which time the application was tabled, and the
applicant was requested to submit a professionally drawn parking plan. The
Director of Planning reviewed the parking requirements related.to the applicant's`
request and noted that a total of 23 spaces would be required. He then reviewed the
parking plan submitted by the applicant showing 18 existing parking stalls and 5
stalls in the proof of parking plan. He noted the Planning Commission recommended
acknowledgment of the proof of parking contingent on the applicant stating in
8 -22 -83 -17-
writing that the stalls will be provided if the Council so requires it. The
Planning Director also pointed 'out that the owner of the apartments to the east of
the subject parcel had submitted a written comment regarding the condition of the
fence between the apartment complex and the applicant's facility and asked that it
be added to the special use conditions.
The Director of Planning stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
Application No. 83029, subject to four conditions which he reviewed for Council
members.
Councilmember Ihotka inquired whether the applicant had met condition No. 2 of the
recommended Planning Commission conditions. The Director of Planning& Inspection
replied that the applicant had not met this requirement.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application
No. 83029 and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public
hearing. No one appeared to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the public
hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Ihotka and- seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
close the public hearing on Application No. 83029. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers Ihotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none.
The motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Irhotka expressed a concern about condition No. 2 in the Planning
Commission recommendations and requested the applicant to address this condition.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Wes Reavely who stated that the parking plan submitted
was not his plan and that it was the Planning Director's plan drawn by Suburban
Engineering. He explained that the original plan he submitted allowed him 24
parking spaces. He stated it was his recommendation on the existing plan to allow
parking at the pump islands which would make 24 total parking spaces on the site.
The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that the parking spaces at the pump
islands were not considered parking spaces by the City ordinances.
Councilmember I,hotka inquired of the applicant why he was unwilling to submit a
letter in compliance with condition No. 2. Mr. Reavely replied that he bould not
submit the letter on behalf of Standard Oil. The Planning Director suggested that
perhaps Standard Oil should be applying for the special use permit rather than Mr.
Reavely.
Mr. Jim Thomson, representing the City Attorney's office, stated that the
conditions of the application will be imposed on the applicant, and that the
negotiations with the owners of the property is the applicant's responsiblity.
Mr. Reavely stated that he feels the variance is for the parking and the sale of
groceries. The City Manager commented that no variances are being required, and
that the Planning Commission's request is for future needs for parking. He stated
that the Planning Commission accepts the applicant's recommendation but with the
requirement for possible additional parking in the future.
Mr. Thomson stated that, if the Council's decision is to require the proof of
parking, the Council could amend the Planning Commission's recommended conditions
to state that the applicant shall agree in writing prior to the issuance of permits.
i
8 -22 -83 -18
Mr. Reavely stated that, because Standard Oil has the final word, he does not have as
much control as he would like.
Mayor Nyquist suggested the possibility of making the application subject to
approval by Standard Oil. Councilmember Theis commented that he would have no
problem with holding the permit until the letter is sent.
Councilmember I,hotka stated that he did not feel he got an adequate answer to his
original question posed to the applicant. He suggested Mr. Reavely consider the
City Attorney's comments indicating that he would have to work on an agreement with
Standard Oil. Mayor Nyquist inquired of the applicant what role Standard Oil
played in the application. Mr. Reavely replied. that Standard Oil had no part in it
but that Standard Oil encourages -the type of operation proposed in the application.
Councilmember Theis inquired of the applicant how long it would take to get an answer
from Standard Oil regarding the application. Mr. Reavely stated that he could get
an answer by tomorrow morning. Councilmember Theis then inquired what prevented
the applicant from contacting Standard Oil regarding the letter requested in
condition No. 2 of the Planning Commission recommendations. Mr. Reavely replied'
that he. was informed by Mr. Bill Rogers, of Suburban Engineering, that the
requirements for the parking plan were all that was requested by the Director of
Planning. The Planning Director inquired of the applicant whether or not his
representative at the Planning Commission meeting informed him of the action taken
by the Planning Commission and his comments regarding the proposed parking at the
pump islands. Mr. Reavely stated that he was informed that it was all set to go with
24 spaces, including his plan.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve Application No. 83029, subject to the following conditions:
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances
and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds
for revocation.
2. Permit approval acknowledges proof -of- parking for 5
additional stalls on the site. The applicant shall, prior
to the issuance of the special use permit, provide a letter
from the owner of the property agreeing to install parking
spaces in accordance with the proof -of- parking plan upon
a determination by the City that additional spaces are
needed to prevent traffic congestion in the public streets.
3. The screen fence alon& the east side of the property shall
be repaired and painted prior to the, issuance of permits.
4. The area along the west side of the building (by the front
entrance) shall be designated and signed a fire lane and
no parking shall be permitted in this area.
In discussion of the motion, Councilmember I,hotka stated that he believes the
applicant has had an opportunity to provide the letter and that.he could not vote for
the application.
Councilmember Hawes commented that he was disappointed in the applicant, in that he
8 -22 -83 -19-
went into business prior to obtaining the proper permits:
Upon a vote being taken on the motion on the table, the following voted in favor:
Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against:
Councilmember Lhotka. The motion.passed.
AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER -INTO CONTRACT WITH A COLLECTION AGENCY The City Tanager requesfed7ha�is item be cue` erf red since contract with the
collection agency was not yet ready. °
ORDINANCES
AN '1NAI E GRANTING MINNEGASCO, INC., A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND
ASSIGNS, A NONEXC IIVE FMCME TO C N RU Z , EAT EP IR, A �
FA IZIfi�F�` AND TJ R FOR THE N , TR N, MANUFAC�RE tb
FO•A�` � IO-A 6E� PUBLIC GOV= = C ITY
F� BROOKLYN CENTM F1INNESOTA FM SUCH PROBES; AND SP NU CERTAI T� fi191 ,
CPDIT 11 TT=F
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
approve for first reading An Ordinance Granting Minnegasco, Inc., a Minnesota
Corporation, its Successors and Assigns, a Nonexclusive Franchise to Construct,
Operate, Repair, and Maintain Facilities and Equipment for the Transportation,
Distribution, Manufacture and Sale of Gas Energy for Public and Private Use and to
Use the Public Ground of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota for such Purposes;
and Prescribing Certain Terms and Conditions Thereof, and to set a public hearing on
the ordinance for 8:00 p.m. on September 26, 1983. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none.
The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager noted that the next agenda item was related to the ordinance and
concerned a resolution of the Suburban Rate Authority Board to authorize $40,000 in
revenue during 1984. He noted this item for Council member's information and
requested that it be considered in conjunction with the 1984 budget.
Councilmember I.hotka commented that, as a representative to the Suburban Rate
Authority, his impression of the organization was that the overall group belonging
to the SRA benefits greatly for the cost.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES SPECIAL USES IN
TH C2 --
Z'2 lblyl�t —
The City Manager noted the ordinance is offered for a first reading and that it would
make tennis clubs, racket and swim clubs and other athletic clubs and health spas a
special use in the C2 zoning district.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances
Regarding Special Uses in the C2 Zoning District, and to set a public hearing on the
ordinance for 8:00 p.m. on September 26, 1983. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Lhotka,'Scott Hawes and'Theis. Votin g against: none. The
motion passed unanimously.
DISCUSSION OF HOWE FIRE
Mayor Nyquist stated - that he had received a call from Mr. Tom Howe regarding the fire
at the Howe facility on August 8, 1983 and also concerning the rebuilding of the
structure damaged by the fire. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that the
8 -22 -83 -20-
fire occurred in the bagging and storage building and not in the building containing
the nonconforming use. He added that the staff has conveyed to Howe, Inc., based on ,
information provided by Howe's consulting engineer, various information on the
building. He added that Howe is requesting that the nonconforming use not affect
the rebuilding of the building damaged by the fire on July 5, 1983.. He added that
Mr. Tom Howe indicated that he would like, as soon as possible, to rebuild the roof
structure and requested a partial .permit to reconstruct this portion of the
building. The Director of Planning stated that the staff recommendation is that the
destruction of the building did not exceed 50% of the building; that the building in
which the fire occurred did not house the nonconforming use; and that Howe, Inc. is
entitled to rebuild the damaged structure. He added that Mr. Howe is intending to
submit a full plan for the reconstruction prior to the time that a full permit for the
entire reconstruction would be issued.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
acknowledge that the damage caused to the south building on the Howe, Inc. site due
to the August 8, 1983 fire does not constitute 50% destruction of the building; that
the building in which the fire occurred did not house the nonconforming use, and that
Howe, Inc., is entitled to rebuild said structure. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers I,hotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none.
The motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and, seconded by Councilmember Scott to
adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers I,hotka,
- Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 11:38 p.m.
Clerk Mayor
8 -22 -83 -21-
, A MEMORANDUM
TO: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection
FROM: Gary Shallcross, Planning Assistant`
DATE: September 8, 1983
SUBJECT: Performance Guarantees
The following performance guarantees are recommended for release or reduction
as specified:
1. Big Wheel
6822 Brooklyn Boulevard
Planning Commission Application No. 74009
Amount of Guarantee - $3,500.00 Bond
Obligor - National Auto Parts
Improvements have been installed in accordance with the approved plan.
A trash enclosure has recently been added behind the building.
Recommend total release.
2. Q Petroleum
1505 -69th Avenue North
Planning Commission Application No. 80040
Amount of Guarantee - $10,000.00 Bond
Obligor - Q Petroleum
All improvements have been installed in accordance with the approved
plan. Recommend total release.
3. Meriwether's Restaurant
2101 Freeway Boulevard
Planning Commission Application -No. 81003
Amount of Guarantee _ $5,000.00 Bond
Obligor Meriwether's Restaurant
All improvements have been installed in accordance with the-approved
plan and the site is well maintained. Recommend total release.
4. Pontillo's (Davannis) Pizzeria
5937 Summit Drive
Planning Commission Application No.'81030
Amount of Guarantee $2,000.00 Bond
Obligor Pontillo`s Pizzerias
Original bond of $24,000.0.0` was reduced to $2,000.00 to insure re-
placement of five or six shade trees around the perimeter greenstrip.
These trees have been replaced, but one tree has been blown over in
the wind. Recommend total release upon tree being brought to upright
position.
.5. Red Lobster
7235 Brooklyn Boulevard
-- Planning Commission Application No. 82011 `
Amount of Guarantee $5,000.00 Bond
Obligor - Sigmacon
Original bond of $60,000.00 was reduced to $5;000.00 to insure
viability of landscaping through last winter. Some shrubs have
Memo to Ronald A. Warren
September 8, 1983
Page 2
been replaced. All landscaping is viable; however, a break in
the opaque fence along the south side of the off -site lot must be
, repaired. Recommend total release upon completion of fence repair.
6. Earle Brown Farm Estates 1st, 2nd and 3rd Additions
Freeway Boulevard, west of Xerxes Avenue North
Planning Commission Application Nos. 81039, 81060 and 82024
Amount of Guarantees - Phase I- $25,000..00; Phase II- $35,000.00; Phase I11- $25,000.00
Obligor DeVries Builders, Inc.
Paving and curbing have been installed in these three phases of the Earle
Brown Farm Estates. Almost all sodding is in. Some trees have been
planted, but about 40 -45 remain to be planted, probably this Fall. Most
of these are decorative trees, but some are shade trees, including about
five 6" diameter trees required by ordinance. Recommend releasing the
t bonds for the 1st and 2nd Additions and reducing the bond for the 3rd
Addition from $25,000.00 to $15,000.00 to insure that remaining landscaping
is installed and viable through the winter. This action should, however,
be conditioned upon receiving from DeVries Builders, Inc., a letter
acknowledging that the remaining improvements in the 1st and 2nd Additions
must be completed prior to release of the bond for the 3rd Addition.
7. Shingle Creek Plaza II
2700 Freeway Boulevard
Planning Commission Application No. 81065
Amount of Guarantee - $80,000.00 Bond
Obligor - Lund - Martin Construction Company
Almost all landscaping has been installed and is viable. The parking lot
has been paved and curb and gutter is installed around parking and driving
areas except along the east side of the east driveway. This driveway is
to be shared with Shingle Creek Plaza I when that development is built.
Recommend reducing bond from $80,000.00 to $5,000.00 to insure eventual
completion of remaining improvements.
Approve
ff .
y C.A.
Rofiafld A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection
-
PROCLAMATION
DECLARING SEPTEMBER 17 THROUGH 23 AS CONSTITUTION WEEK
WHEREAS, September 17, 1983, marks the one hundred ninety -sixth anniversary of
the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America by
the Constitutional convention; and
WHEREAS, To accord official recognition to this memorable anniversary, and to
the patriotic exercise that will form a noteworthy feature of the
occasion, seems fitting and proper; and
WHEREAS, Public Law No. 915 guarantees the issuing of a proclamation each year
by the President of the United States of America designating September 17
through September 23 as Constitution Week.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Dean Nyquist by virtue of the authority vested in me as Mayor
of the City of Brooklyn Center in the State of Minnesota do hereby
,proclaim the week of September 17 through 23 as Constitution Week,
special attention during that week to our Federal Constitution and
the advantages of American Citizenship.
In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of
the City to be affixed this twelfth day of September in the year
of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eighty -three and the Independence
of the United States of America, the two hundred and seventh.
Date Mayor
Seal
Attest
Clerk
t
9 a,
Extract of Minutes of Meeting
of the City Council of the City
of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Pursuant to due call and *notice thereof a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was
held at the City Hall in said City on Monday, September 12, 1983,
commencing at 7:00 o'clock P.M.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
The following resolution was presented by Councilmember
who its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE
AND SALE OF $930,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION
TAX INCREMENT BONDS OF 1983
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council, of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota (City) as follows:
Section 1. Findings
1.01. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of
Brooklyn Center (HRA) has established a housing- development project
(Project) and has proposed a housing development plan. and program
(Housing Plan) for the Project.
1.02. The HRA 'has also proposed and adopted a Tax Increment
Financing .Plan (TIF "Plan) for a Housing Tax Increment District (TIF
District) to provide financing for - the Project.
1.03. The Housing Plan, the Project, the TIF Plan and the TIF
District have been adopted by the HRA to- provide assistance for a
housing project in the City generally known the Brookwood Division
Housing Development District.
1.04. This Council has pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
462.411 to 462.716, (Housing Act) and Minnesota Statutes, Section
273.71 to 273.78, (TIF Act) conducted the required public hearings and
has approved the Project, the Housing Plan, the TIF Plan and the TIF
District.
1.05. The HRA has requested the City to issue and sell its
General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds of 1983 (Bonds) to provide all
or a portion of the financing necessary for the Project.
1.06. It is hereby' found that it is necessary and desirable to
the sound financial management of the City and the achievement of its
housing goals aad those of the HRA that the City issue the Bonds.
Section 2. Project Costs: Sale of Bonds
j 2.01. The public development costs of the Project as identified
in the TIF Plan are presently estimated to be as follows:
Land Acquisition (net of resale) $338,460
Surveying 7,500
Legal 43,270
Public Utilities' 316,600
Interim Interest 43,000
Miscellaneous 4,870
Capitalized Interest 140,000
Costs of Issuance 20
Total $913,700
2.02. In order to provide financing for the costs of the Pro-
ject ' the City shall therefore issue and sell Bonds in the amount of
$913,700. In order to provide in part the additional interest
required to market the Bonds at this time additional Bonds shall be
issued in the amount of $16,300. Any excess of the purchase price of
the Bonds over the sum of $913,700 shall be credited to the debt
service fund for the Bonds for the purpose of paying interest first
coming due on such additional Bonds The Bonds shall be issued and
sold in accordance with the terms of the following Official Terms of
Bond Sale:
• i
l
OFFICIAL TERMS OF OFFERING
$930,000
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS OF 1983
Sealed bids for the Obligations will be opened by the City Council on Monday, October 17, 1983,
at 7:00 P.M., Central Time, at the City Hall in Brooklyn Center. Consideration of the bids for
award of the Obligations will immediately follow the opening ' of- the bids.
DETAILS OF THE OBLIGATIONS
The Obligations will be dated November I, 1983 and will bear interest payable on February I and
August 1 of each year, commencing ,February I, 1984. The Obligations will be general•
obligations of the Issuer for which the Issuer will pledge its full faith and credit and power to
levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition.the Issuer will pledge incremental taxes from
the City's Tax Increment Financing District for the Brookwood Division Housing Development
District. The Obligations will be in integral multiples of $5,000, and fully registered as to
principal and interest. The proceeds will be used to finance the public costs involved in the
development of the City's above referenced Tax Increment Financing District.
The Obligations will mature February 1, in the amounts and years as follows:
1 5,000 1986 100,000 1992 -1995
55,000 1987 125,000 1996
60,000 1988 60,000 1997
75,000 1989 -1991 -
*he' Issuer may elect on February 1,' 1992, and on any interest payment date thereafter, to
prepay Obligations due on or after February I, 1993. Redemption may be in whore or in part of
the Obligations subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, those Obligations 'remaining
unpaid which have the latest maturity date will be prepaid first. If only part of the Obligations
having o common maturity date are called for prepayment the specific Obligations to be prepaid
will be chosen by lot by the Registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par and accrued '
interest.
TYPE OF BID
A sealed bid for not less than $913,700 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the
Obligations shall be filed with the undersigned prior to the time set for the opening of bids. Also
prior to the time set for bid opening a certified or cashier's check in the amount of $9,300,
payable to the order of the Issuer, shall have been filed with the undersigned or SPRINGSTED
Incorporated, the Issuer's Financial Advisor. No bid will be considered for which said check has
not been filed. The check of the Purchaser will be retained by the Issuer as liquidated damages
in the event the Purchaser fails to comply with the accepted bid. No bid shall be withdrawn
after the time set for opening bids, unless the meeting of the Issuer scheduled for consideration
of the bids is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Obligations
having been made. Rates offered by Bidders shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%.
No rate for a maturity shall exceed the rate specified for any subsequent maturity by more than
1.0%. No rate nor the net effective rate for the entire Issue of the Obligations shall the
maximum rate permitted by law. Obligations of the some maturity shall bear a single rate from
the date of the Obligations to the date of maturity.
'AWARD
The Obligations will be awarded to the Bidder offering the lowest dollar interest cost .to be
2.03. The City Manager -Clerk is authorized and directed to
advertise the Bonds for sale in accordance with the foregoing Official
Terms of Bond Sale and to cause the abbreviated notice of sale
attached hereto as Exhibit A, to be published in the manner required
by law. The City Council shall meet on Monday, September 26, 1983, at
7 :00 o'clock p.m. for the purpose of considering sealed bids on the
Bonds and taking any other appropriate action.'
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was
duly seconded by Councilmember and upon vote
being taken thereon, the following voted in favor of the motion:
and the following voted against:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
EXHIBIT A
NOTICE OF BOND SALE
$930,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION
TAX INCREMENT BONDS <OF 1983
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
HENNEPIN COUNTY
These bonds will be offered for sale on sealed bids on Monday,
October 17, 1983.
Bids will be accepted by the undersigned until 7:00 P.M., Central Time
at the City Hall, when they will be opened and acted upon by the City
Council. The Bonds will be dated November 1, 1983, will bear interest
payable semiannually on each February 1 * and August 1 to maturity,
commencing February 1, 1984, and will mature on February 1 in the
amounts and years as follows:
YEAR AMOUNT YEAR AMOUNT
1986 $ 5,000 1992 -1995 $100,000
1987 55,000 1996 125,000
1988 60,000 1997 60,000
1989 -1991 75,000
Bonds maturing after February 1, 1992, will be subject to redemption
and prepayment on that date and thereafter.at par plus accrued inter-
est. No rate of interest nor the net effective rate of the issue may
exceed the maximum rate permitted by law. Bidders must specify a
price of not less than $913,700 plus accrued interest. A legal
opinion on the Bonds will be furnished by LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy,
O'Brien & Drawz, a Professional Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The proceeds of the Bonds will be used to finance public development
costs in a housing tax increment financing district in the City.
Bidders should be aware that the Official Statement of Offering to be
published in the the Official Statement for the Offering may contain
additional bidding terms and information relative to the Issue. In
the event of a variance between statements in this Notice of Bond Sale
and said Official Terms of Offering, the provisions of the latter
shall be those to be complied with.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
/s/ Gerald Splinter
City Manager -Clerk
Dated: September 12, 1983.
Further Information:
Springsted Incorporated -
800 Osborn Building
St. Paul, Minnesota
(612) 222 -4241
t
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City
Manager- Clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, do hereby
certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing
extract of a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on
Monday, September 12, 1983, with the ori&l:nal thereof on fide in my
office and the same is a full, true and correct copy thereof, insofar
as the same relates to the issuance and sale of $930,000 General Obli-
gation Tax Increment Bonds of 1983, of the City.
WITNESS My hand as such City Manager -Clerk and the corporate
seal of the City this day of , 1983.
City Manager - Clerk
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
(SEAL)
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
$930,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS OF 1983
STUDY NO. 2693
18 August 1983
SPRINGSTED Incorporated
C
71 SPRINGSTED
INCORPORATED
PUBLIC FINANCE
ADVISORS
18 August 1983
Mayor Dean Nyquist
Members, City Council
Mr. Gerald Splinter, City Manager- Clerk
Mr. Paul Holmlund, Finance Director
Mr. Brad Hoffman Administrative Assistant
City Hal(
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
RE: Recommendations for the Issuance of $930,000 General Obligation Tax
Increment Bonds of 1983
We respectfully request your consideration of our recommendations for the
issuance of these bonds in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in
the attached proposed "Official Terms of Offering." This bond issue finances
the public costs associated with the development of the tax increment financing
district known as the Brutger Proposal at Brookwood Division Housing
Development District. The composition of the bond issue has been determined
as follows;
Land Acquisition $377
Less; Sale Price (39,429
Net Write -Down $338,460
Surveying 7 500
Legal 43,270
Public Utilities 316,600
Interest on Borrowed Funds 43, 000
Miscellaneous 4
Subtotal $753,700
Capitalized Interest 140,000
Bond Issuance Expenses 20
Allowance for Discount Bidding 16,300
Total Bond issue $930,000
A provision has been made in the bond issue to pay $43,000 of interest on money
which has been borrowed from other City funds to make project expenditures
pending receipt of these bond proceeds. An additional $140,000 of interest has
been capitalized in the issue for the purpose of making interest payments on
these bonds until such time as tax incremental revenues are sufficient to carry
the debt service on these obligations. Since substantially all of the bond
800 Osborn Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 (612) 222 -4241
250 North Sunnyslope Road, Brookfield, Wisconsin 53005 (414) 782 -8222
Recommendations - City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
18 August 1983
Page 2
proceeds will be expended upon settlement of the issue, no allowance for
interest earnings has been made in determining the issue size.
We have included an allowance for discount bidding in the amount of $16,300 to
permit the successful purchaser to take up to $16,300 of the principal amount
to cover profit and expenses. This permits the purchaser to resell the bonds
carrying approximately the same yield to the investor as the rate on the bonds,
thus eliminating the need to sell the bonds at a premium. We believe this will
add to the attractiveness of the issue and work to the benefit of the City.
Schedule A is the bond maturity schedule and the cash flow projection for this
issue. Columns I through 5 indicate the principal and estimated interest
payments due on the issue in each year of the program. Column 6 indicates the
projected tax incremental revenues from the development scheduled to occur
within the tax increment district. You will note the first number in column 6
includes the capitalized interest included in the bond issue.
The estimated tax incremental revenue is based on a significant amount of
housing construction within the district for which supporting calculations and
assumptions follow:
Estimated Tax Increment Income:
Lev
8 4
Assessed Value of TID 1/2/83 $ 87, 560( Per Assessor)
Less: Base Value 1/2/82 (9,560)
Incremental Value 78,0
Times Current Mill Rate x 93.54
Tax Incremental Revenue $ 7,300(Levy 83/84)
Levy 84/85
Assessed Value @ 1/2/84
65 Apartments, 85% Valuation $ 459,940
Less: Base Value (9,560
Incremental Value 450,380
Times Current Mill Rate x 93.54
Tax Incremental Revenue $ 42,130(Levy 84/85)
Levy 85186
Assessed Value @ 1/2/85
65 Apartments, 100% Valuation $ 541,110
73 Condominiums, 100% Valuation 735,700
34 Townhouses, 100% Valuation 386,100
Less: Base Value (9,560
Incremental Value $1,653,350
Times Current Mill Rate x 93.54
Tax Incremental Revenue $ 154, 660( Levy 85/86)
Recommendations - City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
18 August 1983
Page 3
Column 7 of Schedule A indicates annual surplus of revenue over estimated debt
service with column 8 being the cumulative surplus. You will note that column
8 indicates it may be possible to use surplus funds on hand to redeem in advance
of maturity some of the bonds maturing in the latter years. We have included
in the Official Terms of Offering a provision for early redemption of all bonds
maturing on or after February 1, 1993. This represents $485,000, or approxi-
mately 52% of the issue. These bonds will be prepayable on February 1, 1992 or
on any interest payment date thereafter, without penalty.
These bonds will be dated October 1, 1983 and mature on February I in the
years 1986 through 1997. A small principal maturity occurs in 1986 to comply
with the requirements of Minnesota law regarding maturing principal within
three years of the date of issue. Interest payments will be semiannual
commencing February 1, 1984 with the tax incremental revenue collected each
calendar year to be used to make the August 1 semiannual interest payment and
the following February I principal and semiannual interest payment. Interest
payments through February 1, 1 985 will total approximately $105,400 and will
be paid from the capitalized interest included in the bond issue. Payments due
on August 1, 1985 and February 1, 1986 will total approximately $84,050, and
will be available from the remaining capitalized interest plus the collections of
tax incremental income received through 1985. Thereafter, each year's
collection of tax incremental income should be sufficient to make that year's
August I interest payment and the following February I principal and interest
payment.
You will note on Schedule A that the recommended structure of this bond issue
provides for an annual surplus of estimated tax increment income over
estimated debt service, with cumulative surplus at the end of the program
totaling $267,515. This surplus is tempered somewhat by the fact that it
assumes 100% collection of taxes each year when in fact the City may expect a
small percentage of delinquencies. Also the calculation of tax incremental
revenue assumes the City's current mill rate of 93.54 mills will be maintained
throughout the life of the bonds, and that assessment ratios on property of the
type being developed will remain the some over the life of the issue. If the
state makes additional changes in assessment ratios and /or other legislative
changes adversely affecting either valuations.or local mill rates, as it has done
in the recent past, the tax incremental income will be lower than projected
levels.
To test the sensitivity of cash flow sufficiency against a potential decrease in
tax incremental revenues, we have included Schedule B, which decreases the
tax incremental revenue by 10% in all years, while maintaining the debt service
requirements at the level included in Schedule A. With this reduction in
revenue, Schedule B indicates the cash flow of the tax increment fund will
remain positive, with a minimal cumulative surplus, except for a single small
levy in 1984 in the estimated amount of $4,950. Thus, based on current
estimates, the recommended bond maturity schedule includes a margin for error
of approximately 10%.
Recommendations - City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
18 August 1983
Page 4
To enhance the sale of these bonds and also to protect the rating on the City's
outstanding obligations, we recommend you authorize SPRINGSTED
Incorporated to submit an application for a rating of this issue to Moody's
Investors Service in New York. We would be hopeful the City's credit rating
would be upgraded, but based on discussions with the rating agency on past
issues, and the uncertainty of public financing in Minnesota, we anticipate the
City's current rating of "A -I" may be maintained for this issue.
Interest rates in the bond market have been relatively stable for the past six
months, fluctuating less than one percent. Our estimate of 8.70% (including a
full discount) is based on today's market and any movement in rates between
now and the sale date may cause our estimate to be either under or overstated.
We recommend that bids for this issue be received by the Council at its regular
meeting on Monday, September 26, 1983 at 7:00 P.M. A representative of
SPRINGSTED Incorporated will be in attendance at the sale to assist in its
conduct and to make recommendations with respect to the acceptability of the
bids. Proceeds of the issue will be available in late October.
Respectfully submitted,
SPRINGSTED Incorporated
18 August 1983
BY
Wichard L. Treptow
Vice President
/gf ,
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA PREPARED AUGUST 17, 1983
$93.0,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BY SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED
TAX INCREMENT BONDS OF 1983
SCHEDULE A
DATED: 10/ 1/1983
MATURE: 2/ 1
8.500% ANNUAL
COUPON INCREMENT SURPLUS/ CUMULATIVE ANNUAL
LEVY MATURE PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL INCOME (- DEFICIT) SURPLUS LEVY
(1 � (2) ( (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9 )
1983 1985 0l 105,400 105,400 147,300* 41,900 41,900 0
1984 1986 5,000 79,050 84,050 42,130 41,920- 0 20
1985 1987 55,000 78,625 133,625 154,660 21,035 21,035 0
1986 1988 60,000 73,950 133,950 154,660 20,710 41 0
1987 1989 75,000 68,850 143,850 154,660 10,810 52,555 0
1988 1990 75,000 62,475 137,475 154,660 17,185 69,740 0
1989 1991 75,000 56,100 131,100 154,660 23,560 93,300 0
1990 1992 100,000 49,725 149,725 154,660 4,935 98,235 0
1991 1993 100,000 41,225 141,225 154,660 13,435 111,670 0
1992 1994 100,000 32,725 132,725 154,660 21,935 133,605 0
1993 1995 100,000 24,225 124,225 154,660 30,435 164,040 0
1994 1996 125,000 15,725 140,725 154,660 13,935 177,975 0
1995 1997 60,000 5,100 65,100 154,660 89,560 267,535 0
TOTALS $930,000 $693,175 $1,623,175 $1,890,690 $267,515 $20
BOND YEARS: 8,155 COUPON INTEREST COST: $693,175 *INCLUDES CAPITALIZED
AVERAGE MATURITY: 8.77 DISCOUNT (PREMIUM): $16,300 INTEREST OF $140,
AVG. ANNUAL RATE: ' 8.700% TOTAL INTEREST COST: $709,475
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA PREPARED AUGUST 17, 1983
$930,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BY SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED
TAX INCREMENT BONDS OF 1983
SCHEDULE B
DATED: 10/ 1/1983
MATURE: 2/ 1
8.500% ANNUAL
COUPON INCREMENT SURPLUS/ CUMULATIVE ANNUAL
LEVY MATURE PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL INCOME (- DEFICIT) SURPLUS LEVY
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1983 1985 0 105,400 105,400 146,600* 41,200 41,200 0
1984 1986 5,000 79,050 84 37 46,150- 0 4,950
1985 1987 55,000 78,625 133,625 139,200 5 .5,575 0
1986 1988 60,000 73,950 133,950 139,200 5,250 10,825 0
1987 1989 75,000 68,850 143,850 139,200 4,650- 6,175 0
1988 1990 75,000 62,475 137,475 139,200 1,725 7,900 0
1989 1991 75,000 56,100 131,100 139,200 8,100 16,000 0
1990 1992 100,000 49,725 149,725 139,200 10 5,475 0
1991 1993 100,000 41,225 141,225 139,200 2,025- 3,450 0
1992 1994 100,000 32,725 132,725 139,200 6,475 9,925 0
1993 1995 100,000 24,225 124,225 139,200 14,975 24,900 0
1994 1996 125,000 15,725 140,725 139,200 1,525- 23,375 0
1995 1997 60,000 5,100 65,100 139,200 74,100 97,475 0
TOTALS $930,000 $693,175 $1,623,175 $1,715,700 $92,525 $4,950
BOND YEARS: 8,155 COUPON INTEREST COST: $693,175 *INCLUDES CAPITALIZED
AVERAGE MATURITY: 8.77 DISCOUNT (PREMIUM): $16,300 INTEREST OF $140,000
AVG, ANNUAL RATE: 8.700% TOTAL INTEREST COST: $709,475
OFFICIAL TERMS OF OFFERING
$930,000
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS OF 1983
Sealed bids for the Obligations will be opened by the City Council on Monday, September 26,
1983, at 7:00 PM., Central Time, at the City Hall in Brooklyn Center. Consideration of the bids
for award of the Obligations will immediately follow the opening of the bids.
DETAILS OF THE OBLIGATIONS
The Obligations will be dated October I, 1983 and will bear interest payable on February I and
August I of each year, commencing February I, 1984. The Obligations will be general
obligations of the Issuer for which the Issuer will pledge its full faith and credit and power to
levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the Issuer will pledge incremental taxes from
the City's Tax Increment Financing District for the Brookwood Division Housing Development
District. The Obligations will be in 'integral multiples of $5,000, and fully registered as to
principal and interest. The proceeds will be used to finance the public costs involved in the
development of the City's above referenced Tax Increment Financing District.
The Obligations will mature February 1, in the amounts and years as follows:
1 5 1986 100,000 1992- 1995.
55 1987 125,000 1996
60,000 1988 60 1997
75,000 1989 -1991
The Issuer may elect on February 1, 1992, and on any interest payment date thereafter, to
prepay Obligations due on or after February 1, 1993, Redemption may be in whole or in part of
the Obligations subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, those Obligations remaining
unpaid which have the latest maturity date will be prepaid first. If only part of the Obligations
having a common maturity date are called for prepayment the specific Obligations to be prepaid
will be chosen by lot by the Registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par and accrued
interest.
TYPE OF BID
A sealed bid for not less than $913,700 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the
Obligations shall be filed with the undersigned prior to the time set for the opening of bids. Also
prior to the time set for bid opening a certified or cashier's check in the amount of $9,300,-
payable to the order of the Issuer, shall have been filed with the undersigned or SPRINGSTED
Incorporated, the Issuer's Financial Advisor. No bid will be considered for which said check has
not been filed. The check of the Purchaser will be retained by the Issuer as liquidated damages
in the event the Purchaser fails to comply with the accepted bid. No bid shall be withdrawn
after the time set for opening bids, unless the meeting of the Issuer scheduled for consideration
of the bids is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Obligations
having been made. Rates offered by Bidders stall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or I/8 of I%.
No rate for a maturity shall exceed the rate specified for any subsequent maturity by more than
1.0%. No rate nor the net effective rate for the entire Issue of the Obligations shall exceed the
maximum rate permitted by law. Obligations of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from
the date of the Obligations to the date of maturity.
AWARD
The Obligations will be awarded to the Bidder offering the lowest dollar interest cost to be
determined by the deduction of the premium, if any, from, or the addition of any amount less
than par, to, the total dollar interest on the Obligations from their date to their final scheduled
maturity. The Issuer's computation of the total net dollar interest cost of each bid, in
accordance with customary practice, will be controlling.
The Issuer will reserve the right to: (i) waive non - substantive informalities of any bid or of
matters relating to the receipt of bids and award of the Obligations, (ii) reject all bids without
cause, and, (iii) reject any bid which the Issuer determines to have failed to comply with the
terms herein.
REGISTRAR
The Issuer will name the Registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations.
Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the Registrar and interest will be
payable by check or draft of the Registrar mailed to the registered holder of the Obligation at
his address as it appears on the books of the Registrar. The Issuer will pay reasonable and
customary charges for the services of the Registrar.
CUSIP NUMBERS
If the Obligations qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the
Obligations, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Obligation nor any error with
respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the Purchaser to accept delivery of
the Obligations. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification
numbers shall be paid by the Purchaser.
SETTLEMENT
Within 40 days following the date of their award the Obligations will be delivered without cost to
the Purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the Issuer and the Purchaser. Delivery will be
subject to receipt by the Purchaser of an approving legal opinion of LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy,
O'Brien & Drawz, Professional Association of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be
printed on the Obligations, and of customary closing papers, including a no- litigation certificate.
On the date of settlement payment for the Obligations shall be made in federal, or equivalent,
funds which shall be received at the offices of the Issuer or its designee not later than 1:00 P.M.,
Central Time of the day of settlement. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the
Obligations shall have been made impossible by action of the Issuer, or its agents, the Purchaser
shall be liable to the Issuer for any loss suffered by the Issuer by reason of the Purchaser's non-
compliance with said terms for payment.
At settlement the Purchaser will be furnished with a certificate signed by appropriate officers of
the Issuer to the effect that the Official Statement prepared for the Issuer did not as of the date
of the Official Statement, and does not as of the date of settlement, contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the
statements therein, in Fight of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
Upon request to the Issuer's Financial Advisor prior to the bid opening underwriters may obtain a
copy of the Official Statement. The Purchaser will be provided with 15 copies.
Dated August 22, 1983 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ls/ Gerald Splinter
City Manager -Clerk
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
p
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1983 -F
'(LIONS PARK TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -20,
PHASE II)
WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1983 -F signed with the City
of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Tennis West, Ltd. has satisfactorily completed
the following improvement in accordance with said contract:
LIONS PARK TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -20, PHASE II
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The work completed under said contract and supplemental agreement
is accepted and approved according to the following schedule:
Previously
Approved Final Amount
Original Contract $21,224.00 $21,224.00
Supplemental Agreement 1,997.50 1,997.50
TOTAL $23,221.50 $23,221.50
2. The value of the work performed is equal to the sum of the original
contract and supplemental agreement.
3. It is hereby irected that final payment be made on said contract,
Y P I'm
taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be
paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $23,221.50.
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.
qa
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1983 -H
- (51ST AVENUE NORTH WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -07)
WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1983 -H signed with the City
of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Hayes Contracting, Inc. has satisfactorily completed
the following improvement in accordance with said contract:
51ST AVENUE NORTH WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -07
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The work completed under said contract, is accepted and approved
according to the following schedule:
Previously
Ap2roved Final Amount
Original Award $26,958.00 $26,392.40
2. The value of work performed is less than the original contract
amount by $565.60 due to a general overestimation of planned
quantities.
. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract,
taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be
paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $26,392.40.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof: ,
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
i
{
introduced the following resolution
Member n g _ and
moved its adoption:
i RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1983 -C
(WELL NO. 3 RECONDITIONING PROJECT NO. 1983 -03)
WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1983 -C signed with the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, A & K Construction, Inc. has satisfactorily completed
the following improvement in accordance with said contract:
WELL NO. 3 RECONDITIONING PROJECT NO. 1983 -03
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved
according to the following schedule:
Previously
Approved Final Amount
Original Award $43,120.00 $43,120.00
2. The value of work performed is equal to the original contract
amount.
3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract,
taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be
paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $43,120.00.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same;.
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
s
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
i RESOLUTION NO.
_
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1983 -13, ACCEPTING BID FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK IN EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES
TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of a subdivision agreement executed
by the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and the developer of Earle Brown
Farm Estates Townhouse Development, the City has been granted an easement for
the purpose of public sidewalk construction within said development; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has received quotations for the construction
of said public sidewalk in Earle Brown Farm Estates Townhouse Development, said
quotations as follows:
Bidder Quotation
Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. $6,657.50
DNCON (Arnold Beckman, Inc.) $7,285.50'
Dakota Rhoads Masonry (for DeVrles Builders, Inc.) $7,699.00
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has advised the City Council that the
quotation of Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc., in the amount of $6,657.50, is
the lowest responsible bid received and recommended that a contract be awarded
to said firm in that amount.
.� NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The proposed sidewalk improvement shall be established as:
EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1983 -13
2. The bid of Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc., in the amount of
$6,657.50 is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City Manager are
hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with
said firm in that amount.
3. All others are hereby rejected
4. Financing for the sidewalk construction shall be by appropriation
of funds from the City Municipal State Aid Fund Account No. 2600.'
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of 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
d �
OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
111111LIF— 7,;
R(1 ®u -VN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
v 111 i TELEPHONE 561 -5440
EMERGENCY— POLICE —FIRE
ENTER
911
TO: Gerald C. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Publ Works
DATE: .September 9, 1983
RE: Sidewalk Construction in Earle Brown Farm; Estates Townhouse Development
(Improvement Project No. 1983 -13)
In accordance with the provisions of a subdivision agreement executed in conjunction
with the platting of the referenced development, the developer has provided a
sidewalk easement for construction of a public walkway within the development.
The walkway is necessary to provide access from -the residential neighborhood
adjacent to "old" Xerxes 'Avenue to Freeway Boulevard and the City's network
system.
Staff considers it most advantageous to construct the walk now, as the developer
completes the street construction and landscaping within the vicinity of the
easement. Accordingly, the staff has requested three contractors to provide
quotations for the work; with the low quotation submitted by Thomas & Sons
Construction, Inc. Thomas & Sons Construction, Inca has completed many projects
for the City within the last three years; therefore, staff recommends their
proposal, in the amount of $6,657.50 be accepted by the City Council. As noted
on the accompanying resolution, financing will be from the City's local Municipal
State Aid Fund Account No. 2600.
Respectfully submitted,
SK: jn
I
••• llse omce ezzy
J
� W
a o
I
z v'
W �
0 f Z
cr Q F.
(D h
' W k
W L,j
0 4 ,
/ , '+,�/ � '
! /i.�p ! + � ,�!' 1 i'� i % i . �_ -"-\ �d�• r \ �,� I � 1 �� 1 ' ��r �d1� 11•r .Sr 1:�.._� �.'1r •';,' �3 !' '/'
�• r r' '/) \ ►1 11 iili �I �_•!I. �j 1 -, �� Y '(J, �' ,4' / , /'•. �'
/�' \• •: ` j ...� • L"'T 2nQ'
tij
!� � `per • �" ���� �, • � ' 1 � Z• . .`.', / � • /r� 4 \_ � .•_`f � � � _" �� ' :.u� /i �. - I
Qp P + � p � , �y��� ' ��� `/ /���_�� � r• % 1 �ds«. f r•; ;.�- j� 1/ � T _- _�� S1J r. -.r
c�``k' �►..\��r�S •: - ��•' ��<� LS 1 .� - ��i��..�_'J •_ - -_ `�-.
Qj
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
'RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1983 -I
(PARK SHELTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1983 -10)
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project
No. 1983 -10 bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and
City Engineer, on the 11th day of August, 1983. Said bids were as follows:
Base Alternate Completion
Bidder Bid Ainount No. 1 Date
Crowley Company $69,800.00 ($4,000.00) 11/15/83 '
Kloster Madsen, Inc. $71,900.00 ($3,900.00) 12/01/84
Morcon Construction' $72,800.00 ($3,800.00) 12/15/83
Superior 77, Inc. $76,725.00 ($3,940.00) 11/30/83
Benoy Bros. Const. Co., Inc. $77,810.00 ($3,000.00) 11/30/83
Construction General, Inc. $78,750.00 ($5,051.00) 60 Days
Olson Concrete Company $79,972.00 ($4,000.00) 12/01/83
Falls & Nyhusmoen Const., Inc.$88,793.00 ($3,000.00) 12/15/83
Gem Construction $88,872.00 ($3,600.00) 12/15/84
WHEREAS, it appears that Crowley Company of Blaine, Minnesota, is the
lowest responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesotan
1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $69,800.00 in
the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project
No. 1983 -10 according to the plans and specifications therefor ,
approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the
City Clerk.
2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith
to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the
deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall
be retained until a contract has been signed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that:
1. The estimated total cost of Improvement Project No. 1983 -10 is
hereby amended according to the following schedule:
As Ordered As Bid
Contract Cost $57,420.00 $69,800.00
Engineering Cost 7,000.00 6,000.00
Administrative Cost 580.00 698.00
$65,000.00 $76,498.00
2. The appropriation of funds.to finance Improvement Project No.
1983 -10 shall be as follows:
General Fund Budget, Division 69 (Parks Maintenance) $47,037.92
Capital Projects Fund, Division 88 (Neighborhood Parks) $29,460.08
TOTAL $76.498.00
RESOLUTION N0.
3. The Finance Director is hereby authorized and directed to
appropriate $30,000.00 from the Unallocated Fund Balance of
the Capital Projects Fund for placement in Capital Projects
Fund, Division 88 to finance its cost share of Improvement
Project No. 1983 -10.
4. The 1983 General Fund Budget is amended to appropriate
$2,600.00 to the Parks Maintenance Capital Outlay Account
to be financed by Federal Revenue Sharing Funds, said
appropriation to finance the increased cost share of
Improvement Project No. 1983 -10 not comprehended in the
1983 Budget allocation.
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.
g
M C No. 83-6
September 8, 1983.
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER -
Improvement
Subject: Bid .Award 1983 Par k Pro jects
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council:
The resolution before you authorizes the award of bid on these projects to the low
bidder, Crowley Company, whose low bid was $68,900 and authorizes the transfer of
$30,000 from the Capital Improvements Fund balance to the Neighborhood Parks Bond
Fund account.
When our architect developed specifications for these projects, he estimated that
appropriations for the Bellvue roofing and Kylawn renovation were generous, and the
appropriations for the Freeway Park shelter building, toilet and dumpster
enclosures were too low. Our estimates for the toilet and dumpster enclosures
developed as a part of the bond issue, were about five years old. Our interest in
making the Freeway Park shelter building as.vandal proof as possible and still be
aesthetically pleasing contributed to this cost overrun. Our architect also
advised us the dumpster enclosures could be built cheaper if less durable designs
and materials were used. Your staff believes this would be false economy as these
dumpster enclosures, unless very well built, quickly become an unsightly
maintenance problem.
We considered two options. The first being to award the bid for the complete
project and the second option considered was to award the bid for the Bellvue
roofing, Kylawn renovation and the Freeway shelter and the toilet enclosures, and
rebid the dumpster enclosures next year.
We recommend the first option for the following reasons:
1: Award of the complete project would complete the last of the major
improvements in our neighborhood parks, which were contemplated in the Park
Improvement Bond Program, on schedule.
2. We don't believe we can get abetter price next spring for construction of
the dumpster enclosures. We base this on the fact that most bidders on the
current project bid the enclosures higher than the original estimates, and
the fact that some inflation will occur by the time of the rebidding.
We recommend the additional appropriation to maintain the current approximate
$17,000 balance in the Neighborhood Parks account. This balance is intended to
"finish up" certain parks with additional benches, plantings and additional curb
r vements at Twin hake
and tier imp ark. o p
Res ct llY s m
Gerald G. Spli r
City Manager
CITY BROOKLYN CENTER
i
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING CENTRAL
PARK TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1983 -12, PHASE I,
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT
FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1983 -L)
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a report from the City Engineer
regarding the feasibility of completing soil corrections for the proposed
Central Park tennis courts at an estimated cost of $102,710.00; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary and in the best interests
of the City of Brooklyn Center to complete said improvement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer's Report is hereby accepted.
2. The following improvement is hereby established and ordered
constructed:
CENTRAL PARK TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1983 -13, PHASE I
3. The plans and specifications for said improvement as prepared by"
the City Engineer ar mpproved and ordered filed with the -City
Clerk.
4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least
twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin
an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement
under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement
shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date for
receipt of bids,-and specify the work to be done, state that said
bids will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 -A.M. on September
29, 1983, at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council
Chambers at City Hall by the City Clerk and City Engineer, will
then be tabulated and will be considered by the City Council at
7:O0 P.M. on October 3, 1983, in the Council Chambers, and that no
bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City
Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid
bond, or certified check payable to the City for 5 percent of
the amount of such bid.
5. The accounting for Improvement Project No. 1983 -13 shall be done
in the Capital Projects Fund Division 56.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
•
RESOLUTION NO.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared.duly passed and adopted.
CITY
OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
'Row ROOKLYN
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
C ENr"ER
EMERGENCY— POLICE —FIRE
911
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM; Sy Knapp, 'Director of Public Works
-DATE: September 9, .1983
RE: Central Park Tennis Court Improvement Project No. 1983 -12
In accordance with the proposed Central Park Development Plan, staff has prepared
plans and specifications for the soil correction . pahse (Phase I) of the Central
Park Tennis Court improvement project. It is proposed that the scope of the
soil correction project provide for future construction of four tennis courts
within the open space area southerly of the F.A.I. 94 noise wall and right of
way fence and westerly .of Shingle Creek.
Design considerations adopted for the proposed soil correction phase provide
for removal of poor soils and placement of stable subgrade material in 1983.
Completion of Phase II of the project in the summer of 1984 will allow the,
necessary time for any subgrade settlement that may occur with the fluctuation
of the Shingle Creek water level and its effect on the ground water table.
A summary of the estimated ,project costs related to the soil correction phase
is as follows:
Construction Cost $81,200
Contingencies 12,180
SUBTOTAL 93,380
Engineering (9% of Construction Cost) 8,400
Administration (1% of Construction Cost) 930
TOTAL PROJECT COST $102,710
It is proposed that funding for the project be from the Capital Projects Fund,
Division No. 56.
The proposed project, as described above, is feasible under the conditions stated
at the costs estimated. It is recommended the proposed project be presented to
City Council for review and consideration at its September 12, 1983 meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
SK' j n •• 7!e $o.,cct�it+cg ?Lau Cam
' rr
i
• \ � /' '��• � .� / /,f / \ I, 1,
CEO T 1. PAPR
CITY
OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
O BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
R B
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
EMERGENCY— POLICE -FIRE
C ENTER . 911
T0: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works
DATE: August 31, 1983
RE: Establishment of "Maintenance Worker" Position in the Government
Buildings Division
The 1983 budget for the Government Buildings Division includes provision for
establishment of a "Maintenance Worker" position. However, this position has
not yet been established and is not included in the 1983 Position and Classifi-
cation Plan.
I hereby request that this position now be established and that the Position and
Classification Plan be amended to include the position. The primary reason for
this request is to assure that one emplo ee is rimaril responsible for
a I Lit en �n all Cit -own d J Because our
le u o ian does not have the now a ge, skills and abilities needed in
this area, these responsibilities have been assigned to various "Custodians ".
While some custodians accept such assignments willingly, others have been very
reluctant to accept those responsibilities without salary recognition. In any
event it is very difficult to hold these employees responsible when the work
assigned is well outside their job description. It is my opinion that this -
change must be made to assure us of the ability to properly operate and maintain
the complex mechanical equipment contained in the Civic Center and other City
owned buildings.
A copy of the preliminary job description is -attached. j
Selection of Employee
It is my belief that one of our existing custodians will be able to qualify for
this position through the promotional appointment procedures. And, as indicated
in the budget, it is our intent that the total number employees within the
division will not increase, ie: We now have 1 Chief Custodian and 5 Custodians.
With the change we would have 1 Chief Custodian, 1 Maintenance Worker and 4
Custodians. '
Monthly Wage Schedule
f
The 1983 budget provided funding for this position on the basis-of the Going
Rate = T23C = $1,642 per month.
y
"' flit $o.�ccte�cutg Mau &V '
August 31, 1983 - G.G. Splinter
Page 2
After re- evaluation of the responsibilities involved, I believe that the
responsibilities involved are equal to or greater than those for the "Light
Equipment Operator" position within the Street and Park Divisions. The 1983
rate for Light Equipment Operators is- $10.25 per hour = $1,777 per month; with
a starting rate of $9.225 per hour = $1,599 per month. Accordingly, I recommend
that the Maintenance Worker position be established with a Starting Rate of
T24A = $1,526 per month, with a Going Rate of T26C = $1,768 per month, and
with a Maximum Rate of T28C = $1,857 per month. (See attached Schedule D and
0 -1 from the 1983 Pay Plan.)
I believe this classification is fully compatible with existing classifications
for other positions within this division, ie:
Grade Range Monthly Wage Rates
Position Minimum Going Maximum Minimum Going Maximum
Chief Custodian S14A S16C S18C $1648 ; $1909 $2006
Maintenance. Worker (Proposed) T24A • T26C T28C 1526 1768 1857
Custodian T20A. T20C .T21C 1383 1525 1563
Because the appointment will be made on a promotional basis and because there are
only 4 months remaining in the year, there is no problem in keeping 1983 expenses
within the budget.
A resolution is submitted for consideration by the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
j
SK: j n
CITY or- rf.Cr"I'I:IN C1"l;TEI 1T3 PG;;ITIC11 AID CIJ+:;:;IFICA"LIO1T PLAIT SLID DtTLP, C
TUC194'IC/1 L::L• CA'" A;:D t;C;J:ILLY IiATI•:S TECI9Ii td.- C.U111,IC;.L
PLATT
GRADE RAI GE MONTHLY WAGE MTGE
FROM SCIIEDULE D -1 FROM SCHEDULE D -1.
k�'pr-
GOING GOING ' FROP7
POSITIOPI MINII04 RATE MLAXDRR4 IIINIMUM RATE MAXIMUM OVERTI^!E
Engineering Technician IV T31A T33C T37C 1814 2102 2320 No
Engineering Technician III T25A T27C T31C 1564 1812 2000 No
Engineering Technician II T21 T23C T25C 1417 1642 1725 No
Service Garage .Clerk T21 A T21 C T23C 1417 1563 1642 No
Custodian T20A T20C T21 1383 1525 1563 No
Clerk V 'T14A T1 4C T1 SC 1192 1315 1451 No
erk N T11A T11C T14C 1107 1221 1315 C,No
Code Aiforcement Officer T12A T12C T13C 1135 1251 1283 No
Clerk III T9A + T9C -T10C' 1054 '1162 1191 No
Clerk II T5A T5C T6C 955 1053 1 079 No
y
•
.'^IK1M M. . Y.. A. �1' � .M...Mf�w/M�A...4.�.•�wl�^..�i •Y �....
CITY OP P•ROOt. N CI•3;TM 1 ()83 I7 ?I'I�()YF.i: fMITION Attu CIJISUIFICATIOII P i CHEDUI.E D-1
TECHNICAL AID CI.IIRICAL POCITIONO' I•101 WAGE CM -MULE.
PROGRESSION STEPS MERIT STEPS
GRADES 86 1 08 954 1001 1051
Ti 5
T2 S87 931 977 1026 1078 ,
T3 909 954. 1002 1052 1105
T4 931 978 1027 1078 1132
• T5 • 955 1002 1053 1105 1161
T6 979 1028 1079 1133 1190
1 008 0 1161 1219
1080 1134 1190 1250
T8 10
T9 1054 1107 1162 1220 1281
T10 1080 1134. 1191 1250 1313
T11 1107 1163 1221 1282 1346
T12 .1135 1192 1251 1314 1379
T13 1163 1221 1283 1347 1414
T14 1192 1252 1315 1380 1449
T15 1222 1283 1347 1415 1486
T16 1253 1315 1381 1450 1523
16 1486 5 61
1
. T17 1 284 1348 1416
T18 1316 1382 1451 1524 1600
T19 1349 1416 1487 156.2 1640
T20 1383 1452 ._t525 1601 1681
T21 1417 1488 15631. 1641 1723
T22 1453 1525 _1602 1682 1766
T23 1642 1724 1810 ,
1 —1-5 _
_2 489
3
• 18
6
1 7 55
1
68 7
160 3
1 26 3
T2 5
T� 1564 1643 1725 1811 1902
T26 1604 1684 1768 1856 1949
T27 1644 1726 1812 1903 1998
T28 .1685. 1769 1857 1950 2048
T29 1727 1813 1904 1999 2
T30 ?7
1 0 1859 1951 2049 2152
T31 1814 1905 2000 2100 2205
T32 1860 1200 205 2 2207 2317
1 233 1906
T34 1954 2052 2154 2262 2375
T35 2003 2103 2248 2318 2434
136 2053 2155 - 2263 2376 2495
T37 2104 2209 2320 2436 2557
T 38 2157
2264 2378 2497 2621
• T39 2211 2321 2437 2559 2687
T40 2266. 2379 2498 2623 2754
NOP AL PROGRESSION: A is starting wage. Advance to Step E after six months.
3
probationary period. Advance,to Step C after eighteen months employment.
- C
Addition=-' grade advances in Step C, within the City authorized o
dimity, shall be at the discretion of the City Nanager.
CITY t:AT1P.G1 R' S LI^CREiIO2': Starting grade and •grade /step advances, within the
City Ccuncil authorized limits set for each position, stroll be at the discretion
of the City ?tanager. sent
. e A through E re re
advance St P
V I INTER VALS: Grades 1 through re �re.�ent 2 1 /2� �
1`ITi•�t I
approximatelY 5:L advances.
MMIT STF1 Merit steps shall only be awarded with expre.os approval of the City
Council.
Member
introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
.- RESOLUTION NO.
} RESOLUTION AMENDING 1983 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN'
� 3
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center
that Schedule D of the 1983 Employee-Position and Classification Plan is
hereby amended to add the position of Maintenance Worker with the following
grade range schedule: Exempt
Grade Range Monthly Wage Range From
From Schedule D=1 From Schedule D -1 Overtime
Going
Going
Minimum Rate maximum Minimum Rate Max imun►
Maintenance Worker T24A T26C T28C $1526 $1768 $1857 NO
Date Mayor
I
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.
1 !
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption: -
H
RESOLUTION NO.
i
RESOLUTION AMENDING 1983 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center
that Schedule D of the 1983 and Classification Plan is
hereby amended to add the position of Maintenance Worker with the following
grade range schedule:
Exempt
Grade Range Monthly Wage Range From
From Schedule D =1 From Schedule D -1 Overtime
Going Going
Position Minimum Rate Maximum Minimum Rate Maximum
Maintenance Worker T24A T26C T28C $1526 $1768 $1857 NO
Date Mayor
4 ATTEST:
�...� Clerk _
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing-resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
I
e
•
�
1
p ppp,-
CITY
OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
R OO K L Y N BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
EMERGENCY POLICE -FIRE
C E
911
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works
DATE: August 31, 1983
RE: Establishment of "Maintenance Worker" Position in the Government
Buildings Division
The 1983 budget for the Government Buildings Division includes provision for
establishment of a "Maintenance Worker" position. However, -this position has
not yet been established and is not included in the 1983 Position and Classifi-
cation Plan.
I hereby request that this position now be established and that the Position and
Classification Plan be amended to include the position. The primary reason for
this request is to assure that one employee is made primarily responsible for
maintaining the mechanical equipment in all City- owned buildings. Because our
"Chief Custodian" does not have the knowledge, skills and abilities' needed in
this area, these responsibilities have been assigned to various "Custodians ".
While some custodians accept such assignments willingly, others have been very
reluctant to accept those responsibilities without salary recognition. In any
event it is very difficult to hold these employees responsible when the work
assigned is well outside their job description. It is my, opinion that this
change must be made to assure us of the ability to properly operate and maintain
the complex mechanical equipment contained in the Civic Center and other City -
owned buildings
A copy of the preliminary job description is -attached.
Selection of Employee
It is my belief that one of our existing custodians will be able to qualify for
this position through the promotional appointment procedures. And, as indicated
in the budget, it is our intent that the total number employees within the
division will not increase, ie: We now have 1 Chief Custodian and 5 Custodians.
With the change we would have 1 Chief Custodian, l Maintenance Worker and 4
Custodians.
Monthly Wage Schedule
The 1983 budget provided funding for this position on the' basis of the Going
Rate T23C = $1,642 per month.
"')!se .So.�cetl:ccg matt ��"
.August 31, 1983 - G.G. Splinter
Page 2
After re- evaluation of the responsibilities involved, I believe that the
responsibilities involved are equal to or greater than those for the "Light
Equipment Operator" position within the Street and Park Divisions. The 1983
rate for Light Equipment Operators is- $10.25 per hour = $1,777 per month; with
a starting, ; rate of $9.225 per hour = $1,599 per month. - Accordingly, I recommend
that the Maintenance Worker position be established with a Starting Rate of
T24A = $1,526 per month, with a Going Rate of T26C = $1,768 per month, and
with - a Maximum Rate of T28C = $1,857 per month. (See attached Schedule D and
D -1 from the 1983 Pay Plan.)
I believe this classification is fully compatible with exi',sting classifications
for other positions within this division, ie:
Grade Range Monthly Wage Rates
Position Minimum Going Maximum Minimum Going Maximum
Chief Custodian S14A S16C S18C $1648 $1909 $2006
Maintenance Worker (Proposed) T24A - T26C T28C 1526 1768 1857
Custodian T20A. T20C T21C 1383 1525 1563
Because the appointment will be made on a promotional basis and because there are
only 4 months remaining in the year, there is no problem in keeping 1983 expenses
within the budget.
A resolution is submitted for consideration by the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
G
i
SK jn
I
i
CITY OF BROOKT.YN CENTER .
POSITION DESCRIPTTON
F`
TITLE:- Maintenance Worker
DEPARTMENT; Public Works
DIVISION: Government Buildings and Grounds
STATUS: Non Exempt
P
SALARY LEVEL: T22A to T24C
0
DATE WRITTEN: September 1, 1983
Position Summary:
Works under the direction of the maintenance supervisor. This position involves'
labor associated with the upkeep of the government buildings operated by the
City of Brooklyn Center.
Duties and Responsibilities:
Maintains mechanical equipment including scheduled oil changes and
greasing, belt and filter changes, and trouble shooting to determine
if professional maintenance is needed. The equipment includes air
conditioners, compressors, boilers, pumps and motors, pool filtration
systems, chemicali, feed equipment, weight room equipment, pool mainte -
nance equipment and cleaning equipment.
2. Performs minor carpentry work as needed throughout the buildings.
3. Performs minor electrical duties, but only when it is determined
AV that all power is ',off to the unit.
4. Performs various plumbing tasks.
' S.. Maintains the Civic Center pool. Analyzes the quality of the water
to make determinations regarding chlorine feed, backwashing filters,
pH and temperature adjustments. Makes any adjustments necessary to
keep the swimming pool water within given quality limits.'
6. Mows lawns, trims trees, lays sod, maintains lawn sprinkler systems,
plants trees or flowers and picks weeds as determined by the
nance supervisor.-
7. Shovels sidewalks, and removes any ice from building; walkways.
t 8." Maintains all building fire extinguishers. .Runs quarterly checks
to verify the contrition of all building extinguishers. Leaves
temporary extinguishers to replace those sent in for servicing.
9. Paints walls, floors, ceilings and equipment as needed.
10. Neatly maintains storage areas.
li. Maintains lights throughout the building, keeping all lighting
systems functional.
' 12. Maintains building components including windows, doors, baseboards,`
shelves, bathroomlfixtures, etc.
13. Repairs small equipment including motors, pumps, vacuums and
dawn mowers.
14.. Performs any cleaning assignment necessary-to keep up all building
appearances.
1S. Caulks and tuckpolnts brick, block, window and door.. spaces.
t� 16. Mixes and lays cement.
duties and Resnons ibilitie continued
17. 14eports to the supervisor any* equipment in need of further maintenance
or professional service work.
�. X 18. Other related work as required or instructed.
Knowledge, Skills and Abilities:
1. Working knowledge of boilers, motors, small pumps, chemical feed
equipment, compressors, etc.
2. Working knowledge of cleaning methods, materials and equipment.
34 Ability to operate power tools, and mechanical cleaning equipment.
4. Ability to perform minor electrical, plumbing,_ carpentry and
i►asonry work.
S. Ability to distinguish between maintenance work capable of being
performed in house and that which requires professional assistance.
6. Ability to follow oral and written instruction.
7. Ability to understand manuals and blueprints written for specific
equipment.
8. Ability to establish and maintain working relationship with supervisors,
and fellow workers.
9. Ability to work within the guidelines set up by the maintenance supervisor.
qualifications:
1. High school degree, GED_or equivalent experience:
2,. Possession of a vaild Minnesota Grade "C ", Second Class, Boiler Engineer's
License.
0
CITY OF.' Hicr,'17:1I1 C7 IT3 ?J-,PT(: -T•, rG; :Ii'ICH AID CLA22IFICAT1011 PLATT SCMDUTIT C
MITI l: ;1; C:,::itIC�n.L 1, 'd GI;�,L' 1'C,,� . A;;D f1G11 ILLY FATTL TECIQIICxSx- CLI:I,I(:;,L
PhATI
GRADE RANGE MONTHLY WAGE RANGE
FROM SCHEDULE D -1 FROM SCHEDULE D-1
EXTfi:PT
GOING GOING FROM
POSITION MINIMGM RATE MAXDIM4 MINIMUM RATE MAXIMUM OVERTIME
Engineering Technician IV T31A T33C T37C 1814 2102 2320 No
Engineering 'Technician III T25A T27C T31C 1564 1812 2000 No
Engineering Technician II T21A T23C T25C 1417 1642 1725 No
Service Garage .Clerk T21 . A T21 C T23C 1417 1563 1642 ITO
Custodian T20A T20C T21C 1383 1525 1563 No
4ierk erk V 'T1 4A T14C T1 SC 1192 1315 1451 No
IV T11 A T11 C T14C 1:107 1221 1315 :,No
Code Enforcement Officer T 2A T12C T13C 1135 1251 1283 No
Clerk III T9A T9C 110C 1054 - 1.162 1191 No
Clerk II T5A T5C T6C 955 1053 1079 No
I
-6-
CITY OP RROOM11 C11TFR 1983 Yi1PLOY-FT, POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLANS SCHEDULE D-1
TECIMICAL AIND CL ERICAL POSITIO[iS [• Oi1TIILY WAGE CI!EDLW-
t
PROGRESSION STEPS MERIT STEPS
GRADES 86 0 108 954 1001 1051
T2 887 931' 977 1026 1078
T3 909 954 1002 1052 1105
T4 931 978 1027 1078 1132
T5 •955 1002 1053 1105 1161
T6 979 1028 1079 1133 1190
T7 1003 1053 1106 1161 1219
T8 1028 1080 1134 1190 1250
T9 1054 1107 1162 1220 1281
T10- 1080 1134 ' 1191 1250 1313
T11 1107 1163 1221 1282 1346
T12 1135 1192 1251 1314 1379
T13 1163 1221 1283 1347 1414
T14 1192 1252 1315 1380 1449
T15 1222 1283 1347 1415 1486
T16 1253 1315 1381 1450 1523
T17 1284 1348 1 1486 1561
T18 1316 1382 1451 1524 1600
T19 1349 1416 1487 '1562 1640
T20 1383 .1452 —1525 1601 1681
T21 1417 1488 1563 1641 1723
T22 1453 1525 _- 1.602 1682 1766
T23 1489 =1-564_ 1642 1724 1810
T24 1526 1603 1683 1767 1855
T25 1564 1643 1725 1811 1902
T26 1604 1684 1768 1856 1949
T27 1644 1726 1812 1903 1998
T28 .1685 1769 1857 1950 204
T29 1727 1813 '1904 1999 2099-
T30 1770 1859 1951 2049 2152
T31 1814 1905 2000 2100 2205
T32 1860 1953 2050 2153 2260
T33 1906 2001 2102 2207 2317
T34 1954 2052 2154 2262 2375
T35 2003 2103 .2208 - 2318 2434
T36 2053 2155 - 2263 2376 2495
T37 2104 2209 2320 2436 2557
T38 2157 2264 2378 2497 2621
T39 2211 2321. 2437 2559 2687
T40 2266_ 2379 2498 2623 2754
NORMAL PROGRESSION: A is starting wage. Advance to Step E after six months
probationary period. Advance to Step C after eighteen months employment.
Additional grade advances in Step C, within the City Council authorized
limits, shall be at the discretion of the City Manager.
CITY C A11AGFR' S DI CRETIMI: Starting grade and-grade/step advances, within the
City Ccuncil authorized limits set for each position, shall be at the discretion
of the City Niana-ger.
INTERVALS Grades 1 through represent 2 1/2% advances. Steps.A throw E represent
approximately 5: advances.
KRIT STEPS: Merit steps shall only be awarded with express approval of the City
Council.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
POSITION DESCRIPTTON
,
TITLE Maintenance Worker
DEPARTMENT Public Works
DIVISION:
vernm Buildings
Go ent
and Grounds
Grou s
r
STATUS: Non Exempt
SALARY LEVEL: T22A to T24C
DATE WRITTEN: September 1, 1983
Position Summary;
Works under the direction of the maintenance supervisor. This position involves
labor associated with'the upkeep of the government buildings operated by the
City of Brooklyn Center.
Duties and Responsibilities:
1. Maintains mechanical equipment including scheduled oil changes and
greasing, belt and `filter changes, and trouble shooting to determine
if professional maintenance is needed. The equipment includes air
conditioners, compressors, boilers, pumps and motors, pool filtration
systems, chemical feed equipment, weight room equipment, pool mainte-
nance equipment and cleaning equipment.
2. Performs minor carpentry work as needed throughout the buildings.
3. Performs minor electrical duties, but only when it is determined
that all power is off to the unit.
4. Performs various plumbing tasks.
5.. Maintains the Civic Center pool. Analyzes the quality of the water
to make determinations regarding chlorine feed, backwashing filters,
PH and temperature adjustments. Makes any adjustments necessary to
keep the swimming pool water within given quality limits.
6. Mows lawns, trims trees, lays sod, maintains lawn sprinkler systems,
plants trees or flowers and icks weeds as determined b the mainte-
P Y
nance supervisor.
7. Shovels sidewalks and removes any ice from building walkways.
8.. Maintains all building fire extinguishers...Runs quarterly checks
to.verify the condition of all building extinguishers. Leaves
temporary extinguishers to replace those sent in for servicing.
9. Paints walls, floors, ceilings and equipment as needed.
10. Neatly maintains storage areas.
Maintains lights throughout the building, keeping all lighting
systems functional.
12. Maintains building components including windows, doors, baseboards,
_shelves, bathroom fixtures, etc.
13. Repairs small equipment .including motors, pumps-, vacuums and
lawn mowers.
14. Performs any cleaning assignment necessary : to keep up all building
appearances.
- IS. Caulks and tuckpoirits brick, block, window and door. spaces.
16. Mix
AS
es and lays cement.
Duties and Responsibilities: continued
17. Reports to the supervisor any equipment in need of further maintenance
or professional service work.
18. Other related work as required or instructed.
Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
1. Working knowledge of boilers, motors, small pumps, chemical feed
equipment, compressors, etc.
2. Working knowledge of cleaning methods, materials and equipment.
34 Ability to operate power tools, and mechanical cleaning equipment.
4. Ability to perform minor electrical, plumbing, carpentry and
V"onry york.
S. Ability to distinguish between maintenance work capable of being
performed in house and that which requires professional assistance.
6. Ability to follow oral and written instruction.
7. Ability to understand manuals and blueprints written for specific
equipment,
hi
re la
S. Ability to establish arid: maintain working Lions P with supervisors,
and fellow workers.
9. Ability to work within the guidelines set up by the maintenance supervisor.
qualifications:
1 degree, GED or equivalent experience:
o e
ch o
1. Highs g q
2. Possession of a vaild Minnesota Grade "C ", Second Class, Boiler Engineer's
License.
•
i t
i
,
G
�J
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
t
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE BROOKLYN CENTER VOLUNTEER FIRE
DEPARTMENT TO USE THE HOUSE AT 5501 ALDRICH AVENUE NORTH
IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR TRAINING PURPOSES
WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Volunteer Fire Department has requested
the Brooklyn Center City Council to authorize the use of the house at 5501 Aldrich
Avenue North, within the City of Brooklyn. Center, for the purpose of burning
for fire department training on September 17, 1983; and
WHEREAS, training drills are essential to maintain the effectiveness
of the Brooklyn Center Volunteer Fire Department; and
WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Volunteer Fire Department has obtained
permission from the property owner for the use of the house for training.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center hereby authorizes the use of the house'at 5501 Aldrich Avenue
North by the Brooklyn Center Volunteer Fire Department for training purposes
17
on September , 1983.
6
Mayor
Date.
'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.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter
FROM: Tom Bublitz, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Private Kennel License Application from Ellaina Marie.Isaac,
6325 Brooklyn Boulevard
DATE: September 9, 1983
Ms. Isaac has submitted an application for a private kennel license to be located
at the residence at 6325 Brooklyn Boulevard. As required by ordinance, a public
hearing has been scheduled for the September 12, 1983 City Council meeting. A
notice of the hearing has been sent to owners of property within 150 feet of the
applicant's property.
A copy of the public hearing notice, private kennel license application, and
ordinance is attached to this memorandum.
It should be pointed out that on August 6, 1983 Ms. Isaac was tagged by the City's
code enfprcement officer for violation of the City ordinance with regard to the
number of dogs kept at her residence. City ordinance requires that a private kennel
'license must be obtained if an individual has more than two dogs over the age of
six months. On August 6, 1983 Ms. Isaac was tagged for having five dogs at the
residence at 6325 Brooklyn.Boulevard, without obtaining a private kennel license. -
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
CITY COUNCIL
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Please take notice that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center will
hold a public hearing Monday, September 12, 1983 at approximately 7 :30 p.m.
in the City Hall Council Chambers, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to: consider
the application described below.
TYPE OF REQUEST: Private Kennel License
APPLICANT: Ellaina Isaac
ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: 6325 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center
BRIEF STATEMENT OF CONTENTS OF APPLICATION: Application for a Private Kennel
License to keep 5 dogs at the residence at 6325 Brooklyn Boulevard in
Brooklyn Center.
Res ct ly
Gerald Splinter
City C k
•
APPLICATION FOR PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
TO THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
I •
Date: - //- Y3
1. Applicant's Name (Last, First, Middle)
63-Q- S 13i? vc ? / L y/v I3 /3/ 0 k1 Y1 CaVZI!C'
2. Applicant's Address (Number, Street, City, State, Zip Code)
3. Address or Legal Description of Proposed Kennel
4. Attach a sketch or drawing with this application describing the construction
and operation of the proposed kennel, or, if the animals are to be confined
within the family dwelling unit, indicate this on the application.
7/ /C L
5.- Indicate number of animals to be confined within the proposed kennel,
together with their 22 . e,' breed , and sex
MAC
J /r/ R t_ ZZ 1/i t.S,4t X - / g Z c
6.; PLEASE NOTE: The license fee in the amount of $30.00 must be submitted
with this application.
Signature of Applicant
PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED APPLICATION AND ICENSE FEE TO: City Clerk City of
L Y . Y
Brooklyn Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430.
I
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE-
New License
Renewal License
License Period through
License Fee Received
i
I
II '
August 24, 1983
Ellaina Isaac
6325 Brooklyn Boulevard
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
Dear Ms. Isaac:
Your application for a private kennel license and license fee have been
received by the City of Brooklyn Center. Please be :advised that the City
Council will consider your application for a private kennel license at a'
public hearing scheduled for approximately 7 :30 p.m. on September 12, 1983
during the regular City Council meeting.
• As re ue;red b City Ordinance notice of the proposed hearing (enclosed)
5. Y Y ► P P g
has been mailed to all property owners within 150 feet of the proposed
kennel location.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or If I can be
of any assistance to you.
Sincerely,
Town Bublitx
Administrative Assistant
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
TB :pp
encs.
CHAPTER 1 - A11Ir (ALS
Section - -101. DEFINITIOES. The following terms, when used in this
ordinance, have the meaning-- ascribed to them:
1. Animal animal r:eans dogs and cats.
2. Animal Control Officer. Animal Control Officer means that person or
agency designated by the City Manager to control the keeping of animals
within Brooklyn Center.
3. -At large means an animal that is off the property of its owner and not
un der restraint.
4.- Comm ercial Kennel. Commercial kennel means any place limited to C2,
and I -2 zoning districts where the business of keeping, raising,
selling, boarding, . breeding, showing, treating, or grooming of dogs
and other animals is conducted, including pet shops, animal hospitals
and other establishments.
5. Family. Any of the following definitions shall apply:
a. A person or persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption,
together with any domestic servants or gratuitous guests,
maintaining a common household in a dwelling unit;
b. Group or foster care of not more than six (6) wards or clients
by an authorized person or persons, related by blood,
marriage,. or adoption, together with any domestic servants
or gratuitous guests, all maintaining a common household in
a dwelling unit approved and certified by. the appropriate
public agency;
c. A group of not more than five (5) persons not related by
blood, marriage, or adoption maintaining a common household
in a dwelling unit.
6. Owner. Owner means any person or the parent or guardian of a person
under 18 years of age who owns, keeps, or has custody of an animal in the
City of Brooklyn Center.
7. Person. Person means any person, firm, corporation, partnership,
joint venture or association.
8. Private Kennel means any premises zoned or used for R1 and R2 purposes,
as defined in the Brooklyn Center City Ordinances, on which three or
more dogs or four or more cats six months old or older, are kept or
harbored as pets and not for selling, boarding, showing; treating,
grooming or other commercial purposes.
_9. Under Restraint means an animal that is controlled by a leash or at heel
side a competent person having custody of it and obedient to that
person's commands, or within a vehicle being driven or parked on a
public street, or if it is within the property limits of its owner's
� premises. a
Section 1 -102. LICIIturS REQUIRED.
V. Dog Licences. 210 person shall own, harbor, keep or have custody of a
dog over six monk — age within the City of Brooklyn Center unless a current
license for such dog has been obtained as provided in this ordinance. Fach license
shall be valid for the duration of the effective period of the dog's rabies vaccine
as stated in the Compendium of Animal Rabies Vaccines published by the Conference of
State Public Health Veterinarians and the Center for Disease Control of the
Department of Health and Human Services. Dogs kept in a commercial kennel need not
be individually licensed.
2. Commercial Kennel License Every -person operating a commercial
kennel shall annually obtain from the City Clerk, upon authorization. by the City
Council, a commercial kennel license. Commercial kennel licenses shall be posted
in a conspicuous place within the licensed premises.
3. Private Kennel License Every person operating or maintaining a
private kennel shall annually obtain from the City Clerk, upon authorization by the
City. Council, a private kennel license.
Section 1 -103. LICENSE FEES. The license fee for each dog license, each
commercial license, each private kennel license, each duplicate license,
each renewal license, each impounding penalty, and the late penalty described
herein shall be as set forth - in Chapter 23 of Brooklyn Center Ordinances.
1. Iate Penalty. If any license required hereunder is obtained while the
dog is impoun7ed by the City, or after the required licensing period has commenced,
there shall be added to the regular license fee, a. late license penalty as provided
in Chapter 23 of Brooklyn Center Ordinances, provided, however, that any person who
acquires a dog after the start of a license year, or any person owns, keeps,
harbors, or has custody of a dog at the time of becoming a resident of the City, shall
be allowed 30 days to secure a license, without incurring any late license penalty.
2. Refunds, Prorating, and Transfers. .No dog license fee, commercial '
kennel license fee, or private kennel license fee shall be refunded or prorated, the
provisions of Chapter 23 of 'Brooklyn Center Ordinances notwithstanding. No
license required hereunder shall be transferrable.
Section 1-104. VACCINATION REQUIRED. The owner of every dog in Brooklyn
• Center shall cause such dog to be currently vaccinated for rabies. A certificate of
vaccination or other statement of the same effect executed by a licensed
veterinarian shall constitute prima facie proof of the required vaccination.
Section 1 -105. APPLICATION PROCEDURE AND ISSUANCE OF LICENSES.
Applications for all licenses required by this ordinance shall be made to the City
Clerk.
1. Dog License: The application for a dog license shall include the name
and address of the ou of the dog and such other information as the City Clerk shall
require. All applicants shall be of legal age. Applicants shall provide a
certificate issued by a doctor of veterinary medicine showing that the dog has been
vaccinated against rabies, the type of vaccine used, and the length of time the
vaccination is effective.
2. Issuance of Dor Tdcenre Upon receipt of the application, the license
- fee and proo a�ies vaccination, the City Clerk shall issue a metallic license
tag bea.rinL, the license number, the name of the City and the year and month when the
license period ends. The dog shall continuously wear a collar or harness to which
the license tag is firmly affixed. It shall be unlawful for any person to make or
Use a counterfeit tag.
3. Replacement of Lost DoF License. If any dog license tag is lost or
stolen, the app. ican vay o to n a new tag by surrending the license payment receipt
and by paying the charge for a duplicate license as provided in Chapter 23 of
Brooklyn.Center Ordinances.
4. Applica for Private Kennel. License or Commercial Kennel. License.
Initial application for a private�ennel license or a commercial kennel license
shall be made to the City Clerk. The application shall state the name and address of
the applicant, the property address or legal description of the proposed kennel
location, a sketch or drawing of the proposed kennel describing construction,
operation, and the approximate number of animals to be confined therein, together
with their age, breed., and sex, and together with the applicable license fee.
5. Hearing Required. A commercial kennel license application shall be
referred to the Public Health Sanitarian who shall review the kennel design and
operation and make a recommendation to the City Council on the adequacy thereof.
Applications for private kennel license and commercial kennel license shall be
-placed on the agenda of the City Council for a public hearing at the regular City
Council meeting next following 14 days after the application is received. riot less
than seven (7) days before the date of the public hearing, the City Clerk shall mail
notice of the hearing to the applicant and to the owners of property within 150 feet
of the proposed kennel location.' The failure of any owner to receive such notice
shall not invalidate the proceedings.
6. Council Approval. The City Council may approve the private kennel
license or commercial kennel license and may attach to such approval any conditions
necessary to insure compliance with this ordinance, with Chapter 19 of City
Ordinances, and any other condition necessary to protect the health, safety,
welfare, and property values in the immediate area. The City Council may deny a
private kennel license of a commercial kennel license upon finding that the '
establishment of the kennel would constitute a public nuisance, or would adversely
affect the health, safety, welfare or property values of the person residing,
living, or owning.property within the immediate area. The form of approval for a
license shall be the resolution of approval, a. certified copy of which shall be
forwarded to the applicant.
7. Renewal of License. A copy of the private kennel license or commercial
kennel license s al Te ro arded to the Director of Planning and Inspection who
shall maintain a register of kennel licenses. Subject to any time limitation set by
the City Council, the license shall be valid for a period of one year and until
October 1 of the then current calendar year and shall be renewable on October 1 of
each year thereafter by the City Clerk upon payment of a renewal license fee set
forth in Chapter 23 of Brooklyn Center Ordinances, only in the. event no complaint
regarding the kennel's operation has been received during the license year In the
event that no revocation of the license is made or contemplated by the City Council,
the license shall be renewable as set forth in this subdivision.
8. License P evocat i on. In the event a complaint has been received by City
officials, a report hereof s 1 be made to the City Council by the Director of
Planning Inspection and the City Council may direct the applicant to appear* to
show cause why the license should not be revoked. A license may be revoked for
violation of this ordinance, Chapter 19 of the Brooklyn Center Ordinances, or any
condition imposed at the time of issuance.
Section 1 -106. STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE I0:22=. . A private kennel shall
consist of an enclosed space in which all animals are confined when not under
restraint and constructed so as to prevent the animals from running at large.
Provision must be made to provide shelter during inclement weather. Every private
kennel shall be kept in good repair and shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary
condition. It shall be unlawful to maintain a private kennel in a way which
constitutes a violation of this ordinance, a nuisance under Chapter 19 of the City
Ordinances, or in violation of any condition imposed by the City Council at the time
the license is granted.
Section 1 -107. STAITbARDS FOR COI MmIELS. All commercial kennels
shall be e�3 signer, operated and maintained according to the following standards:
1. Commercial kennel floors and walls shall be constructed of impervious
materials and all structures, areas, and appurtenances shall be designed to
facilitate thorough and convenient cleaning. Commercial kennels shall be
adequately ventilated and all doors, windows, and other openings to the outside
shall be screened, May through October. The commercial kennels shall be provided
with adequate and potable water supplies and shall be equipped with sewer
facilities. Plans for all new commercial kennels and repairs or alterations to
existing commercial kennels must be filed with and approved by the City's Public
Health Sanitarian as.a condition of the license:
.2. Operating Standards. : The licensee, its agents and employees shall
~ operate and maintain the kennel in accordance with standards set out in Title 9,
Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 3, Section 3.100 through 3.106 of the United States
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, a copy of
which is adopted by reference.
Section 1 -108. KEE-PIIVG OF DOGS IS LIMITED. No family or family member
shall keep, harbor or have custody of more than two dogs exceeding six months of age
in the family dwelling unit or on the family= premises without obtaining a private
kennel license. Provided, however, the said family or family member may obtain a
private kennel license for the purpose of providing a period of time, not to exceed
three years, in which to find a place where the dogs can be legally, safely, and
humanely harbored.
Section 1 -109. FMPING OF CATS IS LIt ?ITEM. No family or family member
shall keep, or n have custody of four or more cats exceeding six months of age in
the family dwelling unit or on the family premises without obtaining a private
kennel license. Provided, however, the said family or family member may obtain a
private kennel license for the purpose of providing a period of time, not to exceed
three years, in which to find a place where the cats can be legally, safely, and
humanely harbored.
Section 1- 110. NUISANCE PROHIBITED. It shall be unlawful for my person
to keep animals in any unsanitary condition or in any way. which constitutes a
nuisance under Chapter 19 of City Ordinances. '
t Section 1 -111. RU121ING AT LARGE. PROHIBITED. It shall be unlawful for any
owner to allow its dog to.run at'large.
Section 1 -112. ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER. The City Council may provide for
a- City Animal Pound, either within or outside the corporate limits and may provide
for an Animal Control Officer to enforce this ordinance.
Section 1 - 113. Et1FORCE�'•MT PROCEDURES. The Animal Control Officer may
capture and impound dog running at large, and any unlicensed dog.
Section 1 -114. OUARAPITIN.E. Any animal, including wild animals that have
bitten a person shall immediately be impounded for at least 10 days and kept apart
from other animals, under the supervision of a veterinarian, until it is determined
whether such animal had or has a disease which might have been transmitted by such
bite. Such impounding may be by the owner, and need not be at the pound
designated by the City, but if it is not at the designated pound, the owner shall
notify the police department immediately and shall furnish proof in writing that
such animal is being so impounded. Upon the expiration of 10 days, if it is
determined that the animal does not have a disease which might have been transmitted
by such bite, it may be released, and the police department shall be notified
immediately prior to such release by the - owner of the animal. If the animal is
impounded at the designated pound, it may be. reclaimed as hereinafter provided.
Any animal which has been bitten by a rabid animal shall be killed or impounded and
kept in the same manner for a period of six months; provided that if the animal which
has been bitten by a rabid animal has been vaccinated at least three weeks before
such bite and within one year of such bite and if it is again immediately vaccinated,
then such animal shall be confined or impounded for a period of 40. days before it is
released. The owner of an animal which has been bitten by a rabid animal shall
notify the police department immediately prior to. the release of. any such animal.
Section 1 -115 * DANGEROUS ANIP• US. If an animal is diseased, vicious,
dangerous, ra'�d or -exposed to rabies and such animal cannot be impounded after a
reasonable effort or cannot be impounded without serious risk to any person or
persons, or if the animal has made more than one attack on a person or persons, such
animal may be immediately killed by or under the direction of a police officer.
Section 1 -116. TREATMENTS DURING IMPOUNDING. Any animal which *is
impounded in tH desigated pound shall be kept in accordance with Section 1 -106 of
this ordinance. If the animal is not known or suspected of being diseased and has
not bitten a person or been bitten by a rabid animal, it shall be kept in the pound for
at least five days, unless it is sooner reclaimed by its owner. If such animal is
known to be or is suspected of being diseased _ with a disease which might be
transmitted to persons, it 'shall be kept in the pound for at least 10 days.
Section 1 -117. REDE2•IPTIOIT OF IMPOUNDED ANIMALS. Any animal may be
redeemed r�he pounce by the owner upon payment of the following:
1. The license fee for the animal, if the license has not previously been
obtained.
� 2. The late - license penalty, where..a license has not been previously
r
3. The amount of the boarding fee which the City is. required to pay the
�-� pound keeper.
4. An impounding penalty as provided in•Chapter 23 of City Ordinances.
Section 1 -118. DISPOFAL OF UT.TREDF.12 ATdIMALS. The City's designated
pound keeper shall rnake an effort to contact the owner of arty animal which has been
impounded and which has identification on it. If at the end of the impounding
period the animal is not reclaimed by the owner, such animal shall be denied to have
been abandoned and may be disposed of or sold to any person following the procedures
contained in Minnesota Statutes 514.93 relating to the sale of unclaimed animals by
veterinarians. If the animal is to be kept in this-City, a license shall be obtained
by such person before possession of the animal is given to the purchaser.
Section 1 -119. ABATIDOTRMIT. It shall be unlawful for any person to
abandon any animal, including wild animals in Brooklyn Center.
Section 1 =120. PENALTY.. Any person violating the provisions of this
ordinance, or any conditions of a license, shall, upon conviction thereof, be guilty
of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine of not more than $500 or to
imprisonment for a period not to exceed 90 days, or both, together with the costs of
prosecution. Each day that a violation exists shall constitute a separate offense.
-
GOODYEAR SERVICE STORES
A OtYtSiON Of THE GOODYEAR TIRE L RUBBER COMPANY
5501 Xerxes Ave., N. Phone (612) 561.7811
BROOKLYN CENTER; MN 55430
t
/ 3
90
y
�(jyn /r� �'S 6uS�,r✓sS.f y�►iq/� at
/
/�
/, 7
� ociA /,1,,2// c 4'
o e
/ -/o
rl .,.r S ,il LI..Ps /fil E � r► a ir; 414
' ,! /�►' lay". ' 1 ' . 4 zz-" 4& "? /Q7�f C i,rG
,�,� /� r� 0 0 �o o fig !�✓ �' ' ���'. ,i l
V AJ/ fy' ♦ 7
��,� 1 e j� !.✓ QIE�I �y�� o
t � �
• �i o ,�' Jc•► l ac .o L 6t�sirc -sSrS� 1 /
foej /07� 1��'d.�
0: .fps /�AS i °b`a'r✓ t / / �, ii► Aso A jro�•oi L
/ 4z
9
��' f, �► dy tom• �C .Qi✓r��i ,fit y / ��'
MEMORA UM
TO; Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Plannin g and Ins ectioh ?/CA.&J" i
. P e
DATE; September 8, 1983
SUBJECT; Planning Commission Application Nos.'83033 and 83034
submitted by Hilltop Builders, Inc.
On Ju - ly 25, 1983 the City Council considered the above applications. Application
No. 83033 was a request for site and building plan approval for a three story,
q 9 P PP Y,
eleven unit apartment building located on a vacant R5 zoned parcel of land along
the north side of County Road 10, adjacent to the Twin Lake North Apartments.
The parcel of land is 29,311 sq. ft. in area and based on the density requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance can support 10.85 or 11 units.
Application No. 83034 was a variance request from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning
Ordinance regarding the front and rear yard setbacks and also the 15' greenstrip
requirement of the ordinance. At that time the applicant proposed a front yard
setback of 34' rather than the 50' required off a major thoroughfare (or 60'
if the building was required to have a setback twice the height of the building
across the street from Rl property). The applicant also proposed at that time
a rear yard setback of 10' rather than the 40' required and an 8' greenstrip
.from the right -of -way.
After much discussion regarding this plan the City Council tabled the matter and
requested the applicant to see if he could work out an agreement with the owners
of the Twin Lake North Apartments for shared access to this arcel. The ,Ci
P Y
.Council also expressed concerns about the extent of the variances being requested.
The applicant has apparently discussed the matter of a shared access and in a
better to the City Council dated August 10, 1983 indicates that the owners of
Twin Lake North are not interested in such an arrangement. The applicant sub -
mitted a revised site plan for City Council consideration on August 22, 1983 but
withdrew this plan and requested the Council again table the matter.
The applicant, in an attempt to address the City Council's other concern regarding
the extent of the variances, h i
as again submitted a revised site plan with a 92 x
46 apartment building and .detached garages rather than the 130 x 66 building
with attached garages. The new plan has a front yard setback for the apartment
building of 44' from County Road 10 and a 45' front setback for one of the de-
tached garages and a 40' front setback for the other. Rear yard setbacks pro-
posed on the new plan are 20' for the apartment building and 10' for the detached
garages. No variance from the 15' greenstrip requirement is being requested with
this revised plan.
Building elevations are changed somewhat to, reflect the new layout. They still
have the small patio areas and a brick exterior, however, they have gone from a
mansard type roof to a Hipp roof in design. There are no elevations shown for the
detached garages but the exterior should be the same material and appearance as
the apartment building. The landscape plan is essentially the same in number and
types of trees and shrubs.
As you are aware the Planning Commission recommended approval of the original
site plan and variances at their July 14, 1983 meeting and recommended conditions
of approval that are appropriate to the revised site plans as well. If the City
Council approves the revised variances, I would recommend the following conditions
for the site and building plan approval;
Memo to Gerald G. Splinter
.September 8, 1983
Page 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. 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. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking
and driving areas.
6. Phan approval comprehends an eleven unit apartment building
which is consistent with the density requirements of the
Zoning Ordionance -.
7. Any construction within the County Road 10 right -of -way
shall be completed under a permit issued by Hennepin County.
8. The applicant shall enter into an easement agreement with
the City for street and utility purposes, said easement to
be over the southerly 7' of the easterly 15' of the property:
Attached are copies of the following:
1. Revised site plan.
2. August 10, 1983 letter from Harry Gerrish to the City Council
-. _3. The original site plan.
4. Planning Commission minutes and information sheets for
Application Nos. 83033 and 83034 from July 14, 1983.
5. City Council minutes from July 25, 1983 relating to this
application.
Notices of the City Council's consideration•of this continued matter have been
sent.
•
• . ..•.•w+.rs "' • ...�.►.. i9 t. tai{
. .. -... .... .• � ..- ••...+.mss •.+n. ..-r•n• «.... .. ....
i AAx WALL • •. t t'cdrJC Si.Sd4tK
t . ._ t6s.00ft.
~; 1 J .�::. -. • .•»_ �• -`-�. ��,�,••» }SEA L
it T p
.._- .-.-1_ I _ a _ � � • = _ate a� o \• y �9 �
Le�ATIw+/• - a t2io:yo, •(�, 10,01 .'ass .7 &A SL - 'r= .
to ANA r, 6iiCN✓ L- 6 -A/? tau. •eVAA 84 >dl
�tA[•, S p�SnJ AND s0MA (iyYl�a) I - AS59Mb�
d � r A r 6 � S t1.� •. µ,0S {!.354 f ^ lL-•" -
f = Itlf+tK SSL: Tt >LK +
COUNTY ROAD NO. 10 (8A55 G�.�l � —�
j {S.eo ft
""W AF ALA•hWA" soorm &/Am &V
re rLA"
n -
A
�T w.+� «..• � t,.��..t.:.Ls+ . ii..►,, ..m.,i.. *... M-Mi.. �..�- �av'�%Y•r:.'a.�'s +s..►:.�» - �, T i •�.d,.L• i•1• _wM.ua Nt i✓il.�C t..: .=tL''. _�•+: «S.a. « .
_ 1 .._� � ~ � u. +•:new ..rT'gi•1.a1 A.Y t�11."►" ' _..r -..� ^
• • Vi i. i •
design one k
- 7097 Robrnvsvood Bay, Woodbury, MN 55125
• Phone 612/738.7277
August 10,1983
- r -
City. Council
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Re: Hilltop Builders
Gentlemen and Madam:
In compliance with your request in Council on 7/25/83, we have done the
following;
1. Discus the feasibility of a joint access onto Bass Lake Road
with the owners of twin Lake North. They have indicated to us
a lack of interest in this matter.
2 We are proposing a new design that represents our best efforts
in narrowing the building. We were able to reduce the North
South dimension by 12'. See the attached new site plan.
We trust this matter will meet with your favor.
Very truly yours,
GN ONE
y I
Y "
Har E. a President
:mhb
PC: Hilltop Builders f .
R. Warren, Director of Planning
City Manager, Brooklyn Center
t. . � r � � 1. • 1, �r..3 • • ...}. .~ ;-r µ I
� - - - � - tx1511�1�• 1
1 1 altuMu - sR�Es
PA m6 O+J 1$- I1NIj 6UILDir!( -
CLASS IY SASS (V Mills, SAGH
1t 2-N
`mow
6A `, ' LAKE ROAD - v:
60Ul�ltY Ra'•�.D
LANDSCAPE PLAN
a
•PIMajIm Cen-T" "ION, APPLICATION P:O. 83033 „
Et-
• �'t.:I"'TF.D BY I?ILL'"CPr BUII.PFRS, INC. I�'OR
1' r i.. i.,t.- �.rrr.7 lD w C = ,'., 1; T I T E I
IJ-_;� CYL� h':' Gi L ALT::L` �'
A rhr ., �L 5r;u i t`.J�'k �,:I1'.u�,' ::C�r�'H.
"�F'LT': Gr
-FPS, INC . FOR A
r1 t { 1. ( J —4 /11. `T,UL'l 1111+ J� /j C L. li V:C 1 ["L6 • T ALW)
UU Lt � »
i"�Z�r r • r tj F� ++� L+
VfiL'�l.Al'1�. �: 1 L :S S l!� y ltl� ��a
Me irec or of Planning & Inspection presented and for Council members'
• pages.2 throu€h 6 of the July 14, 1983 Planning Commission meeting minutes. He
noted that the applicant was requesting site and building plan approval for an 11
unit apartment building to be contructed on an irregularly shaped lot which would
require a variance from set back requirements of the City ordinance.
Following the Planning Director's presentation, Councilmember Hawes inquired as to
the potential number of townhouses that could be built on the site. The Director of
Planning. &-. Inspection stated that the site could accommodate five or six townhouses.
The City Attorney informed the Council that the law on substandard lots allowed the
Council to reduce standards when the use of the land can't be realized. He briefly
reviewed the history of the lot noting the taking of land from the site for Pass Lake
Road. lie noted that the question before the Councii is a classic case for a variance
��.. and how such of a variance should be allowed. he noted that the Council does not
have to provide maximum density, and the Council would not be establishing a
7 -25- •6- -
-
•
7
E
precedent. He concluded that the Council has a great deal of latitude in their
determinations.
RF.CECS •
rool:lyn Center City Council recessed at 9 :10 p.m and reconvened at 9 :20 p.m.
COUTINUA OF PTJ.17,.I ?'G COTTIISSICI? t.CS. 83033 AXD 87
Mayor I.yq t o �nc-a tre mee i�in or zne purpose a Luc is hearing on Planning
Commission Applicaton I:os. 53033 and 53634. I.:a I:yquist recognized Evelyn
Schmidt who introduced herself as a realtor handling the property. She spoke in
support of the application. Councilzember Scott inquired of Is. Schmidt if she
could recall hoer much land had been taken from the site for the rcadway. Ks. Schmidt
could not recall.
The.City Manager noted that the City Engineer had checked City records during
recess, and it appeared that 7' had been taken from the site.
Mayor Iuyquist then recogized Kathy Moore, attorney for the owners of N- i.n Lake
North Apartments. ?'-s. Moore spoke in opposition to the application indicating that
She feels the standards � for our variance had not been met. She further stated that
she did not feel that the site was compatible to the surrounding area without the
landscaping. She also added that there was not room for children to play, and that
there were other alternative development potentials. She stated that the rear of
the building does not lend itself to fire fighting with only a 10 setback. She also
indicated their concern because of the proximity of the Twin bake North garages at
the rear setback.
Councilmember Theis inquired of r.s. Poore whether the land had been offered for sale
to Twin Lake North. Ms. Moore indicated that sometime ago, it had been, but that she
had not been personally involved in those negotiations. .'he also added that Twin
Iske North had been approached about a joint driveway and that Twin Iake I` orth had
not refused the proposal. P;s. Moore then submitted a petition to the Council with
Signatures objecting to the proposed variance. I'ayor PTyquist requested that
petitions be entered into the record. The concern was raised relative to children
living in the unit's, and the lack of ample playground space for them.
Councilmember Ihotka inquired if the proposed rental units would be for adults only.
The architect, r•'r. parry Gerrisch for Islltop Builders, replied that it was not an
adults only building, and pointed out that vacant spaces were available for children
• to play in. Mr. Dahly Archibald, a Twin Lake north resident, objected to the
-application for a variance. Evelyn Schmidt, a realior, indicated that she did not
believe that people with children would locate in this particular building because
of the high rents and because of the lack of playground space.
lbllokzng the comments from those in attendance, r'.ayor Nyquist entertained a motion
to close the public hearing ; There was a motion cy Councilmember Hawes and seconded
by Councilmember .Scott_to' close the public hearing on Planning Commission
ApplicationNcs. 53033 and 830 Voting in favor: I•:ayor ryquist. Councihrembers
lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed
unanimously.
Councilmember Theis indicated he felt that the applicant should try to obtain a
` joint access and that he found fault with the proposed drive%my. Councilmember
Ihotka indicated that he had a problem with r.ra,nting such a lame variance to a
developer who is trying to maximize development on the site. He indicated that the
pro ject was just too big for the site.
7- 25 --83 �7_
Where was a motion by Councilmember Ihotka to deny Planning Commission Application
i No. 83034 The motion died for lack second. -
There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
table Plannire Commission Application I:cs. F3033 and 83034• until August 22.'
Councilmember Theis suggested that the applicant meet with the owners of Twin Lake
North and try to arrange a joint access for the proposed development. Voting in
favor: Layor I:yquist, Councilmembers Ihotka, Scott, iiawes, and Theis.. Voting
r against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
(,. P�I - .AP;ITING COt'IZSSIO2: aPPLIC N 63e 35' �.�r IT"!'EL�' BY PALM DI�VF'flrlItTE /ITFS1
'.SII.G FOR SI -"F _AI rv.T,rl':G r.I:` S77CIA USE PU "Il A:PPrCVA To RI1• :0D.11 THE
I- :1RC E i k_ 4:.01 8'�r"': F �L �F s; I1 R,_ -i ), E A tit': Lip A.Ii TRL drI At1�
%LI ,G M—=' SIC!. APPLICA - TO.?: I,C. 83036 Su_Pr'I'"TI1 BY PALM DFSV TII`TE /ITFN
VAP.''- -" ` r"C' ,�"'r.� .1 ,�Ii Z F�. I A d. t'J� vi l� 1: P) 1
: - t �i.11. - . �C_�T f �_ ACT ����-.�_ r. ��_ 0 Q. 1'. t� �1. ` y l' 1�
1LA S AF .i R r P�'L: 'i il..': u I�.S hA. E � '
!"iii R E0V1.D• . ,
'fie - irector c r a'T ning motion presented and reviewed for Council members
pages 6 through 7 of the July 14, 1983 Planning Commission meeting minutes. He
noted that Application I -,o. 83035 was a request for a site and building plan and a
special use pereit for the approval to remodel the dommercial building at 4301 68th
Avenue Korth, formerly the Servcmation Building. He also noted that the building
would be used as an auto and truck rental leasing center.
Following the Planning Director's presentation, TWor Ryquist opened the public
hearing on Planning Commission Application I:o. 83035. Appearing before the
• application was Joe Iten, from Iten Chevrolet. He requested approval of both
applications noting that the sign was necessary in -order to be seen by individuals
traveling fr= the south. He further stated he felt that the signs were in good
taste. He stated that the signing that would be allowed under the ordinance was not
visible to people from the south, and that such signing was necessary for his
business.
Councilmember Scott inquired as to how an individual could see the sign from the
south. Mr. Iten indicated that the billboard had signing on both sides.
There being no further comment for or against the application, Mayor Fyquist
entertained a motion to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application
No- 83035.
There was a notion by Councilmember_ Ihotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
close the public hearing on Planni ng'Cocniss ion Application No. 83035. Voting in
favor: Piayor I:yquist, Council.members Ihotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting'
against: none. The notion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Zhotka to
approve Planning Commission Application l\o .-.83035. Voting in favor:
_ Councilmembers Ihotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Mgyor Nyquist abstained from the
vote.
Mayor Nyquist then opened the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. �
83036. There being no one to speak for or against the application, I -byor Nyquist
7 - 25 -83
�8_
•s ru . v. vr. Lull ,1VJ. UJV rIllu UJUJ ,III I I I.UH DUI I UUI> > III C.
The Secretory then introduced the next two items of business, a request for site
and building plan approval to -construct an apartment building on the north side
of Bass Lake Road at a parcel addressed 5339 Major Avenue tlorth and a request
for a variance from Section 35 -400 and Section 35 -100 of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow front and rear setbacks and the front greenstrip to be less than that re-
uired by the ordinance. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports
see Planning ommission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 3 a nd 83034
9 o F. 1 d o II30 3
Pp
attached). The
Secretary al
} y so noted that the plans have been submitted to the -
County for their review and that the County would have to approve any driveway
permit allowing access to the property. He explained-that the County would only
allow one access to the property. In reviewing the variance application, the
Secretary noted that the property has• been zoned R5 at the same time the land
for the apartments was zoned R5 and that no commercial development was ever per -
mitted on this property. The Assistant City Engineer recommended two additional
conditions: one dealing with the requirement for a County pem.it for the access
and a second requiring an easement over the southerly 7' of the easterly..15' of
the property.
Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant and asked whether he had anything*
to add. Mr. Harry Gerrish, the architect for the project, stated that the
applicant would concur with the staff analysis and that they would comply with
the conditions recommended.
Comissioner Manson stated that the landscaped area appeared unusually small
to her. She asked Mr. Gerrish how he felt about that. Rr. Gerrish answered that
the number of n'
u pis on the site fall within the _1imitations of the Zoning.Ordr-
nance and that the setback deficiencies are addressed in the variance request.
He stated that he felt the site was well landscaped and that this would help
snake the site more attractive.' -
Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the driveway would be a probiem getting
into and out of the building• Chairman Lucht pointed out that tenants would
have their own garages. Commissioner Simmons stated that there was no real room
for children to play on the site. She stated that any children living in the
cQnplex would have to go elsewhere to find a place to play. She acknowledged
that there wasn't much that could be done about that.
7 -14 -83
-2-
f
f Chairman�Lucht then openedT the meeting for a public- hearing on the variance
application and asked whether anyone present wished to speak: t1s. Kathy Noore,
an attorney for the owner of the Twin Lake North Apartment complex, stated that
she felt the proposed development would have a detrimental effect on the Twin
Lake North Apartment complex. She stated that the requirements in the Zoning.
Ordinance for front and rear setbacks make sense and should not be varied from
in this case.. She pointed out that the applicant is'asking the City to cut.
the .requirements in half. She also noted that townhouses could be built on
the property without violating the setback requirements. She stated that the
configuration of the parcel is not unique and that the hardship wa created by
the former owner of the property contrary to Standard (c) of the Standards for
a Variance in the Zoning Ordinance..
lis. Cynthia Gonyer, a representative of the owner of the Twin Lake North Apart
uients, added simply that the land area of the parcel was extremely small for
the size building being proposed. Ms. Kathy tloore stated that the possibility
of a common driveway with the Twin Lake North Apartments was discussed with the
applicant. She stated that a site plan was asked for, but not received. No
further negotiations were pursued, she stated.
Commissioner Versteeg asked whether the apartments are for adults only or for
families with children. 11r. Gerrish stated that he had not been instructed by
the applicant as to any tenant restrictions
14s. Kathy iloore argued that granting of the variance woul set a great precedent
and would erode the City's Zoning Ordinanc -e in other cases. Chairman Lucht
answered that the applicant might build a 20' wide complex that woul look
rather ugly or would also require further variances. 1 Moore pointed out that
the variance could be minimized further.
Commissioner Simons asked whether anyone from the R1 property across Bass Lake
Road was present to speak on the application. An undentified person from the
audience rude a comment regarding the existence of the farmstead prior to re-
alignment of County Road 10. Chairman Lucht noted that the realignment of .
County Road 10 came after the development of the apartment complex.
fir. Gerrish stated that the plan for the apartment building was - not considered
lightly. He stated; that the proposed apartment building seemed to be an economic
use of the property and pointed out that the proposed plans were reviewed ex-
tensively with the staff.
CLOSE PUBLIC NEARING (Application No. 83034
Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone present had anything to add. Nearing none,
he called for a motion to close the public hearing.' Motion by Commissioner
Malecki seconded by Commi ssioner Hanson to close the public The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Versteeg asked whether anything in the ordinance required a minimum
play area available. The Secretary responded in the negative. Commissioner
Simmons expressed concern that children have a safe play area. She asked whether
the landscaping requirements had any functional intent.or whether they were purely
Visual in nature. The Secretary stated that the purpose of the landscaping re-
quirements was primarily visual. Commissioner Simmons note' that the parcel is
rather small for. the proposed building.and observed that the builder apparently
wants to get as much density out of the property as possible._ She noted that the
neighbors do not like the proposed building.
Chairman Lucht asked the Comcnission to consider whether the Standards for a
Variance were met.. Commissioner Sandstrom asked how the units would conform
T -14 -33 .
'• qua i i ty wise to the lwt n r_aKe nor n ftparTmen s c,na rrilarl Luca L ansvier eu c.na
the applicant has stated that they would be complimentary. Commissioner Sandstrom
expressed concern regarding the relationship of the proposed apartment building
to the Twin Lake North Apartments. Chairman Lucht asked Commissioner Sandstrom
whether he thought the proposed apartment building could be injurious to the
neighborhood. Commissioner Sandstrom responded in the affirrmative. Chairman
Lucht stated that he thought that'the apartment building could be a benefit to
the City as a whole.
The Secretary stated that he disagreed that the hardship was basically economic.
He pointed out that the property is unbuildable at its current shape relative
to the requirements of the City Ordinance. Commissioner Simmons asked for a
Clarification that an R5 type use could not be built if the requirements of the
ordinance were enforced. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, noting
that the building could not be more than 10' to 20' wide. Corinissioner Sandstrom
noted that townhouses could be built on the property. The Secretary agreed, but
stated that these would also have to be only 10 to 20' wide. Commissioner
Sandstrom stated that townhouses would ninir4ize the needed variance.
The Secretary briefly reviewed the uses that could be built on the property.
Chairman Lucht noted that five townhouses could be built on*the property. The
Secretary stated that variances would also probably be required to develop the
` property for townhouses. Commissioner Versteeg asked whether too many units
were being proposed. The Secretary responded in the negative, pointing out that
no density variance was being sought. Commissioner Simmons stated that it seemed
the Planning Commission had granted this type of variance before because it is
basically impossible to build on the property without a variance.
Commissioner Manson asked how many similar lots there were in the City. The
Planning Assistant answered that he was not aware of any other lots of that
particular shape, but noted that there are a number of corner lots which could
present similar problems in meeting setbacks if the maximum density were sought.
The* Planning Assistant pointed out that the property was offered to the owners
of Twin Lake North Apartments and that the owners of Twin Lake North did not
pare to buy the property at the price being asked. He stated that he assumed
that.Trrin.'Lake North would seek to build on the property if they had bought it
and would probably seek the sane number of units now being sought by the builder.
Regarding the question of quality, the Planning Assistant pointed out that the
building would contain units of about 1,100 sq. ft. each with direct connection
between the residential building and the garages and a 6' wide corridor. He
pointed to these aspects.as indications of quality.
Comnrni ssi oner ilal ecki asked flow the City and , the property owner got into this
predicament. Commmmnissioner Simmons noted that the. City approved the development
-of the apartments and was a party to creating the present situation. She also
noted that the previous owner probably intended to use the property for a small
cormiercial use although it was never zoned for commercial.
The Secretary pointed out that there was a similarly shaped shallow parcel on
53rd Avenue North by the Bropkdale Ten Apartments. Commissioner Manson asked
whether it would be possiblr- to restrict the building to families without children.
The Secretary stated that that was beyond the scope of the Zoning Ordinance. He
stated that the Standards for a Variance must be addressed.
' Commissioner Versteeg asked how far away the closest Twin Lake North Apartment
building was. The Planning Assistant answered that the Twin Lake North Apartment
buildings were closer to each other than they would be to the proposed building.
Chairman Lucht asked -far coeunents on the - variance. appl ication. Commissioner
Sandstrom stated that he did not feel a hard'ship.was proven. Chairman Lucht
7 -14 -03
4-
pointed to the fact that the property was basically unbuildable. ommissioner'
Sandstron noted that a townhouse development would not require as much of a
• variance. Chairman Lucht stated that he felt the Standards for a Variance are
met in this case.
ACTION RECOHNIENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 33034 (Hilltop Builders, Inc.)
t- lotion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Coirnissiones Hanson to recommend
approval of Application No. 83034 on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance
are met.
While the motion was on the floor, Commissioner Hanson stated that she had a
problem with Standard (c) regarding the requirement that the hardship not be
caused by anyone presently or formerly having an interest in the property. Com-
missioner Halecki pointed out that the City was a party to that decision. The
Planning Assistant suggested that the Planning Commission consider the historical -
context of the parcel's present configuration. He stated that the previous owner
of the. property allowed development of much :of his property, while keeping a
small area and his own residence intact for him to continue living there. He
explained that when the previous owner died, his residence was torn down leaving
a small vacant parcel. He likened the situation to that of the Earle Brown Farm
where parcels have been created in order to preserve historic structures. Later,
the farm buildings may be and the parcels are no longer appropriate.
He stated that his might turn out to be poor planning, but that at the time
decisions are made, they appear appropriate. In response to a question from
Commissioner Hanson regarding. County Road 10, the Assistant City Engineer showed
the previous alignment of that road. Chairman Lucht commented, however, that
the County Road was realigned prior to the development of the Twin Lake North
Apartments.
There was a vote taken on the motion on the floor. Voting in favor: Chairman
Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and.Versteeg. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
Chairman Lucht then asked for comments regarding the site plan application.
Commissioner Manson asked what would be done with the area where a 12th unit
was previously planned. 11r. Harry Gerrish, architect for the project, stated
that the decision had not been made as to what use to make of the space. He
stated that the builder could expand one unit to make a luxury unit on the
third floor or that a unit on the first floor could be used for a storage or
recreation room. He stated that the builder would comply with the limitation
of only 11 units. He stated that the likely solution would be to expand a couple
of the apartment units i nto the space that would have been used by the 12th unit.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION 0. 83033 (Hilltop Builders, Inc.l
I�iotton by Commissioner ilalecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend
approval of Application No. 83033, subject to the _following conditions;
1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the
Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior
to the issuance of permits.
2. Grading, drainage,, utility and.berming plans are subject
to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the
issuance of permi
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.
7 -14 -83
. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
5. 8612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking
and driving areas: .
.• 6. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide for two 6"
diameter trees in accordance with Section 35 -410 of the
Zoning Ordinance prior to consideration by the City Council.
7. Plan approval comprehends an'11 unit apartment building
which is consistent with the density requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance.
8. Any construction within the County Road 10 right -of -way
shall be completed under a permit issued by Hennepin County,
.9. The applicant shall enter into an easement agreement with
the City for street'and utiii purposes,.said easement to '
be over the southerly 7 of the easterly 15' of the property.
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners tlaiecki, Simmons, ilanson, Sandstrom
and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
RE CESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 8:55 p.m. and resumed at 9:13 p.m.
-APPLICATION NOS. 83035 and 8303.6 (Paul DesVernine /Iten Leasing)
following the re ess, the. Greta introduce n next tw 'tuns of Usinesa
a request for Me and bui Ming p��n and specia� use perml� approva o remo �1
the commercial building at.4301 -63th Avenue North for use as an auto and truck
rental and leasing center and also, a request for a variance from the Sign and
!_.Zoning.Ordinances to allow the continuation of a nonconforming sign board more
than two years after the ,previous message has been removed. The Secretary reviewed
the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for
Application trios. 83035 and 33036 attached). The Secretary also showed the revised
plans to the Planning Commissiom._
Chairman Lucht asked if the variance were denied, whether the sign board would
be determined not to be a part of the building. The Secretary agreed. Commissioner
Sandstrom asked whether no other signs would be permitted. The Secretary answered
that all signs would have to meet-the requirements of the Sign Ordinance, whether
they were wall signs, freestanding signs or roof signs.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Simmons, the_Secretary explained that
the sign board was not an integral part of the building, but that if the parapet
along the north wall were extended along the east and west walls as proposed,
that this would be considered an integra part of the building. He stated that
in this case, the sign board could extend to 6' above the parapet line. He ex
plained that the entire sign board was considered part of the sign and that even
if the lettering were kept below this 6' level, it would still be considered a
sign violation. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he was interested in comparing
the visibility of the old Servoniation building with the Iten Chevrolet building,
lie asked whether the Servomation building was further away from Brooklyn Boulevard
than the Iten Chevrolet building. The Secretary stated that he was not sure which
building was further away, but that he did not think the Servdnation building was
much further than the Iten building. Commissioner.Versteeg -asked for the.location
of the roof sign in quesion. The Secretary pointed out that i was at the north -
east corner of the building.
Commissioner Manson 'asked whether a sign would be allowed on both sides if 'a
variance were granted. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. There
7 -14 - 33 .b-
• Planning Commission Information Shect
Application No. 83033
Applicant: Hilltop Builders
Location 5839 Major Avenue North
Request: Site and Building Plan
The_ applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a 12 unit apart-
ment building on the vacant parcel of land north of Bass Lake Road and surrounded
on .the east, north, and west by Twin Lake North Apartments. The property is zoned _
R5 and two and one -half to three storey . apartment buildings "are permitted- in that
zone at a density of up to 16 units per acre. The parcel in question is 29,311 sq:ft.
in areawhich _allows 10.85 or 11 units at a density of one unit per 2,700 sq. ft. of
land area. The reason for the discrepancy is that planning staff were initially given
a figure of over 31,000 sq. ft. as the area of the property which would support 12
units. However, a boundary survey by Subu °rban Engineering shows a different
configuration of County Road 10 right -of -way a-rid the resulting lot area is 29,311
sq. ft. The applicant has, therefore, been told that the number of units within .the
building must be reduced 'to ,11.
The site plan provides for one access to the property off County Road 10 Parking
is arranged so that there are six garage stalls and six outdoor parking stalls are
provided on both the east and west ends of the building. In addition, there is one
handicapped stall." This meets the parking requirement of two spaces per unit. The
access to the property is toward the easterly edge of the lot, about 38' from the
east: property line. A 20' wide driving lane runs in front of the building to connect
r the parking on the west side of the building with the access on the east side of the
property. Staff feel this is an adequate width' given the function of the driveway
and the constraints of the property. Driving lanes adjacent to ° parking areas are 24'
wide as required by ordinance.
•The.landscape plan provides four Maple trees (21" diameter) on.the west side of the
property and two Maples on the east side .of the property along with two existing
trees. The plan also calls for two Norway Pine (21° diameter) at the southwest corner
of the site and one on the easterly side of the site. The plan provides no 6 1 ' diameter,
trees although 2 are required. Twelve (12) Anthony Waterer Spirea are scheduled
in the southwest and-southeast corners of the site and twelve (12) Redtwig Dogwoods
are scheduled for the northeast and northwest corners of the site. Sargent Juniper
and Zabel Honeysuckle are to be planted in the front greenstrip.` Three Amur Maple,
three Peking Cottoneaster and four Spirea are shown in the area in front of the
building; and, in the area behind the building, four Snow Berry, four Isanti Dog-
woods and four Alpine Currents are. shown. There will be two dumpsters, one at the
northeast and one at the northwest corner of the site, screened by a 6' high wood
fence. There is presently a wood fence around the east, north and west sides of
the property which will remain. Although there is no screening requirement from
the adjacent R5 development, the fence will serve to block out headlights.
The drainage plan calls for a catch basin on the east and west sides of the site to
take drainage from each of the two parking areas. B612 curb and gutter is to be
k provided throughout. •'
The building elevations call for face brick exterior slide -by windows and a mansard
roof. The garages will have similar treatment. Each unit will have a small 4' x 8'
patio with sliding glass doors. Four units are planned on each of three floors.
r All are two- bedroom units: The garages will be attached to the main building by a
3' 8" wide corridor. A 6' wide corridor splits the building east, to west. ,Tenants
will be able to reach their apartments from their garages without going outside.
The proposed building is intended to blend in well with the larger Twin ;Lake North
complex and appears to be designed with the same high quality.
7 -14 -83 -1-
Application No. 83033 continued
Altogether the plans appear to be in order and 'approval is recommended, subject to
at least the following conditions:
1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
. , Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of
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
and ,amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted
prior 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. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving
areas.
. 6. The landscape plan shall be revised to .provide for two 6 diameter
trees in accordance with Section 35 -410 of the Zoning Ordinance prior
to: consideration by the City Council.
.
... .� a ,.. 1.
7 -14 -83 _2_
r�wun nb %,,vmmission iniormanon z)nccL
Application No. 83034
Applicant: Hilltop Builders
Location: 5839 Major Avenue North
Request: Variance
The applicant requests a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow for a front setback of less than the 60' required off Bass Lake Road (a major
thoroughfare with RI development opposite) and less than 40' from the rear property
line. The property in question is located north of Bass Lake Road and is bounded
on the east, north and west by Twin. Lake North Apartments. ` The proposed setback
off Bass Lake Road is listed as 41 However, because of new survey information,
this distance is probably only 34 Moreover, the greenstrip adjacent to County
Road 10 (Bass Lake Road) is only 8' rather than the required 15'. The rear yard
setback is 10' rather than the 40' required by ordinance.
The applicant has submitted a brief letter in which he essentially restates the
Standards for a Variance (attached). He notes that the shape of parcel does not
permit any normal arrangement of apartments. He asserts that the shape is unique
to this parcel of land only. He also states that the hardship results from the ordi-
nance and was not created by anyone presently or formerly having an interest in
the .parcel. Finally, the applicant claims that the variance will not be detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood.
While they are not elaborate, we agree with the arguments of the applicant. The
parcel in .question is only 110' deep at its narrowest point and 124' deep at the
widest point. The 60' front setback and 40' rear setback would leave only 10' of
buildable area. This would be a difficult situation for a single - family home; (which
would have 20' of buildable area) for an apartment building it is basically impossible.
It might be possible to build a row of 20' deep townhouses on, the property (town-
. houses are a permitted use in the R5 zone), but we do not feel that the right to
build apartments should be foreclosed. Moreover, such a townhouse development
would probably present other aesthetic and zoning problems. Therefore, in Tight ,
of the uses permitted on this parcel, we feel some sort of variance is necessary.
We have recommended that the rear yard setback be reduced to •10! since the rear
property line abutk another apartment complex and is very comparable to a side
interior property line. The front " setback of 34' is the maximum that can be provided
on this shallow property. The proposed building is 30' in height. Thus, the
proposed setback is slightly more than the height of the building. (In R5 develop -
ments abutting R1 or R2 developments, the setback should be twice the height of
+ the building. There is R1 property across County Road 10. Thus, the setback
should be 60 The width of the County Road 10 right -of -way is 80'; and tends to
offset the shallow setback of the building) .
The greenstrip variance is also necessary inasmuchas the County will only grant one
access to the site and some internal means is needed to get to the westerly parking
area. To do so, it becomes impossible to meet the 15' greenstrip requirement.
It is debatable whether this parcel is totally unique. There are other shallow lots
in the City and an R5 development on a corner lot might well face similar problems.
Nevertheless, we concur that the property does have a fairly unique shape and,
given its zoning, requires a variance to be buildable.
7 -14 -83 -I-
y
Application No. 83034 continued
As to how the hardship was created, the site in question was formerly occupied by
a remnant farm house from a farm that once included the Twin Lake North area.
This building remained for a short time after the apartments were built and then
was demolished. The present configuration of property lines was established by
the previous owner of the farm and by the County when it condemned land for
County Road 10 right -of- way. It is also- likely that this remnant parcel was left
with the expectation of building a small commercial rather than residential develop -
ment at this location. It cannot be conclusively stated that the current hardship
was not created by someone who once had an interest in the parcel, but certainly
the present owner has no control over this hardship.
Finally, we would agree that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental
to surrounding proeprty.
In light of the configuration of the property, we feel setback and greenstrip variances
are required for the development of the property. The precise arrangement of set-
back and greenstrip variances are in accordance with what staff feel are the prior-
ities of the ordinance within this particular site. Approval is, therefore, recom-
mended on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance appears to be met.
-14 -83 -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 .
AUGUST 11, 1983
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman
George Lucht at 7:36 p.m.
R OLL CALL
Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Mary Simmons, Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas and
Carl Sandstrom. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren,
Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 4, 1983
Lotion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Manson to approve the
minutes of the August 4, 1983 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting
in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons, Manson and Ainas. Voting against:
none. Not voting: Commissioner Sandstrom. The motion passed.
APPLICATION NOS. 83042 AND 83043 (Robert D. Welty)
Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of
business, a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into three lots
the parcel of land at the southwest quadrant of Xerxes Avenue North and 1 -94 and
also a request for a variance from Section 15 -106 of the Subdivision Ordinance to F
allow a lot with an average depth of 110' and another lot with less than 60' of
frontage. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports (see Planning
Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 83042 and 83043 attached).
Commissioner Simmons pointed out that if the property were divided into two lots,
it would be possible for Lot 1 to have 60' of frontage. She asked whether the
southerly lot would still need a variance for lot depth. The Secretary stated
that that was likely. Commissioner Simmons concluded that if there were only two
lots, a variance would still be required. The Secretary agreed. He stated that
the Planning Commission should evaluate what is a_ reasonable subdivision of the
property in question. He pointed out that the lots all meet the area requirement
and that area is probably the most important single requirement to be met. He
stated that a case could be made for three or for two lots. Commissioner Simmons
stated that she felt three lots was a reasonable subdivision of the property. Com-
missioner Sandstrom pointed out that Lot 1 is already 'very large and would be even
larger if the property were subdivided into two lots.
Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Jeff Lindgren of Hedlund
Engineering, representing Mr. Welty, stated that he had no problems with the con-
ditions recommended for the approval of the plat. Commissioner Sandstrom asked
whether the applicant was willing to pay the cost of the road improvement. Mr. Jeff
Lindgren answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the
buildings shown on the preliminary plat were actual plans for construction or just
comcepts. fir. Lindgren answered that fir. Welty would probably build the houses as
shown on the preliminary plat. Commissioner Simmons asked how large the houses
were. fir. Lindgren answered that the houses were of the average size.
PUBLiC HEARING (Application Nos. 83042 and-83043)
Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public. hearing on both the preliminary
plat and the variance applications. He asked whether anyone present wished to
8 -11 -33 -1-
speak on the applications. Mr. Robert Seim, of 3000 -66th Avenue North, asked
how the hill on Xerxes Avenue North would be maintained once the property is
developed. He pointed out that it is maintained by the City at present. The
Assistant City Engineer stated that the City would continue to maintain that
slope. In response another question from Mr. Seim, the Secretary pointed out
the alignment of the driveway for Lot 1. The Assistant City Engineer pointed
out that the street would be widened to the east. He explained that the driveway
coming from Lot l should not be aligned with'the street,'confusing motorists
that might be traveling northward on the old Xerxes Avenue street to drive up
into the driveway. He stated that the driveway should be close to a 90 angle
with the street.
Mr. Seim asked how wide the NSP easement was. The Secretary pointed out that
the easement is 55.5' wide on Lot 1 and 35.5' wide on Lots 2 and 3 because some
of the easement goes over public right -of -way.
Mr. Eric Persson, of 3001 -66th Avenue North, stated that he felt the property in
question was simply not suitable for three lots. He stated that he thought the
proposal was ludicrous and that the Planning Commissioners should view the property
in person. Chairman Lucht stated that he had seen the property firsthand and asked
Mr. Persson how large his lot was. After some discussion, it was determined
Mr. Persson's lot was larger than the average lot in Brooklyn Center. Mr. Persson
asked about the size of the houses that would be put on these lots. Commissioner
Ainas stated that the square footage of the proposed house on Lot 3 was about
1,030 sq. ft., exclusive of garage, if the drawing was scaled accurately. Mr.
Persson stated that people were told that the property was unbuildable. He stated
that he would have bought the property if he had realized this many lots could
be created.
Commissioner Sandstrom pointed out that a 30' street would be installed to serve
these lots. He stated that this was normal street and asked how Mr. Persson was
affected by such an arrangement. Mr. Persson stated that the property in question
was simply not suitable for three houses. Chairman Lucht and Commissioner Simmons
both pointed out that the proposed lots were larger in area than the average size•
lot in Brooklyn Center. "Commissioner Simmons reminded Mr. Persson that his lot
was much larger than the average lot and that most lots would look small6r by
comparison. Chairman Lucht stated that he felt the owner of the property has a
right to develope the land. Mr. Persson stated that people living in the area
also have a right to object to the granting of a variance. Chairman Lucht read
the Standards for a Variance to those present and asked if the proposed subdivision
would be injurious to neighboring property. Mr. Persson answered in the affirmative.
Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application.
Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public
hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Simmons pointed out that one of the lots would require a variance even
if there were only two lots in the subdivision. She stated that the property would
have to be limited to one lot if no variances were to be granted. She stated that
she felt that one lot for this much land (33,000 sq. ft.) was unreasonable. Com-
missioner Sandstrom also pointed out that such lot would be much larger than most
people want,
Par. Seim, of 3006 -66th Avenue North, stated that the best thing to do with the
property was to make a park out of it for the kids. He stated that he had been
told by someone at City Hall that the property is unbuildable. The Secretary
stated that the City Council had.already looked at the property for possible
acquisition and had rejected the possibility. The Planning Assistant stated that
8 -11 -83 -2-
he had probably talked to Mr. Seim. He pointed out property, under. its
.present legal description as an Outlot, was unbuildable by definition. He stated
that he had told people who inquired about the lot that the burden of proof to
show that the property is buildable would be on the-owner. He explained that he
had never talked to !lr. "Welty and that Mr. Welty had gone ahead and shown that the
property was indeed buildable.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL'OF APPLICATION NO. 83043, Robert D. Welt
Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by
Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 83043 on the
grounds that the Standards for a Subdivision Ordinance Variance are met. Voting in
favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons, Manson, Ainas and Sandstrom. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83042 (Robert D. Welty)
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval
of Application No. 83042, 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 applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with
the City stipulating the widening of "old" Xerxes to a full
street width and extension of public utilities to the
respective lots.
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons, Manson, Ainas and - Sand-
strom. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
APPLICATION NOS. 83045, 83046 and 83047 (Ramada Inn /A1 Beisner)
The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building
plan approval and special use permit approval t6 a 13 storey, 174 room
hotel on a proposed tract of land at the northeast corner of Freeway Boulevard
and Shingle Creek. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see
Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 83045 attached). The
Secretary also noted that the applicant had submitted a traffic study to the
Engineering Department sometime previously which showed that there would be no
major traffic conflicts posed by the master plan for the area.
Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he agreed with the recommendations of the staff
substituting sod in the interior greenstrip areas. He asked if any plantings would
be planted in those areas. The Secretary answered that the staff have no problem
with rock in the internal medians, but that sod is recommended around the perimeter
of the site. He stated that plantings were scheduled in those areas.
Chairman Lucht asked whether the parking on the off -site accessory parking lot
would be dedicated to the hotel use. The Secretary responded in the affirmative.
The Secretary then showed the breakdown of parking spaces to be dedicated to
various uses around the central parking lot.
The Secretary then reviewed the staff report for Application No. 83046 (Planning
Commission Information Sheet attached). The Assistant City Engineer added that
some of the items in his memo had already been taken care of. He explained that
the subdivision agreement would establish a package for the completion of improve-
ments on and off the site.
8 -11 -83 -3-
Commission Manson asked whether the area within the proposed R.L.S. was a single
parcel under Application No. 82004. The Secretary reviewed the area of land
covered in the R.L.S. proposed under Application No. 82004 and explained that the
proposed plat is a division of Tract D of that previous R.L.S. He stated that
the proposed subdivision is probably the final subdivision of this area.
Commissioner Simmons asked what *the master plan called for on Tract A. The
Secretary answered that office_ industrial buildings were proposed for Tracts A and
G. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the hotel use was a good use for this area.
The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He stated that he felt the hotel would
be a positive development for this area. He stated that the main concerns regarding
the Standards for a Special Use Permit were regarding traffic and the sewage. He
stated that those concerns have been met and that the Standards for a Special Use
Permit appear to be met in this case. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the three
restaurants at the southeasterly portion of the R.L.S. were definitely planned or
whether they were just thrown in tentatively. The Secretary answered that he did not
think that they were just thrown in. Commissioner Simmons expressed concern re
garding the number of restaurants. The Secretary answered that the restaurants would
have.different menus and would not compete with each other.
The Secretary then reviewed the staff report for Application No. 83047 (see Planning
Commission Application No. 83047 attached). The Secretary recommended a third con-
dition of the approval requiring the applicant to agree in writing to the install-
ation of deferred parking stalls upon a determination by the City that such parking
was necessary. The Secretary stated that the questions of . compact car stalls and
the possible overlap of parking requirements for different activities in the hotel
.use could be discussed later after the plans have been approved. Commissioner
Simmons asked whether the area for off -site accessory parking would be for compact
car stalls. She stated she thought this would be discriminatory. The Secretary
explained that the off -site accessory parking spaces would be standard sized
spaces. He explained that compact car stalls and other issues would be looked
at in more detail at a later date.
Commissioner Simmons asked how the hotel would compare with other buildings in the
area, for instance, Holiday Inn. The Secretary answered that the Holiday Inn has
about 225 rooms as opposed to 175.for the Ramada Inn.
Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Al Beisner of Lombard
Properties showed the Planning Commission some colored renderings of the interior
and exterior of the building. He stated that no decision.had been made on the
color of brick he used for the hotel, but that it might possibly be the brick at
Winslow House.
Regarding putting sod in perimeter areas,Mr. Beisner explained that he had exper-
ienced trouble onother projects in extending underground irrigation. He stated
that the water pressure does not seem to be high enough where the water comes out.
Chairman Lucht pointed out that irrigation is still required in landscaped areas.
Mr. Beisner stated that it was his understanding that underground irrigation is
only required in areas that are sodded. There followed a discussion regarding
this point. The Secretary pointed out that the other_ developments adjacent to
the hotel site would have greenstrip areas that would expand the proposed 7' wide
greenstrip to approximately 12' or more and that this would be a viable area to
mainta -in sod. There followed a brief discussion regarding problems with water,
pressure. The Assistant City Engineer stated that it was probably not a problem
with-pressure. Mr. Beisner acknowledged that particles collected in the water
line inside the meter and slowed down the flow of water.
8 -11 -83 -4-
-
z
i
Chairman Lucht asked how the operation of regrading the overall site was going.
Mr. Beisner answered that the sites shown on the master plan should be buildable
and that peat was not as deep in some places as was previously thought.
9 r
i t
In response to a question from Commissioner Simmons, Mr. Beisner stated that they
y
had been approached b seven or eight restaurants wishing to locate in this area.
PP Y 9 9
He stated that the hotel was the most important use and they did not want rest -
aurants which would compete with the hotel's menu. He explained that the hotel
site is part of a "destination area" where people can go looking for food or
entertainment and, if one place is filled up, they can go to another. Commiss-
ioner Manson asked whether the nightclub in the hotel would be bigger than that
in the Holiday Inn. Mr. Beisner answered in the affirmative. He stated that it
would be a large nightclub and added that he.felt there was a need for more live
entertainment in this general area. Commissioner Manson asked when the hotel
would open. Mr. Beisner stated that Ramada is shooting for the end of 1984 or
early 1985.
PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 83045, 83046 and 83047)
Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on the two special use
permits and the preliminary R.L.S. concurrently. He asked whether anyone present
wished to speak on the applications. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close
the public hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public
hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83046 (Ramada Inn /Al Beisner)
Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend ap-
proval of Application No. 83046, subject to the following conditions:
1. The final R.L.S. is subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
2. The final R.L.S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of
the City Ordinances:
3. The preliminary R.L.S. shall be revised to include items noted
in the Assistant City Engineer's memo of August 8, 1983, prior
to consideration by the City Council:
4. Preliminary R. L. S. approval acknowledges a master plan for
grading and utilities for the area encompassed 9 9 by this R.L.S. P
and the areas occupied by Specs. 10 and 1 1 and the central parking
g
lot. Said master grading and utility plan shall be subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer. However, review and
approval of individual iste development plans is not thereby
implied.
5. The applicant shall enter a Subdivision Agreement with the City
stipulating responsibility for and assessment of colts for certain
improvements to public facilities within the public right -of -way,
includin g but not limited to:
a) the median opening in Shingle Creek Parkway
b) potential installation of a traffic signal at the
above median opening
c) sanitary sewer improvements-
8-11-83 -5-
F
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons, Manson, Ainas and Sandstrom.
Voting against: none. The motion passed.
Chairman Lucht asked the Commission whether they preferred sod or rock mulch in the
perimeter greenstrip area. It was the consensus of the Commission that sod should
be installed in the perimeter areas:
ACTION RECOMMENDING.APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83045 (Ramada Inn /Al Beisner)
Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend ap-
proval of Application No. 83045, 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. Plan approval acknowledges deferral of 98 parking spaces to be
located on the large, central parking lot serving the commercial
and industrial uses in this area. A separate Performance Agree -
ment and supporting financial guarantee shall be secured by the
City for improvements to the central parking lot prior to the
issuance of permits for the hotel.
3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance
of permits.
4. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of
permits to assure completion of approved site improvements.
5. 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.
6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
7. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire exting-
uishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to
a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 df the
City Ordinances.
8. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all land-
scaped areas to facilitiate site maintenance.
9. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to
Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
10. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and
driving areas.
11. A flood plain use permit shall be obtained for earthwork within
the flood fringe.
12. The landscape plan shall be revised to indicate sod in the 7'
wide greenstrip areas adjacent to interior property lines.
8 -11 -83 -6-
6
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons, Manson, Ainas and Sand -
strom. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83047 (Ramada Inn /A1 Beisner)
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval
of Application No. 83047, subject to the following conditions:
1. At least 98 parking spaces to be constructed on Tract'C of the
R.L.S. proposed under Application.No. 83046 shall be legally
encumbered to the sole use of the Ramada Inn on Tract B of the
same R.L.S. The legal encumbrance shall be subject to review
and approval by the City Attorney and shall be filed at the
County prior to the issuance of building permits.
2. A separate performance guarantee provided by Shingle Creek
Land Company shall be held to insure completion of site improve -
ments to the large central, common parking lot on the master
plan for the area bounded by Freeway Boulevard on the south,
Shingle Creek Parkway on the east and north, and MTC and Shingle
Creek on the west.
3. Special use permit approval acknowledges a proof -of- parking for
the hotel. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing that he
will install the deferred parking upon a determination by the
City that the need exists.
Voting in favor:. Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons, Manson, Ainas and
Sandstrom. Voting against: none.. The motion passed.
RECESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 9:52 p.m. and resumed at 10:12 p.m.
APPPLICATION NO. 83044 (Salvation Army)
The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for special use
permit approval to conduct an office use on the I -1 zoned property at 2300 Freeway
Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning
Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 83044 attached). Commissioner
Manson asked whether the remodeling to the building would be on the inside only. The
Secretary answered in the affirmative.
Chairman Lucht called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Speck, of the Salvation Army,
stated that he had nothing further to add to the Secretary's presentation.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a hearing and asked whether any-
one present wished to speak on the application. Hearing none, he called for a
motion to close the public hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public
hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
8 -11 -83 -7-
i
The Secretary asked the applicant if he understood the condition requiring a
written commitment by the Salvation Army to put in stalls upon a determination
by the City. Mr. Speck stated that he had no problems with that condition. Com-
missioner Manson asked whether the proposed site was much larger than the Salvation
Army's- present headquarters location. Mr. Speck answered in the affirmative. He
explained that the Salvation Army has had its offices at its present location for
over 40 years and that it had become very crowded.
ACTIO14 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83044 (Salvation Army)
Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend
approval of Application No. 83044, subject to the following conditions:
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances,
and regulations, and any violation thereof shall, be grounds
for revocation.
2. The special use permit is issued to the Salvation Army as
the user of the facility and is nontransferable.
3. Special use permit approval acknowledges a proof -of= parking
for stalls sufficient to meet the requirement for office
use of the entire building In the event that the City
determines that the existing spaces are inadequate, the
applicant shall be required to install parking stalls up
to the office requirement of 75 spaces. The applicant
shall state in writing that they understand and agree to
this condition prior to City Council approval of the
special use permit.
4. Building plans for the remodeling to office space are subject
to the review and approval of the Building Official with respect
to applicable codes prior to the issuance of building permits.
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons, Manson, Ainas and
Sandstrom. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
APPLICATION NO. 83029 (Wes' Standard)
The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for a special
use permit to sell items other than fuels, lubricants or automotive parts and
accessories at -the service station located at 6044 Brooklyn Boulevard.. The
Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission In-
formation Sheet for Application No. 83029 attached). The Secretary stated that
approval of the application would acknowledge that customers at the gas pumps
would not be using parking stalls. He pointed out that parking at gas pumps has
never been acknowledged before as actual parking spaces. He stated that the fact
that cars would be parked at the pump islands could justify the proof -of- parking
and be a means of not requiring installation of the stalls at this time. He
pointed out, however, that the cars parked at the gas pumps do not fulfill the re
quirements_1f the Zoninq Ordinance.
8 -11 -83 -8-
c ommissioner Simmons asked what recourse the City would have and what expense would
e incurred if Mr. Reavely continued to violate the Gity's Ordinances. She asked
whether the City would have to take Mr. Reavely to court if a determination was
made that more stalls were necessary. The Secretary explained that the City is
pursuing court action on the criminal violation of selling food - without a license
and a- special use permit. He added that there is an option of filing a civil suit
to bring an injunction against Mr. Reavely to prohibit him from selling food until
he has obtained both the license and a special use permit. He admitted that, even
with the written document in hand, as recommended, the City might have to go to
court to obtain additional parking stalls. Commissioner Simmons stated that the
City could require that the parking be put in as a condition of the approval. The
Secretary acknowledged that this was an option. Commissioner Simmons stated that
Mr. Reavely did not seem willing to do what the City asks and that it was a con -
siderable risk to hope that he would put in stalls at a later date upon a deter -
mination by the City that they are needed. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the
application could, be approved with the conditions -that have been suggested. He
asked whether applicants always obey every condition. The Secretary stated that it
was a legitimate question whether Mr. Reavely can live up to the requirements of
the special use permit.
Commissioner Sandstrom stated that it seemed unfair to him to require that the
parking spaces be installed prior to the matter being approved by the Planning
Commission. Commissioner Simmons clarified that she meant that the stalls would
have to be put in before the special use permit would take effect. Commissioner
Simmons asked why the City should invite another problem with Mr. Reavely. Com-
* missioner Sandstrom stated that he thought Mr. Reavely might have a change of heart
after the upcoming court hearing. Commissioner Simmons stated that she felt that
all the parking stalls should be put in. Chairman Lucht pointed out that two
previous applications during the evening's meeting had been approved with stipula-
tions on proof -of- parking.
The discussion as to whether all required parking stalls should be put in or
whether a proof -of- parking should be accepted with a stipulation in writing from
Mr. Reavely that he would put in the remainder of the stalls upon a determination
by the City continued at some length. Commissioner Simmons stated that the site
in question is a high traffic area with a great potential for congestion. She
recommended that all of the stalls be put in on the basis that the use proposed
requires all of the parking and on the basis that it would be difficult to get the
applicant to put the stalls in later should it become apparent that they are necessary.
Chairman Lucht and Commissioner Sandstrom generally felt that the additional stalls
were not necessary because many of the customers would be parking at the gas pumps
and would not be using the parking stalls. They noted that other uses had been
approved with an acknowledgement of proof -of- parking. The Planning Assistant
pointed out that it was necessary to look at each individual use to determine
whether an acknowledgement of proof -of- parking should be granted. He stated that
in the present situation, the question was whether it was reasonable to assume that
8 -11 -83 -9-
the additional parking was not necessary because of the cars parked at the gas
pumps. Chairman Lucht asked if it was.difficult to revoke a special use permit
if the codes, ordinances and regulations were violated. The Secretary stated
that it is difficult. He pointed out that the City must take.the initiative to
revoke the special use permit. He noted the instance of the Snacks, and Nik Nacks
operation which almost had its.permit revoked because the ro rietor had committed
P p
misdemeanors. He stated that applicants will usually continue their operation until
a court orders them to cease. The Secretary explained that the legal procedure in
obtaining such ch a court order is burdensome for
the City. The Secretary also stated .
that the Planning Commission should feel comfortable that the Standards for a
Special Use permit will be met by the proposed use. The Secretary pointed out that
the operation would not be legal until a food license is obtained and that this
cannot be obtained until the special use permit is granted. Commissioner Simmons
stated that the food license is not within the purview of the Planning Commission,`
but that parking is a concern of the Planning Commission. She argued that the
multiple uses of the site would create congestion unless more parking were provided.
Commissioner Ainas stated that he was concerned that the City mightjeopardi'ze its
case against Mr. Reavely if it acted favorably on the application and did not seek_
to stop the violation. The Secretary stated,that the City could continue the application until the court decides the criminal matter before it. He stated that
he could look into the possibility of initiating a civil action against Mr. Reavely
to stop the selling of food without a license or a special use permit.
Chairman Lucht then called on the representative of the applicant to speak. Mr. Bill
Sathre stated that Mr. Reavely felt strongly about the first plan that he drew up
for the Planning Commission. He stated that the plan done by Suburban Engineering
verified Mr. Reavely's measurements. Chairman Lucht explained that the Planning
Commission was not questioning Mr. Reavely's honesty in providing the Commission
with the parking plan drawn by himself. The Secretary pointed out that profession-
ally drawn plans are required by the City's Ordinance. He pointed out also that
there was a conflict between a previous plan on file with the City and Mr. Reavely's
hand drawn plan. He stated that the new parking plan drawn by Suburban Engineering
settles the question of the correct measurements.
Mr. Sathre stated that Mr. Reavely checked with the City for the proper parking
space requirements before drawing, the plan. He also stated that Mr. Reavely is
firm on counting the parking at the gas pump islands. He stated that there was
never a delay of cars at the gas pumps.
Chairman Lucht stated that it was possible for additional parking to be put in. He
stated that the issue is whether such parking should be put in. He noted that if
parking were deferred, Mr. Reavely would have to agree in writing to put it in
upon a determination by the City that it is necessary. Commissioner Simmons again_
noted that taking that route could lead to a long drawn out process to enforce the
agreement. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that it was not up to the Planning Com-
mission to judge the character of Mr. Reavely, but to analyze the parking issue.
PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 830291
Chairman Lucht then reopened the public hearing on Application No. 83029. Noting
that no one was present to speak on the application, he called for a motion to
close the public hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public
hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Lucht stated that parking appeared to be'the only issue with regard to the
application. He stated that the Commission seemed to agree that the Standards for
a Special ai Use
p Permit mit are met with the roof -of- arkin
P p that has been
9 dr awn
u by
Suburban Engineering. Commissioner Manson noted that the proof -of- parking plan
8 -11.83 -10-
shows 90 stalls while the existing parking along the north side of the site is
angle parking. She asked whether the approval would require that the proof -of-
parking be striped on the lot. The Secretary responded in the negative. He stated
that the City could accept the present pattern of parking stalls so long as_it had
a proof -of- parking plan which showed that all of the required parking stalls could
� be put in and the fact that the applicant would agree to install the parking upon
a determination of the City.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83029 (Wes' Standard)
Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend
approval of Application No. 83029, subject to the following conditions:
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and
regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for
revocation.
2. Permit approval acknowledges proof -of- parking for five
additional stalls on the site. The applicant shall agree
in writing prior to City Council approval to install parking
spaces in accordance with the proof -of- parking plan upon a
determination by the City that additional spaces are needed
to prevent traffic congestion in the public streets.
3. The screen fence along the east side of the property shall
be repaired and painted prior to the issuance of permits.
4. The area long the west side of the building (by the front
entrance) shall be designated and signed a.fire lane and no
parking shall be permitted in this area.
* Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Manson, Ainas and Sandstrom.
Voting against: Commissioner Simmons. The motion passed. Commissioner Simmons
stated that her reasons for opposing the application were already set forth in the
previous discussion.
DISCUSSION ITEMS - Ordinance Amendment
The Secretary brief y reviewed for the Planning Commission the proposed ordinance
amendment to allow tennis clubs and other athletic clubs as a special use permit
in the C2 zoning district, but without a restriction on abutting residential
property. The Secretary asked whether the Commission wanted to strike the term
"recreation centers" from the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Lucht recommended that
"recreation centers" be stricken because other uses cover what would be included
under a "recreation center." Chairman Lucht asked whether Viking Gym had been
classified as a gymnasium. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Chairman
Lucht asked what use in the City would be considered a recreation center. The
Secretary answered that the City's Community Center might be considered a recreation
center since it included a number of different activities within it. The Secretary
went on to explain to Commissioner ner Sandstrom the purpose of the ordinance amendment
and the background of the application by the Normandale Tennis Club appealing the
staff's determination that a racquet and swim club could not be located adjacent
to residential property. '
ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Motion by Commissioner . Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend adoption
of an ordinance amendment to establish a separate special use category for tennis
and swim clubs and other athletic clubs which would not restrict abutment with
Wanson, esidential property. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioner Simmons,
Ainas and Sandstrom. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
8 -11 -83 -11-
ADJOURNMENT
Following a brief discussion of upcoming business; there was a motion by Com-
missioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion
passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:32 p.m.
Chairman
I ,
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 83042
Applicant: Robert D. Welty
Location: 66th and Xerxes Avenue North
Request: Preliminary Plat
The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide into three lots the
parcel of land at the southwest quadrant of I -94 and•Xerxes Avenue North. The
property in question is zoned RI and is bounded on the north by I -94,on the east
by Xerxes Avenue North, on the south by public right -of -way between Xerxes Avenue
North and the old Xerxes Avenue North right -of -way, and on the west by "old"
Xerxes and a single- family residence. The property was recently acquired at an
auction of tax - forfeited property.
The existing parcel is described as Outlot G, Twin Cities Interchange Park Addi-
tion. An outlot is unbuildable by definition under the City's Subdivision Ordi-
nance. The proposed legal description is Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Dee Welty
Addition. The existing parcel is 33,390 sq. ft. The new parcels" have the
following characteristics:
L egal Description Area Frontage Width Average Depth
Lot 1 12,152 s.f. 20' 98' 125'
Lot 2 9,500 s.f. 61' 75' 114'
Lot 3 11,738 s.f. 148' 148'_ 80'
The proposed lots meet ordinance requirements except for lot depth on Lot 3 and
frontage on Lot 1. A separate application (No. 83043) has been filed requesting
a variance from these provisions. All three lots have sufficient buildable area
to locate a normal residence and two -car garage within required setbacks. The
setback off Xerxes Avenue North is 25.', from I -94, 10' (because of presence of
noise wall). The setback from "old" Xerxes Avenue North from which the lots will
gain access is superceded by an NSP power line easement which is 55.5' wide over
Lot l and 35.5' wide over Lots 2 and 3.
The street serving these lots is only a half - street (20' wide paved area) al-
though there is 50' of right -of -way. Both 66th AVenue North and Quarles Road,
which are the two nearest cross streets, also have 50' rights -of -way with full
size(30' wide) streets. Water and sewer are available in "old" Xerxes Avenue
North, but no service leads have been extended to the property line. City staff
recommend that the existing half- street be widened to a full 30 width, allowing
for 10'wide boulevards. A subdivision agreement establishing responsibility for
9 9 P Y
public improvements and assessing costs will be required.
Subject to approval of Application No. 83043, the plat generally appears to be 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 applicant shall enter into a subdivi.sion agreement with the
City stipulating the widening of "old Xerxes to a full street
width and extension of public utilities to the respective lots.
4 8 -11 -83
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 83043
Applicant: Robert D. Welty
' Location: 66th and Xerxes Avenue North
Request: Variance
The applicant regents a variance from Section 15 -106 of the Subdivision Ordinance
(attached) to allow a lot with an average depth of 80' rather than the required 110'
and to allow a lot with only 20' of street frontage rather than the required 60'.
The lots in question are Lots l(frontage) and 3 (depth) of the proposed Dee Welty
Addition ( see Application No. 83042). The land in question is zoned R1 and is
bounded on the north by I -94, on the east by Xerxes Avenue North,on the south by
right -of -way extending between Xerxes and the "old" Xerxes Avenue North right-of-
way, and on the west by "old" Xerxes and a single - family residence.
The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he addresses the Standards
for a Subdivision variance (also attached). He points out that the existing parcel
has ample area and street frontage for the three proposed lots, but that the
variances are needed to obtain an aesthetic configuration of the lot lines. He
states that development of the parcel with less than three lots would "seriously
deprive the petitioner of his right to fully realize the best investment standards
of which he is entitled." He states that the improvement costs would be sub-
stantially the same whether 1, 2 or 3 lots are developed. Finally, he states
that there would be no detrimental effect to the public welfare; rather the public
would benefit from an increased tax base. He notes there would be no greater cost
maintaining the street if the variance is granted..
The Subdivision.Ordinance provides that the City Council may grant a variance
when, in its opinion, an undue hardship may result from strict compliance. To grant
such a variance, the Council most find:
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting said
property such that the strict application of the provisions of
this ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use
of his land.
2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the petitioner.
3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in
which said property is situated.
The parcel in question, Outlot G, Twin Cities Interchange Park Addition, was
created in 1967 when the alignment of the Xerxes Avenue bridge and Xerxes Avenue
North right -of -way were dedicated. It is apparently a remnant parcel from the
original Earle Brown Farm which could not be incoporated into the Industrial Park
because of the alignment of the freeway.. The power line easement running along
the west side of the property was included'in the original 1967 plat. 'It should
be noted that there were a number of parcels created as outlots in the Twin Cities
Interchange Park Addition plat, most of which were quite large. The fact that the
parcels were designated as outlots did not necessarily mean that they were too
small to be developed.
8 -11 -83 -1-
Application No. 83043 continued
The area of the parcel is 33,390 sq.ft. more than large enough for three buildable
lots. The buildable area outside the NSP easement and other setbacks is large
enough to accommodate normal sized dwellings on each of.the three lots. It should
be noted that a variance from the zoning requirement for 30% of lot area to be in
rear yard would be required on Lot 1 and possibly on Lot 3. Approval of this
variance would certainly imply that the configuration of Lots 1 and 3 and the
presence of.the power line easement create a hardship in terms of trying to meet
zoning requirements for the placement of structures. Staff believe such a hard-
ship would certainly exist for Lot 1 and possibly for Lot 3. In general, we
believe that the proposed lots are reasonable in that they provide adequate width
and lot area and.buildable area. It would appear unreasonable to deny the
three lots in light of the circumstances surrounding the existing parcel
As to enjoyment of property rights, we do not believe (as the applicant apparently
does) that the Subdivision Ordinance guarantees anyone the best possible return
on investment. How much money someone makes or loses on real estate investments
is not a concern of the Subdivision Ordinance. What is a concern is that a given
area of property should be subdividable into -a reasonable number of parcels
without being unduly restricted by the regulations in the Subdivision Ordinance.
We believe three lots is 'a reasonable subdivision of this parcel and may be ap-
proved by variance (whether or not the owner makes money on the deal) .
We also agree that there should be no adverse impact on surrounding property.
Although some people in the neighborhood may have become accustomed to using this
land in a recreational manner, the surrounding owners really have no basis.to
prohibit' development of the property for three single - family homes.
Regarding precedent, we should note that lot variances have generally been ap-
proved if:
1. The variance(s) have been minimizedto the maximum extent
possible.
2. There is no excess land available on adjacent lots to meet
the strict letter of the ordinance.
3. The proposed lot or lots meet at least two of the requirements
for lot width, depth, and area, especially lot area.
In this case, -Lot.3 has been made as large as possible and Lot 2_kept to the mini-
mum size as a means of maximizing buildable area and lot depth on Lot 3. The
frontage variance has not been minimized, however. A different configuration of
property lines was originally submitted which provided 60' of frontage for both
Lot l and Lot 2, but the side property lines would have slanted in front of
prospective building sites making for a very confusing arrangement. Staff felt
that a frontage variance was preferable to such an arrangement.
As to excess land on neighboring lots, there -is extra land on the lot to the west;
but the variances in question do not pertain to a lack of area. Finally, two of
the lots in question meet the width, depth, and area requirement of the Sub
division Ordinance. One lot meets width and area, but,no't depth. We feel this'
arrangement, is in keeping with previous variances.
In conclusion, staff recommend that the variance application be granted on the
grounds that the standards for'a'variance are met in this case. A public hearing
on this application has been scheduled and notices have been sent.
8 -11 -83 -2-
Planning Commission.Information Sheet
Application No. 83045
Applicant: Ramada Inri Al Beisner
Location: Freeway Boulevard, east of Shingle Creek
Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Permit
The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to
construct a 13 storey, 174 room hotel on the north side of Freeway Boulevard,
immediately east of Shingle Creek. 'The property in question•is zoned I -1 and is
bounded on the north and east by vacant I -1 zoned property, on the south by
Freeway Boulevard, and on the west by Shingle Creek. Hotels are a special use in
the I -1 zone and are subject to the Standards for a Special Use Permit and to the
standards listed in Section 35 -330 Subsection 3(f) (both attached).
The proposed site for the hotel is a 6.3 acre parcel of land, proposed as Tract
B of the R.L.S. proposed under Application No. 83046. Access to the hotel will
be via a 24' wide opening onto Freeway Boulevard at the southeast corner of Tract
B. Access will also be available indirectly off Shingle Creek Parkway at a
median opening approximately 400' north of the intersection with Freeway Boule-
vard. The cost of constructing this median opening will be assessed to the hotel
site and to the other parcels west of Shingle Creek Parkway which will benefit
from this access. A private service drive extending east from Shingle Creek
Parkway along the north side of Tracts 0 and F will carry, t aTfic °;to the hotel
site and other sites within this general area, including the large central
parking lot.
The parking requirement for the hotel use takes into account a-number of activi-
ties within the building. Although there are 174 rooms, there will be only 172
separate keys (there will be two suites composed of two rooms each) which require
one parking stall each. There will be a 90 seat restaurant, _a 20 seat breakfast
room, and a 200 seat nightclub all calcualted at one space per two seats. A
ballroom with seating capacity of 280 and meeting rooms with seating capacity of
180 are calculated at a rate one space per three seats. Finally; the entire
establishment will be served by 44 employees on the maximum shift; calculated at
one space per two employees. Th-e sum of these parking requirements comes to a
grand total of 502 parking spaces, 404 of which will be provided on site. Ninety
eight (98) spaces will be deferred until eventual construction of the large
central parking lot serving the commercial and industrial area at the northwest
quadrant of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. Eleven (11) handicapped
parking stalls are required for this use, all of which will be provided on the
hotel site, close to the building.
The site is laid out with a large parking area southeast of the building and
smaller parking areas to the northeast and northwest of the building. A main
central drive leads from the Freeway Boulevard access to a circular drop -off
area in front of the building. This main drive is bounded on each side by a 10'
wide delineator planted with crab trees. The building is oriented perpendicular
to the Shingle Creek right -of -way from which it is set back 50' (the building is
318' from Freeway Boulevard). Parking is set back 42' from the Shingle Creek
right -of -way. The greenstrips along interior property lines will 7' wide, 15'
wide along Freeway Boulevard. The hotel plans to construct a set of bituminous
paths to line up with the City's bike and walkway trail system within the Shingle
Creek right -of -way.
8 -11 -83 -1-
Application No. 83045 continued
Plantings include 39 shade trees (22" to 3" dia.) around the building and the
perimeter of the site, including Hackberry, Littleleaf Linden, Sugar Maple, Sum-
mit Ash and Skyline Honeylocust. Twenty -four (24) Crab trees, including Red
Splendor Crab, Spring Snow Crab, and Vanguard Crab, are scheduled in large con-
crete delineators and adjacent to the major entrance points. Rock mulch will be
used in the two large.concrete islands alongside the main entrance drive. In
addition the plan calls for almost 200 shrubs and almost 600 flowers to be con-
centrated in areas around the building and the drop -off at the main south-
entrance. These shrubs include Broadmoor junipers, Techny Arborvitae, American
Cranberry, Amur Maple, A.W. Spirea, Gold Drop Potenti'lla,'and Green and Red
Bayberries. The flowers will mostly be Snow on the Mountain. The landscape
plan indicates underground irrigation in all sodded areas and planting beds next
to the building. Rock mulch is proposed adjacent to interior property lines
rather than sod. Staff recommend that the Planning Commission examine this
choice and consider whether sod would not be more appropriate, in keeping with
other commercial sites.
The - grading and utility plans call for surface runoff to drain toward a series
of catch basins located about mid -way between the hotel and outer property lines.
The plan proposes that openings be left in some concrete delineators to allow
runoff to flow toward catch basins. The catch basins in the northeast and south-
east parking lots are connected by a singel storm sewer line which widens from
18" diameter to 30" diameter as it drains into Shingle Creek. A baffle weir is
proposed to be constructed just inside the Shingle Creek right -of -way to skim off
oil before the water enters the Creek. A similar, but smaller, system is pro-
posed to handle drainage from the northwest parking lot.
Water service to the building will be gained from an existing 12" water main in
Freeway Boulevard. Sewage will flow west under Freeway Boulevard and south under
the freeway to main lines serving the Central Neighborhood rather than east along
Freeway Boulevard and 65th Avenue North to an interceptor under the freeway.
This is because of a bottleneck in the sewer line between Humboldt Avenue North
and Dupont Avenue North which restricts the total flowage which can be carried by
this line for the Industrial Park. A lift station will have to be installed at
the southwest corner of the hotel site to move sewage through a 4" force main to
existing sanitary sewer further west in Freeway Boulevard. The cost of this lift
station will be assessed against the hotel and other parcels using the force
main.
1
The building itself will have a brick exterior (samples of brick will be` avail-
able at Thursday night's meeting). The first two floors of the building will be
rather large, encompassing restaurants, nightclub, ballroom, meeting rooms,
swimming area, kitchen facilities, lobby, laundry, offices and a terrace. The
rooms themselves will be located in a tower extending 11 stories above -the first
two floors. The typical floor in the tower will have 16 rooms around the outer
walls with elevator, stairwell, linen room and canteen in the central area. At
the eleventh floor, an overhang protrudes approximately 4' from the north and
south (facing Freeway Boulevard) elevations of the building, expanding four of
the rooms -(two along either wall) on floors 11 12 and 13. The four corner rooms
on the eleventh floor will be equipped with a small bar. The building is to be ,
equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system in accordance with NFPA
standards and the City's fire code.
Regarding the standards for a special use permit, the applicant has submitted no
written materials apart from the building plans. Staff no conflict
p o esi tean db d gp St see t
with standards (a) and (b) from Section 35 -220. Standard (c) would not have been
met if sewage were to flow east under Freeway Boulevard rather than west. Such a
proposal would have impeded development of other I -1 zoned land further east.
8 -11 -83 -2-
Application 83045 continued
However, with the sewer route proposed we feel there is no concern regarding
standard (c). Regarding ingress, egress and parking to minimize traffic-conges-
tion in the public streets, staff oelieve the combination of accesses off Free-
way Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway provide good access to the site with a
good deal of stacking space provided on prvate property. The.greatest concern is
probably over an increasing number of left turns onto Freeway Boulevard posed by
this use and anticipated restaurant uses at the northwest corner of Freeway
Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway. We believe traffic congestion can be
manageable if: 1) only two accesses to Freeway Boulevard are allowed between
Shingle Creek and Shingle Creek Parkway; 2) the median opening I in Shingle Creek
Parkway is at least 400' north of the intersection with Freeway Boulevard; and
3) the accesses onto Freeway Boulevard are offset at least 125' from each other.
Regarding the standards set forth in Section 35 -330, Subsection 3(f) regarding
commercial uses in the I -1 district, staff feel that the proposed hotel use is
compatible and complimentary to the uses permitted in the I -1 district generally.
We would admit that, from the standpoint of traffic, the proposed use is probably
more intense than permitted uses in the I -1 zone, but with the changes proposed
traffic should not be a major problem. With regard to truck traffic, noise,
odor, vibration, glare, or heat, the proposed use is probably of comparable
intensity. Overall, we feel the hotel use does not threaten the other uses in
the Industrial Park. Finally, as mentioned above, we feel the facility is so
designed that the traffic generated will not have an adverse impact.
Altogether, the use proposed and the plans for it generally appear to be in
order. Approval is recommended, 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. Plan approval acknowledges deferral of 98 parking spaces to be
located on the large, central parking lot serving the commercial
and insustrial uses in this area. A separate Peformance Agree-
ment and supporting financial guarantee shall be secured by the
City for improvements to the central parking lot prior to the
issuance of permits for the hotel.
3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the
Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to
the issuance of permits.
4. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to
review and approval by the Engineer, prior to the
issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site
improvements.
5. 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.
6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
8 -11 -83 -3-
Application No. 83045 continued
7. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire ex- i
tinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be
connected to a central monitoring in accordance with
Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances.
8. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all
landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance.
9. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to.
Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
10. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all 'parking and
driving areas. -
11. A flood plain use permit shall be obtained for earthwork within
the flood fringe.
12. The landscape plan shall be revised to indicate sod.in.the 7'
wide greenstrip areas adjacent to interior property lines.
I ,
8 -11 -83 -4-
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 83046
Applicant: Ramada Inn /A1 Beisner
Location: Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway
u
Re est: Preliminary R.L.S.
q� Y
The applicant requests preliminary R.L.S. approval to subdivide into seven tracts the
southerly parcel of land created by R.L.S. approved under Application No. 82004 (this
R.L.S. has still not been filed at the County and, therefore, has no number). The
n n b
land in question is zoned I -1 and is bounded o the north Y
MTC the site for
speculative industrial buildings 10 and 11, and the site of the central parking lot
serving this area, on the east by Shingle Creek Parkway, on the south by Freeway
Boulevard, and on the west by Shingle Creek. The prospective uses include office-
.
warehouse on Tracts A and G hotel on Tract B, parking lot on Tract C., and rest-
. p
aurants on Tracts, D, E, and F.
The area of the entire subdivision is 24.1 acres. This is divided in the following
manner:
Tracts Acres
A 6.3
B 6.3
C 1.3
D 2.0
E 2.1
F 1.7
G 4.4
Total 24.1
Two parcels, Tracts A and C, have no frontage on public streets: Access to these
parcels is assured by cross- access agreements which overlay all the land from
i adjacent to Freeway Blvd.
9 hotel re staura nt sites Spec. on the north to the ote and estaura t � Y
on the south.
A drainage and utility easement is indicated over a portion of the northwest area..
of Tract A. This easement is primarily for drainage. A master utility plan for
this entire development area shows prospective locations for water and sanitary
sewer lines as well. The Commission is referred to a memo from the Assistant
City Engineer regarding the proposed. R. L. S. and a subdivision agreement for
certain improvements in public right -of -way.
Approval of the preliminary R.L.S. is recommended subject to at.least the follow
ing conditions:
1. The final R.L.S. is subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
2. The final R.L.S.. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of
the City Ordinances.
3. The preliminary R.L.S. shall be revised to include items noted
.in the Assistant Cit Engineer's memo of August 8, 1983, prior
Y 9 9
to consideration by the City Council,
8 -11 -83 -1-
Application No. 83046 continued
4. Pr' 1
e iminary R.L.S. approval acknowledges a master plan for
grading and utilities.for the area encompassed by this R.L.S.
and the areas occupied by Spec. 10 and 11 and the central parking
lot. Said master grading and utility plan shall be subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer. However, review and
approval of individual site development plans is not thereby
implied.
5. The applicant shall enter 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) the median opening -in Shingle Creek Parkway
b) potential installation of a traffic signal at the
above median opening
c) sanitary sewer improvements
8 -11 -83 -2-
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 83047
Applicant: Ramada Inn /A1 Beisner
Location: Northwest corner of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway
Request: Special Use Permit
The applicant requests special use permit approval for off-site parking to serve
the Ramada Hotel proposed along the north side of Freeway Boulevard, immedi-
ately east of Shingle Creek. The accessory off -site parking -lot is to be located
on Tract C of the proposed Registered Land Survey for this area (see Application
No. 83046). Both the site of the principal use and the site of the off -site
accessory parking is a special accessory use in that zoning district.
The total required parking for Ramada Inn is 502 spaces, 404 of which are located
on the principal site. Ninety- eight (98) spaces are, therefore, proposed for the
off -site accessory parking lot. The spaces proposed in Tract C meet the require-
ments of Section 35 -701 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) for off -site accessory
parking (ie. they are not located in a more restrictive zone; they are on a single
site; they are within 800' of the site of the principal use; there are more than ;
20 spaces; they are not located across a major street, although they are located
across a private access drive serving this and other prospective_ developments in
the proposed R.L.S.). A legal encumbrance for the 98 stalls has not been sub-
mitted. Such a document should be submitted with the final R.L.S. and filed at
the County prior to issuance of building permits.
The ordinance also provides that accessory off -site parking site improvements
shall be provided as required by the City Council. In this case, the accessory
off -site parking lot will not be constructed immediately and the stalls to be
located on that site will serve as proof -of- parking during the period while con-
struction of the off -site lot is deferred. The applicant has pointed out to
staff that the ordinance formulas result in double - counting some hotel patrons
who will also use the restaurant, nightclub, and /or meeting rooms. Therefore,
these 98 off -site stalls need not be installed immediately. Staff concur that a
deferral of the off -site improvements is warranted. However, as the conditions
of the site plan approval suggest, we recommend that a bond be held by the City
to insure the installation of central common parking lot at some time in the
future. A formal site plan for this large central lot, including landscaped
areas, should be submitted for separate approval before the last parcel of the
proposed R.L.S. is developed in order to firmly establish how many parking spaces
will actually be installed and what spaces will be allocated to which use.
A master plan for the proposed R.L.S. and including speculative industrial
buildings 9, 10, and 11, has been submitted with certain stalls from the central
parking lot designated for the Ramada Inn. Based on this master plan, approval
- of the special use permit for off -site accessory parking is recommended subject
to at least the following conditions:
1. At least 98 parking spaces to be constructed on Tract C of.the
R.L.S. proposed under Application No.83046 shall be legally
encumbered to the sole use of the Ramada Inn on Tract B of the
same R.L.S. The legal encumbrance shall be subject to review
and approval by the City Attorney and shall be filed at the
County prior to the issuance of building permits.
A separate performance guarantee provided , by Shingle Creek
Land Company shall be held to insure completion of site improve-
ments to the large central, common parking lot on the master
plan for the area bounded by Freeway Boulevard on the south,
Shingle Creek Parkway on the east and north, and MTC and Shingle
Creek on the west.
8 -11 -83
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 83044
Applicant: The Salvation Army
Location: 2300 Freeway Boulevard
Request: Special Use Permit
The applicant requests special use permit approval to use the property at 2300
PP q P P PP P P Y
Freeway Boulevard (formerly Swenson's Ethan Allen Carriage House) for the divisional
headquarters of the Salvation Army. The property in question is zoned I -1 and is
bounded on the northeast by Shingle Creek, on the south by Freeway Boulevard and on
the northwest by the Schmitt Music warehouse /store. Office uses are allowed in the
I -1 zone by special use permit. The previous use of the building was also a special
use, but that permit was for a retail/commercial use and is not transferable to the
proposed use.
The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he explains the reasons for
the transfer to the Brooklyn Center location (the Salvation Army offices are presently
located at 1516 !lest Lake Street, Minneapolis). He explains that a number of Salva-
tion Army personnel live close to the Brooklyn Center location and that the proximity
of the site to the freeway - system will improve access to Salvation Army facilities
Mr. Speck explains that the use of the property would be for administrative offices
only and will not include any distributional services. He states that there are to
be approximately 35 persons employed at the site. There are presently 54 parking
spaces available on the site which should accommodate normal demand and occasional
committee meetings which bring extra people to the site.
The applicant has also submitted an as -built survey of the site and a copy of the
proof -of- parking plan submitted with the original site and building plans. The
building in question is approximately 15,000 sq. ft. The office parking requirement
for a building of this size is 75 spaces. Although there are only 54 presently in-
stalled, the proof. -of- parking plan shows a capacity on the site of over 100 spaces.
We do not feel there is any need to install more parking at this time. A condition
of approval should acknowledge the proof -of- parking and require the applicant to
commit.in writing to the installation of more parking in the event the City determines
additional parking is needed.
Staff see no conflict with the standards for a special use permit (attached) nor
with the limitations placed on commercial special uses in the I -1 zone (also attached).
Approval is, therefore, recommended subject to the following conditions:
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes ordinances, and
regulations, and any violation thereof shall. be grounds for
revocation.
2. The special use permit is issued to the Salvation Army as the
user of the facility and is nontransferable.
3. Special use permit approval acknowledges a proof -of- parking for
stalls sufficient to-meet the requirement for office use of the
entire building. In the event that the City determines that
existing parking spaces are inadequate, the applicant shall be
required to install additional parking stalls up to the office
requirement of 75 spaces. The applicant shall state in writing
that they understand and agree to this condition prior to the
. issuance of the Special Use Permit.
4. Building plans.for the remodeling to office space are subject
to the review and approval of the Building Official with respect
to applicable codes prior to the issuance of building permits.
8 -11 -83
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 83029
Applicant: Wes' Standard
Location: 6044 Brooklyn Boulevard
Request: Special Use Permit
The applicant requests special use permit approval to sell items other than fuels,
lubricants or automotive parts and accessories at the service station at 6044
Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the
north, east, and south by R5 zoned property (Brookdale Manor Apartments) and on
the west by Brooklyn Boulevard. This application was reviewed by the Planning
Commission at its June 30, 1983 meeting. At that time, the application was tabled
and the applicant was directed to submit a professionally drawn parking plan to
show that adequate parking can be provided on the site in accordance with Section
35 -704, 2(b) and (c) of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission is referred to the
minutes and information sheet from that meeting (attached) for background on this
application.
The applicant has recently submitted a plan which provides proof -of- parking for
up to 23 parking stalls. Twenty -three (23) stalls is the number required by the
service station (12) and the retail sales operation (11). The applicant does not
intend to put in all of the stalls shown on the plan, but will continue with the
18 existing stalls. He feels that additional parking is unnecessary since most
customers will be parked at the gas pumps while they purchase food or other items.
Staff would acknowledge that this is probably acceptable, but would recommend that
the applicant be required to agree in writing to put in the proof -of- parking stalls
upon a determination by the City that additional'stalls are necessary to avoid
traffic congestion in the public streets.
The Assistant City Engineer has reviewed the plan to see that certain turning
movements are possible, given'the location of the proposed parking stalls. He is
satisfied that movements into and out of the service bays and car wash should be
unimpeded. There is a driving lane, south of the building, which is indicated to
be 21' wide rather than the normal 24'. This deficiency is offset by the fact
that the stalls adjacent to this driving lane are 19' 6" in depth when only 18'
is required with curb overlap. Taking l' 6" from each stall adds 3' to the driving
lane to meet the required minimum. Also, a stall in the southeast corner of the
site is labeled as an angle parking stall. However, we feel this stall should more
appropriately be a 90° stall
It should be noted that Mr. Reavely has proceeded to sell food and other items at
the service station without a special use permit and without a food establishment
license. He has been cited for an ordinance violation and the matter is in court
and has been continued for arraignment until September 6. In_the meantime, Mr.
Reavely continues to operate the retail business without the proper license and
special use permit. We believe such a flagrant action cannot be ignored.
It raises serious question regarding whether or not the applicant can meet Stan-
dard (a) for granting special use permits•(It should be noted that with the sub-
mitted plan and certain assurances by the applicant, the staff feel the other
standards can be met).
Standard (a) states that "The establishment, maintenance or operation of the
special use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be
detrimental to or endanger the p ub.lic health safet y , , morals or comfort "(emphasis
added). Selling food products without the required license certainly has the
potential of endangering the public health and safety and may be indicative of the
applicant's attitude regarding compliance with all applicable codes,_ ordinances
and regulations.
8 -11 -83 -1-
Application No. 83029 continued
Further consideration by the Planning Commission and assurances by the applicant is
in order.
We have been contacted m 0
t by Boyer Palmer, owner of the apartment co Alex -east of the
site, who states that he does not object to the grocery.`operation at the site, but
has indicated that the screen fence on the Standard siteis in need of painting and
some minor maintenance. We would recommend such a conditionif this application
receives a favorable . review by the Commission.
Based on the parking plan submitted and resolution of the Standards for a Special
Use Permit approval can be recommended subject to the following conditions:
1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and
regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for
revocation.
2. Permit approval acknowledges proof -of- parking for 5 additional
stalls on the site. The applicant shall agree in writing prior
to the issuance of the permit to install parking spaces in
accordance - determination
ce w th the proof-of-parking plan upon a determ nat on
by the City that additional spaces are needed to prevent traffic
congestion in the public streets.
3. The screen fence along the east side of'the property shall be
repaired and painted prior to the issuance of permits.
I
8 -11 -83
2-
13a
TO: The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council of Brooklyn Center
FROM: The City of Brooklyn Center
Charter Commission
DATE: August 10, 1983
RE: TRA I TTAL OF REC O MI`J EN DED ALI ENDMENTS TO THE
BRCOKLY C. NTER CITY CH ARTER
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 410.12 Subdivision 7, the Brooklyn
Center Charter Commission recommends the adoption, by ordinance,
of the attached proposed amendments to the Brooklyn Center City
Chaster.
es ectfully,
Michael. P. Beauchane
Chairman
eb
Attachments
1
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Sections 2.01, 2.05, 2.06, 3.02, 5.09, 6.02," 6.04,
7.09, 7.16, 8.03, 8.04, 11.01, 11.02, 12.12, and 12.13 of the Brooklyn Center
City Charter are hereby amended as follows:
Section 2.01. FORM OF GOVERNMENT. The form of government established by this
charter is the "Council - Manager Plan ". The Council shall exercise the legislative
power of the City and determine all matters of policy. The City Manager shall be
the head of the administrative branch of the City [government] Government and
shall be responsible to the Council for the proper administration .of all affairs
relating to the City.
Section 2.05. VACANCIES IN THE COUNCIL. The office of Mayor or Councilmember
shall become vacant upon death, resignation, removal from office in any manner
Authorized by law or forfeiture of the office. The Mayor or Councilmember shall
forfeit the office for (1) lack at any time during the term of office of any
qualification for the office prescribed by this charter or by law, (2) violation
of any express prohibition of this charter, (3) conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or (4) failure to attend three consecutive regular meetings of
-the Council without being excused by the Council. A vacancy in the Council shall
be filled temporarily by the Council and then by the voters for the remainder of
the term at the next regular election unless that election occurs within one
hundred (100) days from the occurrence of the vacancy, this period being necessary
to allow time for candidates to file. The Council by a majority vote of all its
remaining members shall appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy until the
person elected to serve the remainder of the unexpired term takes office. If the
Council fails to fill a vacancy within thirty (30) days, the [election authorities]
City Clerk shall call a special election to fill the vacancy. The election will
be held not sooner than ninety (90)'days and not later than one hundred and twenty
(120) days following the occurrence of the vacancy and to be otherwise governed
by the provisions of Section ,4.03, special elections.: The quorum of the Council
consists of three (3) members, if at any time the membership of the Council is
reduced to less than three (3) the remaining members may be unanimous action
appoint additional members to raise the membership to three (3)
Section 2.06. THE MAYOR. The Mayor shall be the presiding officer of the Council,
except that the Council shall choose from its members a president pro -tem who
shall hold office at the pleasure of the Council and shall serve as president in
the Mayor's absence and as Mayor in case of the Mayor's disability or absence from
the City. The Mayor shall have a vote as a member of the Council and shall exercise
all powers and perform all duties conferred and imposed upon the Mayor by this
charter, the ordinances of the City, and the laws of the State. The Mayor shall be
recognized as the official head of the City for all ceremonial purposes, by the
courts for the purpose of serving civil process, and by the Governor for the
'purposes of martial law. The Mayor -shall study the operations of the City government
and shall report to the Council any neglect, dereliction of duty,.or waste on the
part of [office] officer or department of the City. 'In time of public danger
or emergency the Mayor may, with the consent of the Council, take command of -the
police, maintain order and enforce the law.
ORDINANCE NO.
Section 3.02. SECRETARY OF COUNCIL•. The City Clerk or the City Clerk's design
shall act as Secretary of the Council. The Clerk shall keep a journal of Council
proceedings and such other records and perform such other duties as may be required
by this charter or as the Council may require. The Council shall choose such
other officers and employees as may be necessary to serve at its meetings. In
the absence of the City Clerk, the Council may designate any other official or
employee of the City (except the City Manager or a member of the Council) to act
as Secretary of the Council.
Section 5.09. INITIATION OF CHARTER AMENDMENTS. Nothing in this charter shall
be construed as in any way affecting the right of the registered voters,•under
the constitution and statutes of Minnesota, to propose amendments to this charter.
MINNESOTA STATUTES ANNOTATED
Section 410.12 Subdivision 7
Charter Amendment by Ordinance
Subd. 7. Amendment by ordinance. Upon recommendation of the
charter commission the city council may enact a charter amendment
by ordinance. Such an ordinance, if enacted,.shall be adopted by
L the - council by an affirmative vote of all its members after a
public hearing upon t o we
weks' published e containi
noticng the
text of the proposed amendment and shall be approved by the mayor
and published as in the case of other ordinances. An ordinance
amending a city charter shall not become effective until 90 days
after passage and publication or at such later date as is fixed
in the ordinance. Within 60 days after passage and publication
of such an ordinance, a petition requesting a referendum on the
ordinance may be filed with the city clerk. Such petition shall
be signed by qualified voters equal in number to two per cent of the
total number votes cast in the city at the last state general
election or 2,000, whichever is less. If the city has a system of
permanent registration of voters, only registered voters are eligible
to sign the petition. If the requisite petition is-filed within
the prescribed period, the ordinance shall not become effective
until it is approved by the voters as in the case of charter amendments
submitted by the charter commission, the council, or by petition of
the voters, except that the council may submit the ordinance at any
general or special election held at least 60 days after submission of
the petition, or it may reconsider its action in.adopting the
ordinance. As far as practicab e the r uirements of (Minnesota
Statutes 410.12) subdivisions 1[through� 3 apply to petitions
submitted under this section, to an or finance amending a charter,
and to filing of such ordinance when approved by the voters.
Section 6.02. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE CITY MANAGER.
Subdivision 5. The City Manager shall attend all meetings of the
Council unless excused by the Mayor, with the right to take part in the
discussion, but not to vote; but the Council may in its discretion_ exclude the
City Manager from any meeting at which the removal of the City Manager is
considered.
Y�
ORDINANCE NO.
Section 6.04. SUBORDINATE OFFICERS. There shall be a City Clerk, City
Treasurer, and such other officers subordinate to the City Manager as the Council
may create by ordinance. The City Clerk shall be subject to the direction of
the City Manager, and shall have duties in connection with the keeping of the
public records and such other duties as may be assigned by the City Manager or
by the provisions of this charter. The City Treasurer shall have such duties
in connection with the receipt, disbursement and custody of public funds as
may be assigned by the City Manager and other provisions of this charter. [The
Clerk may be designated by the City Manager to act as Secretary of the Council.]
The provisions of this charter shall not be construed so as to prevent the
combining of the offices of City Clerk and City Treasurer. The Council may by
ordinance abolish offices which have been created by ordinance, and may combine
the duties of various offices as it may see fit.
Section 7.09. CONTINGENCY APPROPRIATION BUDGET. The Council may include a
contingency appropriation as a part of the budget but not to exceed [three per
centum (3%)] five percent (5%) of the total appropriation of the general fund
made in the budget for that year. A transfer from the contingency appropriation
to any other appropriation shall.be made only by a majority vote of the members
of the Council. The funds thus appropriated shall be used only for the purposes
designated by the Council.
[ Section 7.16. BONDS OUTSIDE THE DEBT LIMIT. The Council may issue bonds for
legal purposes outside of the debt limit as provided by law.]
Section 8.03. LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS REGULATIONS. After this charter takes effect
local improvements commenced prior thereto shall be completed and assessments may
be levied and securities issued for the financing thereof as prescribed by the law
applicable thereto. The Council may prepare and adopt a comprehensive ordinance
prescribing the procedure which shall be followed thereafter in making all local
improvements and levying assessments therefor. Such ordinances shall [supercede
all other provisions of the law on the same subject and may] be amended only by
an affirmative vote of at least four - fifths (4/5) of the members of the Council
In the absence of such ordinances all local improvements may be made and assessments
levied therefor as prescribed by an applicable law.
Section 8.04. PUBLIC WORKS: HOW PERFORMED. Public works, including all local'
improvements, may be constructed, extended, repaired, and maintained either directly
by day labor or by contract. The City [shall] may require contractors to give bonds
for the protection of the City and all persons furnishing labor and materials
pursuant to the laws of the State.
Section 11.01. ACQUISITION AND OPERATION OF UTILITIES. The City may own and operate
any gas, water, heat, power, light, telephone or other public utility for supplying
its own needs for utility service or for supplying utility service to private
consumers or both. It may construct all facilities reasonably needed for that
purpose and may acquire any existing utility properties so needed; but such
acquisition action may only be taken by an ordinance, approved by a majority of the
electors voting thereon, at a general or special election. The operation of all
public utilities owned by the City shall be under the supervision of the [Director
of Public Works] City Manager
ORDINANCE NO.
Section 11.02. RATES AND FINANCES. Upon recommendations made by the [Director
of Public Works) City Manager or upon its own motion, the Council may fix rates,
fares and prices, for municipal utilities, but such rates, fares and prices shall
be just and reasonable. The Council shall endeavor to make each municipal utility
financially self - sustaining and shall not use any municipal utility operation
directly or indirectly as a general revenue producing agency for the City.
Before any rates, fares or prices for municipal utilities shall be fixed by the
Council, the Council shall hold a public hearing on the matter in accordance with
Section 11.06. The Council shall prescribe the time and the manner in which
payments for all such utility services shall be made, and may make such other
regulations as may be necessary, and prescribe penalties for violations of such
regulations.
[ Section 12.12. DISPOSITION OF FINES AND PENALTIES. All fines, forfeitures,
and penalties received for the violation of any ordinance shall be paid into
the City Treasury. Every court or officer receiving such monies, within thirty
(30) days thereafter, shall make return thereof under oath and shall be entitled
to duplicate receipts for the amount paid. One of the receipts shall be filed
with the City Clerk.]
Section [12.13) 12.12. ORDINANCES TO MAKE CHARTER EFFECTIVE. The Council shall
by.ordinance make such regulations as may be necessary to carry out and make
effective the provisions of this charter.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after publication
and ninety (90) days following its adoption.
Adopted this day of 19
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Published in the official newspaper
Effective Date
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
(Published in the Brooklyn Center Post )'
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police
DATE: August 24, 1983.
SUBJECT: Gambling License Application
Earle Brown Parent- Teacher Association
Attached please find the completed police investigation of the
Earle Brown School Parent- Teacher Association in application
for a Class B gambling license. Named in the license as appli-
cants are Bonnie K. Bellos, Secretary, and Mary Loel Kassner,
Gambling Manager.
Investigator Monteen's* report finds nothing of a questionable
nature revealed during the course of this investigation. In
addition to the application for a Class B gambling license, the
Earle Brown School Parent- Teacher Association has requested a
waiver of the $10,000 fidelity bond as provided by State Statue
and City Ordinance. The City Council must act on the following
matters:
1. An application for a Class B gambling license.
This requires a majority vote of the City
Council to pass.
2. A waiver of the $10,000 fidelity bond. This
requires a unanimous vote of the City Council
to pass.
•
The following s e c
a resume concerning ti
n the investigation of the Brooklyn
g o 1
g g Y
Center Police De -
12644. The application of
the Earle Brown Element
Department, tment, Case File No. 83 r School P - e Association,
a y of arent Teach r Bonnie Kay
BELLOS, Secretary, and Mary Loel KASSNER, Gambling- Mariager, in application
for o a Class 'B gambling license as issued by the City of Brooklyn Center,
Hennepin County Minnesota. This investigation was conducted by A. Paul
MONTEEN and transcribed by Shirley SWARTOUT, Clerk- Typist for the Brooklyn
Center Police Department.
APPLICANT
The Parent- Teacher Association of the Earle Brown School
5900 Humboldt Ave. North
Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430
Telephoner 561 -4480
Bonnie Kay BELLOS, Secretary
2307 Brookview Drive
Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430
Telephone: 560 -0167
Mary Loel KASSNER
6031 Lyndale Ave. No.
Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430
Telephone: one:
560 -8296
INVESTIGATION MATERIALS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS CASE FILE INCLUDE:
An application for a "gambling license.
An application for a gambling license, Part II in the name of
Bonnie Kay BELLOS
An application for a gambling license, Part II in the name of
Mary Loel KASSNER
A letter addressed to whom it may concern requesting the waiver of a
$10,000 fidelity bond
An application for a gambling license, Part III, organizational
information for the Earle Brown PTA
The Earle Brown Elementary School Parent - Teacher Association is a local
unit of the Parent - Teacher Associations organized under the authority of
the National Congress of Parents and Teachers. This association exists
as an unincorporated association of its membership. The Earle Brown
Parent- Teacher Association is housed and holds its regular meetings at
the Earle Brown Elementary School which is located at 5900 Humboldt Ave -
nue North within the corporate limits of the City of Brooklyn'Center,
Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Earle Brown Parent- Teacher Association .
has been in existance for more than the required 36 months, however, the
date of the incorporation is unavailable to this Investigator at this
- time. The By -laws of the organization were amended in 1978 indicating
organization prior to that date. The Earle Brown Parent - Teacher
Resume of Investigator A. Paul MONTEEN Case File No. 83 -12644 Page 2
Association has an active membership of approximately 255 and draws
membership from parents and teachers in the Brooklyn Center School District
who have children attending, or an association with the Earle Brown
Elementary School.
The Earle Brown Elementary School Parent- Teacher Association did obtain
a Class B gambling license from the City of Brooklyn Center in the years
1979, 1980 and 1981 and did comply with the filing of gambling report
forms as required by the Statutes of.the State of Minnesota and the Ordin-
ances of the City of Brooklyn Center. Moreover, the records of the
Brooklyn Center Police Department indicate that the Earle Brown Parent-
Teacher Association did file the Form 990 with the Internal Revenue Service
in the year 1979. However, no form was filed for the years 1980 or 1981.
The Earle Brown Elementary School Parent - Teacher Association was exempt
from filing Form 990 as they did not raise over $10,000.00 in those calendar
years nor did it employ'a professional fund raiser during that time period.
In 1979 and 1980 and 1981 no charitable report form was filed with the
Department of Commerce of the State of Minnesota due to the fact that the
amount raised was under the minimum limit and no professional fund raiser
was employed.
Bonnie Kay BELLOS, the Secretary of the Earle Brown Parent- Teachers Associ-
ation made application for the Class B gambling license on behalf of the
Earle Brown Parent- Teacher Association. BELLOS is a resident of the City
of Brooklyn Center and has resided at 2307 Brookview Drive in Brooklyn
Center from November of 1979 to the present. Prior to that time Ms. BELLOS
was a resident of Hamel, Mn. Ms. BELLOS is.a housewife and does day care
in her home. In checking the records of the Hennepin County Sheriffs Office
Jail Records Division, the Warrant Office, the NIC and MINCIS files of
the'State of Minnesota nothing of a criminal nature was found. The Brooklyn
Center Police Department shows one entry.in the name of Bonnie Kay BELLOS.
Ms. has a valid Class C drivers license with no violations.
Mary Loel KASSNER is likewise named in the application as Gambling Manager.
Ms. KASSNER is also a resident of the City of Brooklyn Center, residing at
6031 Lyndale Ave. No. where she has been a resident since 1973. Prior to
that time Ms. KASSNER resided at 8950 West River Road in Brooklyn Park.
Ms. KASSNER is currently employed by Daytons Master Design Studios at
57G1 Xerxes Ave. No. in design and sales of residential furniture. Prior
to that time Ms. KASSNER was an employee of Swenson's Ethen Allen Gallery
on Freeway Blvd. Ms. KASSNER has no record of any criminal activity or
suspect activities within the files of the Brooklyn Center Police Depart-
ment, NCIC, MINCIS, Hennepin County Sheiffs Office, Warrant Division or
Jail Records Division. Ms. KASSNER holds a valid drivers license with no
violations. Ms. KASSNER was the Gamblin g Manager er for the Earle Brown
Parent- Teacher Association in their application for a license in 1981.
Accompanying the application for a Class B gambling license for the
Earle Brown Elementary School Parent- Teacher -Association is a letter
addressed to whom it may concern and requests that the City Council waive
* a $10,000 fidelity bond as required by State Statute and City Ordinance.
Investigator MONTEEN found nothing which would preclude the issuance of a
Class B amblin
9 g license to the Earle Brown Elementary School Parent-
Resume by'Investigator.A. Paul MONTEEN Case File No. 83- 12644 Page 3
l Teacher Association or its Gambling Manager Mary Loel KASSNER.
The City Council must act on the following two (2) matters: The appli-
cation for a Class B gambling license which requires'a majority vote
of the City Council to pass and the waiver of a $10,000 fidelity bond
which requires a unanimous vote of the City Council to pass.
Licenses to be approved by the City Council on September 12, 1983
AMUSEMENT DEVICE LICENSE OPERATOR F
nc e. 1 rs�on - ups
1912 57th Ave. N.
MUf of o ice'
COMMERCIAL KDT''FL LICENSE
Daisy Mae dog ooming 6830 Humboldt Ave. N.
Sanitarian 1
GAMBLING LICENSE - CLASS B
e Brown School P.T.A. 5900 Humboldt Ave. N. l )A- kL Ck-
f of Police
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Brooklyn Ctr. ioness 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
Knights of Columbus 7025 Halifax Ave. N.
San itarian
MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE
Q uality Air 79(Y7 5th St. N.E.< _
i.ldi)Offical
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
Z b cl o a1 16 t iI�` ng 1�Tidwe s - Tn - 6 1189 Eagan Ind . Rd . oldt Sq. Cleaners 6824 Humboldt Ave. N.
San itar ian
GENERAL APPROVAL:
r d inter, City Cler
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Polic .
DATE: August 24, 1983
SUBJECT: Application for Operator's License for
William Paul Seran, Winchell's Donuts
William Paul Seran has made application on behalf of
Winchell's Donuts for a operator's license for amusement
devices. A criminal records check was done on Mr. Seran
with NCIC, MINCIS, the Warrant Office, Central Records
for the State of Minnesota and our own files and no record
was discovered for Mr. Seran.
Liability Insurance has been provided for by U. S. Fire
Insurance Company and a certificate of insurance was
provided.
Therefore, the Department can find no reason to deny
issuance of this license to Mr. Seran on behalf of
Winchell's Donuts.
�I
MINUTES OF THE FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING PROPOSED USE HEARING -
July 20, 1983
2:20 p.m.
City of Brooklyn Center
The City Manager called to order the Federal Revenue Sharing Proposed Use Hearing
at 2.30 p.m.
P .
es r
Present at the hearing were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Finance
Paul Holmlund, and Administrative Assistant Tom Bublitz.
The City Manager explained the City of Brooklyn Center is holding a public hearing
to receive suggestions from the public on how to'use 1984 Federal Revenue Sharing
Funds. He stated any individual or organization may testify orally or in writing.
He noted the City staff had not received any written or oral comments regarding
the proposed use of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. He stated the City expects to
receive approximately $150,000 in federal revenue sharing in 1984.
The City Manager discussed the status of federal revenue sharing legislation and
pointed out that the September 14, 1983 entitlement period will be the last
,entitlement period under the current Act. The Director of Finance added that
municipalities have been advised that they can anticipate receiving the same
amount of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds for 1984 as in 1983.
The Director of Finance briefly reviewed the City policy on the use of Federal
Revenue Sharing Funds, pointing out the policy is to use the revenue sharing funds
for capital expenditures and for expenditures that do not create ongoing programs.
The City Manager held the public hearing open until 3 :00 p.m. No one from the
public attended or spoke at the public hearing and the City Manager adjourned the
public hearing at 3:00 p.m.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND
THE USE OF FEDERAL REVENUE
SHARING FUNDS
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
Notice is hereby issued that a public hearing on the proposed 1984 City
Budget and the use of Federal Revenue Sharing .funds will be held.at 8 :00 P.M.,
September 12, 1983, at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center,
Minnesota. The public hearing will be adjourned and reconvened from time to
time until adoption of the proposed budget, not later than October 3, 1983.
The purpose of the public hearing is to allow' citizens to express their views,
orally or in writing, on the Budget and the use of Federal Revenue Sharing funds..
The City Manager has proposed that Federal Revenue Sharing funds in the
amount of $297,787 be used for all capital outlay expenditures contained in the
1984 City Budget.
A summary of the 1984 City Budget as proposed by the City Manager is as follows:
ESTIMATED REVENUE
` General Property Taxes $3,390,618
Federal Revenue Sharing 297,787
Other Revenue 3,222,784
• Total Estimated Revenue $6,911,189
PROPOSED APPROPRIATIONS
General Fund Capital Outlay $ 297,787
General Fund Operations 6,238,861
Debt Retirement 374,541
- Total Proposed Appropriations $6,911,189
The proposed Budget that sets forth the Estimated Revenue and Proposed
Appropriations in detail is available for public inspection at the City Hall.
Citizens wishing to submit written testimony prior to the hearing should
submit their comments to:
Mr. Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager •
City of Brooklyn Center
City Hall
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Gerald G. Splinter
City Clerk
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
Dated: August 27, 1983
(Published in the Brooklyn Center Post September 1, 1983)