Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 08-22 CCP Regular Session -a CITY COUIICIL AG121DA CITY Or BROOKLYN CEVTh AUGUST 22, 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 by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a council member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. 6. Approval of Minutes - August 8, 1983 7. Resolutions: *a. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract 198.3 -J (Municipal Service Garage Improvement Project 1 982 -28, Phase III) -This project includes final grading and paving of the storage yard at the City' garage, and construction of storage bins and fences. It is recommended the low bid of Asphalt Paving Materials, Inc. in the amount of $100,327.75 be accepted. b. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract 1 983 -K (Humboldt Avenue Street Improvement Project No. 1 983 -11) -This project provides for the widening of Humboldt Avenue North between 69th and 70th Avenue. In accordance with City Council direction, alternate bids have been taken for widening both sides ( alternate A) or the west side only (alternate B). It is recommended the low bid for alternate A from Hardrives, Inc. in the amount of $35,578 be accepted. *c. Accepting Work under Contract 1 982 -P (Lions Park Tennis Court Improvement Project No. 1982 -20, Phase I, and Municipal Service Garage Improvement Project No. 1982 -28, Phase I) -The work under this contract consisted of the soil corrections phase for the Lions Park tennis courts and the soil corrections phase for the municipal service garage project. *d. Providing for Hearing on Proposed Assessments for 1983 Diseased Shade Tree Removal Costs *e. Establishing Sanitary Sewer Rate for the Elderly CITY COUNCIL AG114DA -2 August 22,. 1 983 f. Authorizing an Agreement for Professional Services with Brauer & Associates, Inc. for the Development of a Concept Plan for a Plaza Area in Central Park -This item comprehends architectural and landscape services for conceputal design work for the proposed plaza area in Central Park. g. Amending the 1983 General Fund Budget and Authorizing the Transfer of Funds from the Council Contingency Account to the Police Department Equipment Account -This item would authorize the purchase of Helon fire extinguishers for the Police Department. h. Amending the 1983 General Fund Budget and Authorizing the Transfer of Funds from the Council Contingency Account to the Parks Maintenance Equipment Account -This resolution would authorize the replacement of the refrigerator in the Park and Recreation Department's concession trailer. 8. Ordinances: a. 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 -The franchise ordinance with Minnegasco has been prepared by a committee Of the Suburban Rate Authority over the past several months. The committee has worked with Ydnnegasco to produce a revision of the Suburban Rate Authority uniform gas franchise. The ordinance is offered for a first reading. It is recommeded that the Council set a public hearing on the ordinance for 8:00 p.m. on September 26, 1983. 1. At its July 20, 1983 meeting the Suburban Rate Authority, Board of Directors adopted a resolution authorizing $40,000 in revenue during 1984, by an assessment of the membership. The agreement further provides that the contribution is to be spread across the membership in proportion to respective voting strength. There are a total of 163 votes among the 41 cities which are members. Each vote was assessed $245.60. The City of Brooklyn Center has seven votes and its assessment is $1,717-80. If the Council approves the assessment, it is recommended a motion be made authorizing the payment of the assessment. b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Special Uses in the C2 Zoning District -The ordinance is offered for a first reading. The ordinance amendment would make tennis clubs, racquet and swim clubs and other athletic clubs and health spas a special use in the C2 zoning district. It is recommended the Council set a public hearing on the ordinance for 8:00 p.m. on September 26, 1983. CITY COU1 AGENDA -3- August 22, 1983 9. Public Hearing (8:00 p.m.) a. Hearing on Proposed Assessment for 69th -70th Avenue Street, Sanitary Sewer, and Water Pain Improvement Projects - Notices of the hearing have been sent to all affected property owners and have been published in the official newspaper. Resolution Adopting Assessment for 69th -70th Avenue Street, Sanitary Sewer, and Water Main Improvement Projects b. Hearing on Proposed Assessment" for 51st Avenue North Water Main Improvement Project No. 1982 -07 - Notices of the hearing have been sent to all affected property owners and have been published in the official newspaper. Resolution Adopting Assessment for 51st Avenue North Water Main Improvement Project No. 1982 -07 10. Planning Commission Items (8:30 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 83037 submitted by Cramer Company for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct an office park development on the R5 zoned property at the southwest quadrant of 1-94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 83037 at its August 4, 1983 meeting. Resolution Adopting Amendment of Council Resolution No. 82 -255 (Comprehensive Plan) Relative to Land Along Brooklyn Boulevard Recommended for Office or Mid Density Residential Development -The resolution would allow mid density residential and office development on an interchangeable basis along Brooklyn Boulevard. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Allow Low Rise Offices in the R3 Zoning District by Special Use Permit -The ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening. It is recommended the Council set a public hearing date on the ordinance for 8:00 p.m. on September 26, 1983. b. 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 at a parcel addressed 5839 Major Avenue North. The City Council tabled consideration of Application Nos. 83033 and "83034 at its July 25, 1983 meeting. The applicant has submitted a new site plan and has unsuccesfully attempted'to work out access agreements with Twin Lake North. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application Nos. 83033 and 83034 at its July 14, 1983 meeting. c. Planning Commission Application Nos. 83042 and 83043 submitted by Robert D. Welty for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into three lots the parcel of land at the southwest quadrant of Xerxes Avenue North and I -94 and for a variance from Section 15 -106 of the subdivision ordinance to allow a lot with an average depth of less than 110 feet and another lot with less than 60 feet of frontage. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application Nos. 83042 and 83043 at its. August 11, 1983 meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA --q- August 22, 1983 d. Planning Commission Application No. 83044 submitted by -the Salvation Army for a special use permit to conduct an office use on the I -1 zoned property at 2300 Freeway Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommended approval .of Application No. 83044 at its August 11, 1983 meeting. e. Planning Commission Application No. 83029 submitted by Wes' Standard for a special use permit to sell items others than fuels, lubricants, or automotive parts and accessories at the service station located at 6044 Brooklyn Boulevard. The application was tabled by the Planning Commission at its June 30, 1983 meeting and was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its August 11, 1983 meeting. 11 Authorization to Enter into Contract with a Collection Agency -It is recommended a motion be made by the City Council to authorize the use of a collection agency to collect accounts previously determined as being uncollectable by the City. *12. Licenses 13. Adjournment CORRECTED COPY There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the Subdivision Agreement, subject to the removal of the dirt stock pile on the site by October, 1983. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council-members Ihotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -103 :ember Gene introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBDIVISION AGRMENT FOR SUBDIVISION OF REGISTERED LAND SURVEY N0. 1537 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 11yquist, 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. PERFORT =DANCE BOND RELEASE DALE TILE, 4815 FRANCE AVENUE NORTH There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the Performance Bond Release for Dale Tile. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOIUTI 0. 83 -104 Member ne 'iotTa introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, subject to obtaining an alternate bid f J g or the construction of the northwest half of ' 69th & Humboldt also. RESOLUTION RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING HUMBOLDT AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1983-11, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1983 -K) 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. Councilmember Hawes noted that his affirmative vote on the motion indicated that he would support an improvement project which would widen one side of Humboldt Avenue North. City Vanager noted the necessity to change several items in the next resolution before the Council. First, he noted, that the last sentence in paragraph 5, should be changed to reflect a specific 12% interest rate as opposed to an interest rate to . be established by the Council in conjunction with these proceedings as stated in the resolution. Second, in paragraph 8, the wording should be changed to read Lots 1 and 2, as opposed to Lots 2 and 2 of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Evergreen Estates. RESOLUTION NO. 105 Pember Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, subject to changes requested by the City Manager. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSET AND PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 69TH -70TH AVENUE STREET, SANITARY SFWI -R, AND WATER MAIN IMPROWTENTS 7-25-83 -2- 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 8, 1983 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The �rooR yn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Assistant City Engineer Jim Grube, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, James Thomson, representing the City Attorney's office, and Administrative Assistant Tom Bublitz. Mayor Nyquist noted that Councilmember Gene Lhotka was out of town and would be absent from this evening's meeting. INVOCATION Me invocation was offered by Councilmember Scott. CONSENT AGENDA • Mayor Xyqu i's whether any Council members had any agenda items they wished removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Hawes requested items 6 and 1 Oe be removed from the Consent Agenda. FINAL PLAT - HAHN FIRST ADDITION (PLANNING C0191ISSION APPLICA NO. 83013) ere was a motion by Councilmember Scott seconded by o�uncilmember alb' wes to approve the final plat of the Hahn First Addition, subject to submission by the applicant and review by the City Attorney of an updated abstract of title for the property. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council-members Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RESOLUTIONS tE OLUTI N NO. 83-111 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR PEDESTRIAN /BICYCLE TRAMWAY IMPROVIVIENT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken theregn, 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 adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 83-112 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1982 -L (CENTRAL PARK SITE IMPROYRMT PROJECT NO 1982 - 24) 8 -8 -83 -1- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was ,duly seconded by member l 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 adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 83-113 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1983 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 adopted. LICENSES efiF�i re: was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the following list of licenses: NPMSFI ENT DEVICE OPERATOR Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. Green Mill Inn 5540 Brooklyn Blvd. K Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr. Pontillo's 5937 Summit Dr. Snyder Brothers Drug Brookdale Center T Wrights 5800.Shingle Cr. Pkwy. United Artists Theater 5810 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. AMUSEMENT DEVICE — VENDOR Carousel international Corp. P.O. Box 307 GARBAGE AND REFUSE VEHICLE LICENSE G & H U@H tation, Inc 12448 Pennsylvania Ave. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Brooklyn enter Jaycees 2106 55th Ave. SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE Twrence Sign o�pany 945 Pierce Butler Rte. TEMPORARY BEER LICENSE rood lyn Center Jaycees 2106 55th Ave. N. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. OPEN FORUM Myoyor q ist noted the Council had received a request to use the Open Forum this evening from Mrs..Mary Drabik, 4145 Jefferson, Columbia Heights. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mrs, Drabik who stated that she had recently moved into the 8 -8 -83 -2- a area from Illinois, and that she has a five month old daughter she would like to enroll in an infant swim class. She-explained that she had discussed the possibility of starting an infant swim program in Brooklyn Center, and pointed out that she was qualified to teach the program. She stated she was told by members of the Park & Recreation staff that the classes in Brooklyn Center start when children reach age 2, and that the swim instructor was philosophically opposed to the idea of infant swim classes. She stated she also volunteered to teach an eight -week infant swim course. She concluded her remarks by requesting the Council to discuss the situation with the Park & Recreation staff, and added that she would like to see the program offered in the fall. The City Manager stated that, generally, the City does not compete with other area swim programs, and that he believed there were other courses in the area offering infant swim classes. He also pointed out that the staff believes these types of programs are not heavily used, .and with the availability of infant swim classes at the YMCA and Brooklyn Jr. High, the staff has felt that the City should not offer a. similar class. He again pointed out that there has not been an overwhelming demand for these types of programs. Mrs. Drabik stated that, in talking to a number of people in the Brooklyn Center pool, they expressed an interest in an infant swim class. She added that she would be willing to teach an eight week class, at no cost, at which time the demand could be assessed.. The City Manager stated that the staff could prepare ,a written report on the availability of infant swim programs in the area. He added that, when the report was submitted to the Council, Mrs. Drabik would also receive a copy. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 25 1983 Councilmember wes note - what with regard to Resolution No. 83 -104, approved by the Council at the July 25, 1983 meeting, his intention was to vote for a project to widen only one side of Humboldt Avenue, and not for the project as described. He requested that this correction'be placed in the July 25, 1983 meeting minutes. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of July 25, 1 983 as amended by Councilmember Hawes. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION TO MR. HARRY BRADFORD Mayor Nyquist noted that Mr. Bradford could not be here this evening to accept the resolution to be presented by the City Council in recognition of his service to the City as a member of the Park & Recreation Commission. Mayor Nyquist requested that the item be placed on the next Council agenda. DIS CUSSION WITH MR. DON MO=, REPRESENTING SENATOR BOSCHWITZ'S OFFICE Mayor ICyquist welcomed Mr. Mosher to the meeting, and Mr. Mosher responded by saying that he was hereto listen and take back the Council's message to Rudy. He explained that field representatives from Senator BoschwitzIs office have been traveling the State of Minnesota in the rural areas, and that the Senator felt -it was important to also. come to the metro area. He stated that the rural concerns expressed thus far have concerned several areas, including federal revenue sharing, the new federalism, cable television, and tax incentives for development, including industrial development revenues bonds. He added that he would invite the Council's 8 -8 -83 -3- comments on these or any other•items of interest to them. Mayor Nyquist commented that the City of Brooklyn Center has demonstrated that they can accomplish things on their own if the federal government gets out of the way. ; He also noted that, with regard to cable television, what the federal government is apparently doing is in opposition to the theme of new federalism. Mr. Mosher stated that Rudy was one of the nine senators in opposition to recent t ele-communicat ions legislation. Mr. Mosher then proceeded to review the status of proposed tele- communications legislation in the Congress. - Mayor Nyquist inquired of Mr. Mosher why the Congress thought any new tele- communications legislation was necessary. Mr. Mosher stated that, apparently there have been abuses of franchises in some parts of the country,. including cases of cities requiring cable companies to provide items in addition to what was stated in the franchise. Mayor Nyquist then inquired whether or not it was true that the cable companies thought they could deal easier with Washington, rather than local governments. Mr. Mosher stated that this could very well be true. Councilmember Hawes expressed a concern to Mr. Mosher that the tax dollars be kept locally, and not sent to Washington and returned back to local governments with a lot of strings attached. Mr. Mosher acknowledged Councilmember Hawes' concern and stated that this is in thinking with Rudy's support of revenue sharing. Councilmember Hawes concluded his remarks by stating that he thought it was great that Rudy is seeking input from municipalties. Councilmember Theis stated that he thought it was difficult on local governments to budget with changes in federal revenue sharing. He added that proper lead time for local governments is essential for local government planning. Councilmember Theis then commented on recent evidence that local jurisdictions in California are apparently attempting to remove themselves from social security contributions. Mr. Mosher stated that this was true and that I,os Angeles county in California is attempting, to do this until the legislation can be clarified. He then reviewed changes in social security contributions and pointed out that the rationale for these changes appears to be that, at a higher income people can handle an increase in a tax on their social security benefits. The City Manager commented that, with regard to cable television, he believed there is also an abuse of local governments by the cable companies. He added that in almost all cases it is difficult to pin down the stated assurances made by cable television companies in the franchise agreements. He then reviewed the current state of the Community Development Block Grant Program and pointed out that the regulations in this federal program are constantly changing, and that there should be a greater emphasise on congressional control of the federal bureaucracy. He added that the programs just don't seem to work when they get down to the local level. One program, he pointed out, that was successful was the ZAWCON program which was a direct grant program to local government without the great number of audits required by the Community Development Block Grant Program. Councilmember Scott expressed a. concern over how federal tax dollars are filtered down to local jurisdictions. She explained that the amounts taken out of the tax dollar by the federal and state jurisdictions was too great, and that the funds should be allocated more directly to municipalities since local jurisdictions know better the needs of their local citizens. 8 -8 -83 -4 Mayor Nyquist expressed appreciation for Mr. Mosher's attendance at the Council meeting n this evening, enin and requested M . g g, q ested r Mosher to pass along an invitation to Rudy to come to the opening of the Elderly Housing Project in Brooklyn Center. He added that the project was completely funded without any federal assistance. RESOLUTIONS (CONTIriUED) RESOLUTION 140. 83--7 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF A THREE TON AIR CONDITIONER /HEATER AT THE WEST FIRE STATION 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 therof: Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following votred against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and Hennepin County Regarding Contingency Plan for Emergency Communications. Councilmember Hawes inquired why any back up would be needed for the emergency system. ' The City Manager stated that it was a concern of the phone company that they be given some assurances of what will be done in case the system crashes. He added that the phone company can electronically switch 911 calls to another jurisdiction, such as the county, but that they needed some type of plan and specified direction from local jurisdictions in order to do this. He added that the 911 system is not particularly vulnerable to crashes, and noted that the system was more vulnerable before 911. He added that the emergency plan is simply an assurance in the case of a system breakdown. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -115 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND HENNEPIN COUNTY REGARDING CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS 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, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING CO1 UviISSI0N APPLICAT NO. 83021 SUBMITTED BY DIANE WRIGHT FOR A SPECIAL USE PIM-1 T TO OPERATE AWARD AIvD CARE — FACIL — I - TT IUR R UP TO 18 I -U NTALLY ILL ADULTS IN = k'OUR AT 44 69THH AM I IWor N t in ay yquls troduced the — first - Fl — arming ommission item on the agenda, and g � requested the City Attorney to review the status of the application. The City Attorney stated that the application relates to a special use permit request for aboard and care facility for mentally ill adults at a four -plex located at 4408 69th Avenue North. He stated.the Planning Commission considered the 8 -8 -83 -5- application at a public hearing, and the City Council had considered the application at two previous meetings. He explained the City Council denied the application and that Mrs. Wright and others appealed to the District Court. The City Attorney stated that the case was being heard by Judge Stone, and that the judge had made a number of findings but no decision on the case. He stated the judge had requested the City Council to consider additional information, with regard to the application, and again pointed out that the judge had not ordered, but had requested the City Council to consider additional information. The City Attorney pointed out the items the judge requested additional information on included a revised parking plan and a remodeling plan. He added that the judge also requested the City Council to consider any detrimental effect from the facility as relates to standards in the City code concerning health, safety, welfare, and comfort of the public. He added that the judge also requested the City Council to consider the application with regard to the needs of the mentally ill versus usual types of tenants. The City Attorney stated that the applicant has submitted a revised parking plan and a revised remodeling plan. The City Attorney then proceeded to introduce and review a report received from Dr. Hector Zeller regarding the application. He proceeded to review Dr. Zeller's qualifications, including his past position as Staff Psychiatrist and Medical Director of the Hastings State Hospital in Hastings, Minnesota. The City Attorney stated that the Council has agreed to review the items requested by Judge Stone, and also to review Dr. Zeller'`s report, a copy of which has been provided to the applicant. He stated that the Council's findings could be submitted to Judge Stone on Tuesday. He concluded his comments by noting that Dr. Zeller is present to answer questions concerning his report. The Director of Planning & Inspection proceeded to review the revised parking plan and floor plans submitted by the applicant . He reviewed a letter submitted by the applicant to the City Manager . which included a site plan and two floor plan submissions indicating the total number of residents. With regard to the parking plan, he pointed out that the plan shows eight parking stalls, and that the stalls meet the minimum requirements of the City code as to the size, depth, and width. He then reviewed the proposed location of the parking stalls and noted that the plan meets the requirement for the required 15' green strip. He next reviewed the floor plan submissions by showing a transparency of the floor plan to Council members. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that, at the May 23, 1983 City Council meeting the Council reviewed the floor plans which had been submitted at that time, and it was determined t w accommodated in t that between 14 to 16 residents could be a:ccommoda e he facility. He explained the original plans were revised and that under the revised plan a maximum of 18 residents could be allowed under the City code and housing maintenance ordinance. The Director of Planning & Inspection pointed out that the applicant is present this evening. Mayor Nyquist inquired as to the dimensions of the bedrooms in the 'floor plan submitted by the applicant. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the master bedroom dimensions were 10' by 14' and that the second bedroom was slightly smaller. He noted that the kitchens to be converted to bedrooms were approximately 100 square feet, 8 -8 -83 -6- Councilmember Scott commented that the letter submitted to the City Manager from the applicant indicated that the plans were approved. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the staff had not reviewed the floor plans but only discussed the revisions in the floor plans with the applicant He added that the plans had not been approved but only that the staff had acknowledged that the site plan would meet code requirements. The City Manager commented that staff members saw the plans but that the plans were not submitted at the time of the staff meeting with the applicant. He added that the plans were not left with the staff. Mayor Nyquist called upon the applicant to comment on the revisions in the plans. The applicant, Diane Wright, stated that the parking plans submitted is for eight parking stalls. She stated that the plan was available on June 13, 1 983 but that it was never requested that she leave the plans at that time. She added that the floor plan was not submitted but was discussed at the June 13, 1983 Council meeting. Mayor Nyquist inquired whether Mrs. Wright was in attendance at the June 13, 1983 City Council meeting. Mrs. Wright replied that she was at the June 13, 1983 meeting. Mayor Nyquist then asked the applicant whether she requested to be heard at that meeting. The applicant explained that she did not request to be heard at the June 13, 1983 meeting, since it was her understanding that the options open to her were to submit the matter to the courts or to re —apply for the special use permit one year later. Mayor Nyquist directed the Clerk to let the record show that Mrs. Wright was not denied the opportunity to be heard at the June 13, 1983 City Council meeting, and that the Brooklyn Center City Council has never denied anyone the right to be heard at a public meeting. Councilmember Hawes requested the applicant to review the times during which the cook and secretary would beat the proposed facility. Mrs. Wright replied that the secretary would be working at the facility between 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. in the afternoon, and the -cook would be at the facility between 3:00 p.m, and 6 :00 p.m. Councilmember Theis requested the applicant to clarify the parking at the proposed board and care facility. Mrs. Wright explained that between 8:00 a.m. and noon parking would be needed for four staff members, including herself and the van. Between noon and 5:00 P.m., she explained that parking would be necessary for five staff members plus the van. She added that she could limit the resident cars to one or zero if the site is crowded. Councilmember Theis inquired whether limiting the resident cars to one or zero was a change in the original request. Mrs. Wright replied that this was not a revision of her request since two parking stalls for resident vehicles was a request of the Planning Commission. Councilmember Theis posed the question that as the clients get out and progress in the community will they require more transportation. Mrs. Wright stated that the residents will, generally, primarily rely on public transportation. She explained the aim is to teach them to be as independent as possible, and because of their financial situation it usually means the use of public transportation. Councilmember Theis commented that he was not sure that public transportation would meet all their needs. 8 -8 -83 -7- Councilmember Hawes inquired whether each person would have their own bed in the facility. Mrs. Wright explained that each resident will have their own bed, and the beds will be custom made so that storage space will be ;available under each bed. Mayor Nyquist noted a report from Dr. Zeller and inquired of the City Attorney whether he could summarize the report for Council members. The City Attorney suggested that Dr. Zeller summarize the report for the Council. Dr. Zeller addressed the Council and stated that he was contacted by Mr. Jim Thomson last Thursday regarding the adequacy of the proposed facility at 4408 69th Avenue North. Dr. Zeller noted that Mr. Thomson had submitted to him several documents which had been considered at the trial, and he-indicated that he had reviewed these documents. He also stated that he had visited the site. Dr. Zeller added that the type of program proposed -by the applicant appears quite adequate. Dr. Zeller explained that, upon his visit to the site, he reviewed the conditions of the existing tenants, including a unit which included two small children. He stated that very crowded conditions existed in the apartment. He added that he could not envision 18 people at one time in the rooms. Dr. Zeller stated that if people are to be rehabilitated proper space is required. He pointed out that the family he visited in the quarters will require more space as the children grow. ` He added that placing all adults in the same quarters may jeopardize mental health because of crowding. Mayor Nyquist inquired of Dr. Zeller whether it was his conclusion that 16 or 18 persons in the facility would be too many. Dr. Zeller replied that 16 or 18 would be too many, and that this number would not include staff members. Councilmember Scott stated that she understood that the stress factor is important' in recovering from mental illness. She added that she is concerned that too many people would be placed in the 'facility. Dr. Zeller commented that the socialization of families is different than that of adults who are mentally ill. He added that the two have different perceptions of their environment, particularly persons with delusions or hallucinations. Councilmember Hawes inquired of Dr. Zeller what the ideal number would be for the proposed facility.- Dr. Zeller stated that he believed the number should be 3 per unit or 12 total. He added that 16 is pushing it and 18 is far too many. The City Attorney reviewed the judges concern regarding the contrast between the needs of mentally ill and usual type of tenants. He inquired of Dr. Zeller whether there was a difference in the recreational needs of a family as opposed to mentally ill adults. Dr. Zeller replied that there are 7 adults and four children in the facility now, and that he felt the building was crowded now. He added that the children will need more space as they grow older. He stated that the chronically ill are sometimes very jealous of their space, and may be inclined to stake out their territory even in hospital situations, especially, he pointed out, the more agressive ones. He added that he can foresee a lot of problems with the facility. He added that no fence exists outside and that he would be concerned that aperson may wander into the street and get hit by a car. Mayor Nyquist inquired whether it was Dr. Zeller's conclusion that the mentally ill 8 -8 -83 -8- person requires more space than normal persons. Mayor Nyquist then inquired whether Dr. Zeller has worked for over 25 years in the field of mental health. Dr. Zeller replied that he has. The City Attorney inquired of Dr. Zeller whether the resume'submitted with his report was accurate. Dr. Zeller replied that the resume was accurate. Mayor Nyquist directed the Clerk to enter Dr. Zeller's report regarding, the proposed group home in the City of Brooklyn Center for mentally ill adults and the attached. resume, into the official record of the meeting. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ms. Susan Lentz, attorney for the applicant, who addressed the Council and assured the Council that the applicant had the best interest of the clients in mind. She stated that Dr. Zeller's report was based on misconceptions and that she would like to note that Dr. Zeller was retained by the City for a fee. She added that the three witnesses appearing for the applicant are appearing voluntarily. Mayor Nyquist commented to Ms. Lentz whether she was suggesting that the testimony was bought. Ms. Lentz replied that she was not suggesting anything. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Tom Wilson, attorney for the applicant, who addressed the Council and stated that he is concerned over the last minute evidence submitted by the City. He objected to Dr. Zeller's report being made part of the record, and stated that this type of evidence was not part of the judge's request. He added that we are not creating a jail where people will be kept in all day. He also noted that the only notice the applicant had of Dr. Zeller I s appearance this evening was a late afternoon phone call. Mr. Wilson stated that he objected to the vagueness of Dr. Zeller Is report, and the fact that the applicant and her attorneys were not notified of Dr. Zeller I s report and visit to the site on August 4. He stated that he believes Dr. Zeller is a highly qualified psychiatrist but he has never run a board and care facility. Mr. Wilson stated that there is no reference made in Dr. Zeller's report regarding the square footages at the hospital where Dr. Zeller worked. Mr. Wilson declared that it is clear that the City Council does not want Ms. Wright Is facility in the City, and that he hoped the Council would allow the applicant's expert testimony to be heard. In reference to the court record, Mr. Wilson stated that a' representative of the State of Minnesota testified that the space requirement in the proposed facility is adequate, and that the City Council has replaced the Department of Public Welfare's standards with Dr. Zeller's report. Mr. Wilson then referred the City Council to the applicant's expert witnesses. Councilmember Scott stated that she objected to Mr. Wilson's comments that the City Council is prejudiced in this matter. She added that the Council is hearing the applicant's evidence as a courtesy, and noted that the judge did not order the City to hear the applicant's evidence. Mr. Wilson stated that he objected to the late notice of Dr. Zeller's report and appearance. In response to Mr. Wilson's comments Mayor Nyquist stated that the Council is attempting to answer the judge's questions. Mr. Wilson replied that he does not think there is anything in Judge Stone's record which indicates that new evidence of this type is to be heard. Mayor Nyquist recognized Isis. Marge Wherley who addressed the Council and stated that she has a master's degree in social work, a bachelor's degree iri psychology and has an extensive background relating to the types of facilities proposed in the application.. She added that she worked in the State Department. of Public Welfare 8 -8 -83 -9- and worked as an Assistant Administrator to a National Mental Health Grant. She added that she is currently a residential program specialist with Hennepin County, and that she reviews and works with contracts like those of the applicant. She added that she helped to write the state licensing standards for the type of facility ro osed in the P r application. Ms. Wherley stated that state statutes refer to a definition of mental illness stated by Wright in her application, but the definition includes a wide range of mental illness. She explained that the definition in the state statute did not differentiate between the various ranges of mental illness. She pointed out that in Ms. Wright's contract the clients are defined in more detail. She added that the clients do not include severely regressed clients referred to by Dr. Zeller. Ms. Wherley stated that the licensing standards are based on a conceptual model of recreation and leisure that are outside the home. She noted that Ms. Wright's program could not serve the clients described by Dr. Zeller but that the State and Hennepin County has approved that Ms. Wright I s clients are appropriate for the site. She pointed out that with regard to the fence referred to by Dr. Zeller, the clients are not severely regressed clients and there is no need for -a fence. Addressing the issue of aggression due to overcrowding, she stated that the community based clients in the proposed facility would be living under less crowded conditions than many other community based operations in Hennepin County. She added that she believes the issue of overcrowding is not appropriate. Ms. Wherley stated that the proposed facility meets state standards more than many other facilities in Hennepin County. Ms. Wherley stated that information now shows that community based facilities are reducing client regression. In conclusion, Ms. Wherley stated that she has gone through the conditional use permit review 38 times in Minneapolis, and that after one year's review no problems were indicated, with the neighbors, in any of the facilities. Councilmember Hawes inquired whether it would be necessary to have 18 clients in the facility. Ms. Wherley replied that 18 is cost effective and also programmatically sound. She added that placing two clients per bedroom encourages socialization. Councilmember Theis inquired how many facilities Ms. Wherley works with now. Ms. Wherley stated that she manages 19 contracts. Councilmember Theis then inquired how many clients have vehicles. Ms. Wherley stated that the majority of clients are on social security or public assistance, and cannot afford a car. She added that the proposed facility will have more parking than any other facility, even those with 25 clients. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Terry Schneider who stated that he was a licensed I sychology and director of a similar Rule 36 facility. He stated that the question with regard to Dr. Zeller's report is what is ideal and what is reality. He explained that experience shows that two persons per bedroom improves socialization. He added, that the battle over the crowding question could go on for years, and that minimum standards have come about from input from research from many p rofessionals in the field of cholo and P ICY gY psy chiatry. He added that the floor plan in the proposed facility meets the minium standards and that these standards have been decided. Mr. Schneider stated that experience shows that community based facilities are making people better in similar size facilities. He pointed out that the standards have been developed and used for a number of years in Minneapolis 8 -8 -83 -10- - in successful facilities, and that he believes the proposed facility will be a definite improvement for the clients. Mayor N quist recognized Ms. June Thiesse who reviewed her education background for Y � Council members, and stated that she worked for one -and a- -half years in a Rule 36 facility. She added that she also worked to monitor Rule 36 facilities for Hennepin County. Ms. Thiesse stated that persons living together is part of the normal socialization process and that a zoning ordinance does not address special groups. She stated that she believed that the Council should let other regulations address what is programmatically important, and that a zoning ordinance is not set up to consider necessary programmed factors. She then proceeded to review Hennepin County's monitoring staff and procedures for Rule 36 facilities. She stated that she sees the client population in the proposed facility as different from a hospital population, and pointed out that the facility is not for people who need intensive services. She added that the client's need support and opportunities to get out into the community. Councilmember Hawes commented that it is now August 8th, and that the Council was originally given a June 1 deadline for a decision on the facility. He added that he believes the problem could have been settled if an extension could have been made. Ms. Thiesse stated that the original deadline was our understanding of the time, and that also, out of court settlements were offered by the applicant. Mayor Nyquist then stated that at the June 13 Council meeting the applicant was asked if any additional evidence was available but that none was presented. Councilmember Theis expressed a concern that Ms. Thiesse is now telling the Council that it is not to be concerned with program factors when the judge's request . addresses the safety, health, and welfare of the community. Ms. Thiesse replied that professionals now performing assessments on clients generally require 20 hours per week, and that the type of arrangement where staff reviews the clients assessments is unheard of. Ms. Wright addressed the Council and stated that she would like to clarify that an out -of -court settlement was offered prior to the court trial. Mayor Nyquist stated that the settlement was made after the applicant filed in court, and that at the June 13, 1983 Council meeting no additional evidence was offered by the applicant. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Don Lowry, 6914 Lee Avenue North, and requested Mr. Lowry to address only the new plans and evidence submitted this evening. Mr. Lowry stated that this would limit his comments but he expressed the concern that the corner stall in the new parking plan is an area where people throw garbage, such as beer cans. He then inquired whether Ms. Wright has ever been denied a license anywhere else in the State of Minnesota. Ms. Lentz pointed out the area on the plan intended for trash disposal. Councilmember Theis inquired what type of trash container the applicant proposed. Mr. Wilson stated that the trash container would be what ever type trash container the City requires. Councilmember Theis then asked what type of vehicle would be able to back up to the trash container. Mr. Wilson stated that it would be any type the City requires. Mayor Nyquist pointed out that Ms. Wright testified at the Planning Commission meeting that clients with a stipend could afford a car. 8 -8 -83 -11- Mayor Nyquist inquired of the Director of Planning &. Inspection whether a dumpster would be required on the site. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the applicant would be required to have the ability to house garbage, and that typically, in a multi— residential area, screening is required. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was any further discussion on the application. No one appeared to speak to the application, and NTayor Nyquist entertained a motion on the application. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution affirming the previous decision of the Council based on evidence presented at this evening's meeting, and that the staff is directed to prepare the resolution for consideration by the Council later in the meeting. The City Attorney inquired whether the Council would want a summary of the comments of the witnessess, including Dr. Zeller, as they addressed what Judge Stone had requested. The City Attorney then asked Ms. Wherley to comment on Dr. Zeller's definition of the residents. He stated that the definition, as described by Ms. Wherley, was modified by the applicant's contract with Hennepin County. He added that he does not find it in the contract, and would request that Ms. Whirley review it with one of the attorneys. Upon a vote being taken on the motion, the following voted in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed._ RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m. PLANNING M11ISSION AP PLICATION ITO. 83039 SUBMITTED BY ZANTIGO =ICAN RESTAURANTS FOR A SITE AND BUILDIN PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PEM11T APPROVAL TO USE THE PROPERTY AT 5532 BR00 =N rOULEV7M FOR A CT=4IE1XE FOOD RESTAURANT AND TO IRST= A DRIVY:- WIND h�l e irector of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members pages 1 through 3 of the August 4, 1983 Planning Commission minutes, and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 83039. He proceeded to review the request and also the location of the subject parcel. The Director of Planning reviewed the site plan, including the traffic circulation on the site. He noted the landscape revisions proposed for the site and also the modifications to the parking. He added that the required parking as per the ordinance can be complied with. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application, subject to seven conditions which he reviewed for Councilmembers. He noted that a. representative of the applicant is present this evening, and that the required notices of this evening's public hearing had been sent. Councilmember Hawes noted that there was a difficult angle for getting into par stall no. 30. He inquired whether it could be modified if possible. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that this could be looked at further, and that the Engineering Department could review it. 8 -8 -83 -12- i Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of apublic hearing on Application No. 83039. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. He recognized Mr. George who stated that he represented the applicant and that the Planning Commission discussion effectively summarized the application, and that he did not wish to add any additional information. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Application No. 83039. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Application No. 83039, subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 2. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. B612 curb,and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 7. The plan shall be modified to indicate a closed drive –up lane bounded by a 3' wide median and curb and gutter on the south and east prior to the issuance of permits. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION APP LICATION NO. 83040 SUBMITTED BY NOR TENNIS CLUBS, INC., AN APPEAL FR OP SECTION 35 -322, S=TI0.N 39(D WUESTING TMT AN ATHLETIC AV 'U AND AZELIA AVENU -- TFe Direc ni g & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members pages 3 through 7 of the August 4, 1983 Planning Commission minutes, and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 83040. He proceeded to review the request and location of the subject parcel, and pointed out that the site's abutment with R1, R2, or R3.property prohibits the type of use proposed in the application. 8 -8 -83 -13- The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed letters from the applicants regarding why the use should be allowed in the proposed area. He pointed out that the question before the Planning Commission was whether a modification of the City ordinance was appropriate. He explained that after a lengthy discussion at the Planning Commission meeting, and review of the site plan, the Planning Commission recommended denial of Application No. 83040 but also recommended that the City Council direct the staff to develop ordinance language listing tennis and swim clubs as a P ermitted special use in the C2 zoning district without an abutment P restriction. ' The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed the proposed site plan for Council members. Councilmember Hawes inquired whether any problems would be created by the noise from the motors inflating the domes over the tennis courts. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that he could not answer this but that this could be addressed in the conditions of site plan approval. Councilmember Scott commented that she thought the use was an appropriate use for the location. Councilmember Theis stated that if an appropriate atmosphere for the club could be assured, so that it was not like that of a bowling alley or similar use, he could support the complex. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to deny Application No. 83040. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. There was a motion b y Scott and seconded b Councilmember Hawes to Y Y direct the staff to develop ordinance language listing tennis and *swim clubs as a permitted special use in the C2 zoning district without an abutment restriction, and also, ,to look at other uses listed in subsection 3(d) of Section 35 -322 for possible change of status. - Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 1982 DISEASED SHADE TREE PO4OVALS The Ciity '1a ager ro uc-e the public is hearing and exp a nned�ia ce e� Viers were sent to all ersons notifying them of the assessment for diseased shade tree P Y removals. He explained that two of the individuals did not receive the letters since the certifications did not comeback from the post office. He added that the two people were contacted and one individual said that they did not want the assessment on the taxes, and the other individual said they did not even want the tree removed. The City Manager explained the City Attorney stated he did not believe the assessment process was invalidated because the individuals did not receive the letters. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Proposed Assessment for 1982 Diseased Shade Tree Removals. He 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 Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to close the public hearing on Proposed Assessment for 1982 Diseased Shade Tree Removals. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis_ Voting against none. The motion. passed 8 -8 -83 - -14- RESOLUTION NO. 83 -116 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DISEASED SHADE TREE MIOVAL COSTS TO THE HENN]EPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS 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, 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 PUBLIC UTILITY HOOKUP CHARGES Mayor Nyquist opened�e meeti�r the purpose off` a public e ing onTroposed Assessment for Public Utility Hookup Charges. He 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 Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to close the public hearing on Proposed Assessment for Public Utility Hookup Charges. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RESOLUTION NO. 83-117 ' Member eich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING ASSESSMENTS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY HOOKUPS 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 adopted. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSr1ENT FOR THE COST OF HAZARD ABAT=T AT 5006 FRANC AVERNTE NORTH Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Proposed Assessment for the Cost of Hazard Abatement at 5006 France Avenue North. He 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 Scott and seconded.by Councilmember Theis to close the public hearing on Proposed Assessment for the Cost of Hazard Abatement at 5006 France Avenue North. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. " RESOLUTION NO. 83-118 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE COST OF HAZARD ABATEMENT TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS 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 8 -8 -83 -15- 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 adopted, REVIEW OF HOWE FIRE The City Manager explained that at 8:05 a.m. this morning, a fire call was received from Howe, Inc. He explained that the building involved was the building housing the bins and bagging operation. He stated that a 30 or 4 0 foot wide area of the building was involved in the fire, and that at approximately 9:15 a.m. the aerial equipment at the site shut down and the hoses inside continued to work on the fire. He explained that some heavy black smoke was emitted during the fire and that some Robbinsdale residents were evacuated as a precaution. With regard to the storm sewer on the site, he noted that the shut off valves were closed and that the water used to fight the fire was contained on the site. He`added that the o.k. was given by the PCA to pump water from the site into the sanitary sewer system. He added that no water used to fight the fire went off the site. The City Manager explained that the cause of the fire is still unknown. He noted the way the various departments fighting the fire reacted was very good and there was quick action on the part of all departments concerned. He noted that Mr. Tom Howe called him to thank the City for the work done to suppress the fire. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 83021 The 14ayoF — reqiTe — sted the My Attorney to review the resolution he fiad�r regarding the Planning Commission Application No 83021. The City Attorney proceeded to read,the resolution for Council members and inquired of the Council whether there were any other facts in the first list of findings that they wished to address. Councilmember Theis stated that the normal type of trash facility for the site would be a dumpster, and that he was concerned that there is not enough room for this type of trash disposal. The City Attorney noted that the question is whether the City. Ordinance requires a specific type of garbage pickup. Councilmember Theis stated than he thinks the facility is not the right spot for that many people, and that he believes the program is good but the space for the facility is not suitable. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -119 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REVIEWING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING APPLICATION NO. 83021, THE APPLICATION OF DIANE WRIGHT FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A BOARD AND CARE FACILITY FOR MENTALLY ILL ADULTS 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, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, aand Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. AD JOUR101ENT mere was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor. Mayor N uist Councilmembers Lhotka , J g �Y yq � g Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The 8 -8 -83 -16- Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10:44 p.m. Clerk I.Vor 8 -8 -83 -17- 74 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1983 -J •(MUNICIPAL SERVICE GARAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -28, PHASE III) WHEREAS, pursuant town advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1982 -28, Phase III, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer, on the llth day of August, 1983. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Asphalt Paving Materials. Inc. $100,327.75* * P g $ C.S. McCrossan, Inc. 102 Veit Construction, Inc. 105,606.10 Barber Construction Co., Inc. 106,054.70 Bury & Carlson, Inc. 111,152.73 Natural Green, Inc. 136,950.00 Arnold Beckman, Inc. 161,786.50* *Denotes Engineer's correction upon extension WHEREAS, it appears that Asphalt Paving A°.aterials, Inc. of Minnetonka, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $100,327.75 with Asphalt Paving Materials, Inc. of Minnetonka, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1982 -28, Phase III 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. 1982 -28, Phase III is hereby amended.according to the following schedule: As Ordered As Bid Contract Cost $142,530.00 $100,327.'75 C Engineering Cost 12,820.00 9,029.50 C Administrative Cost 1,430.00 1,003.28 TOTAL $156,780.00 $110,360.53 1. 2. The accounting for Improvement Project No.- 1982 -28, Phase III shall be done in the Capital Projects Fund (Division 40). i RESOLUTION NO. E .. 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 duly passed and adopted. I CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B nuuALYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 E N i TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 18, 1983 RE: Evaluation of Bids Received for Contract 1983 -J Bids were received and opened on August 11, 1983, for the completion of the Municipal Service Garage improvements (yard paving, bin construction, and land- scaping). Upon review of the proposals, it has been determined that the lowest responsible bid was submitted by Asphalt Paving Materials, Inc. (APM). APM was headed by Mr. Jack Bury, formerly of Bury & Carlson, Inc. until.his death in late 1982. Presently the company is being headed by his wife and son Mark. Recent discussions with Mark Bury indicate that the firm has confidence in its staff's ability to complete its portion of the work and organize the efforts of its subcontractors in order to complete the project within the established time limits. 'Following is a brief summary of interview responses provided by the references for whom APM was employed while still headed by Jack Bury. Centurian Company (Ray Carlson, President) APM recently (within the last two years) completed an extensive paving project for Centurian Company (builders of patio homes) in St. Louis Park. The work consisted of parking lot and - street construction including grading, base, paving and curb and gutter. All work was completed in an acceptable manner. The Contractor was responsive to the Owner's request and performed in a timely, responsible manner. Golden Valley Health Center (Jack Tabery) APM has completed various parking lot construction and repair projects for the Health Center. Mr. Tabery stated the work was completed in a timely, responsible manner. Mr. Tabery further stated that he.prefers to work with APM over many of the other small and medium sized contractors in the area. House of Prayer Church Richfield (Bob Lane, Special Project Goordinator) APM completed the reconstruction of the church parking lot in 1982. Mr. Lane stated that APM did acceptable work and that their response to requests was timely. Based upon the references provided, staff recommends the City Council accept the proposal of Asphalt Paving Materials, Inc. jlie S64M&4i note � r� CONTRACT This Agreement made this day of _, 19 , by and between ASPHALT PAVING MATERIALS, INC., OF MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA hereinafter called the CONTRACTOR, and the City of Brooklyn Center hereinafter called the OWNER, witnesseth: That the CONTRACTOR and OWNER for the consideration stated herein agree as follows: I , Scope of Work The CONTRACTOR shall furnish all of the labor, materials and equipment and perform all of the work described in the Contract Documents prepared by the City Engineer for the 'following improvement (s): • MUNICIPAL GARAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -28, PHASE III The CONTRACTOR shall do everything required of this Agreement and the Contract Documents, and all Work shall be done in the best and workmanlike manner. The CONTRACTOR shall make good, replace, and renew at his own cost and expense any loss or damage to said Work and adjacent properties and facilities during the performance of the Work or to the 'final acceptance thereof by the OGTNFR, and shall be whglly responsible for the performance and completion of such Work. II Commencement and Completion of Work The CONTRACTOR shall commence Work under this Contract within ten (10) calendar days after issuance of written Notice to Proceed and shall complete the Work in accordance with Section loos "Work Completion, Suspension, and Resumption Stipulations" of the Special Provisions to the General Conditions. The CONTRACTOR shall notify the ENGINEER in writing of any and all causes of delay of such Work or any part thereof, within three (3) days of the beginning of such delay. Except for delays beyond its control, the CONTRACTOR shall be liable for liquidated damages as provided in the Contract Documents. III ' The Contract Sum The OWNER shall pay the CONTRACTOR for the performance of this Contract according to the schedule of approximate quantities and unit prices as set out in the Contract Documents and the Proposal submitted by the CONTRACTOR on AUGUST 11 , 19 83 the aggregate of which' is estimated. to be $100,327.75 IV Performance Bond and Public Contractors Bond This Contract shall be in full force and effect after execution hereof upon the filing and acceptance of the insurance documents and the performance bond and public contractors bond es required in the Contract Documents; said bonds shall be enforceable by both the OWNER and any other municipality wherein any part of r this Work may be performed. V Contract Documents Contract Documents shall consist bf the following component parts: ` 1. The accepted Proposal of the Contractor 2. General Conditions of Contract 3. Special Provisions 4. Specifications S. Drawings 6. Addenda and Change Orders 7. This Instrument This Instrument, together with the documents hereinabove mentioned, form the Contract, and they are as fully a part of the .Contract as if hereto attached or herein repeated. VI The CONTRACTOR herewith agrees to reimburse the OWNER for any expense incurred by the OWNER in correcting any condition which the 01VNER deems to create a condition which is unsafe or hazardous with respect to any person when such unsafe or hazardous condition has been caused by the omission or commission of the CONTRACTOR in carrying out the Work specified under this Contract. The expenses for which the OWNER shall be reimbursed shall include, but shall not be limited to, any wages or overtime pay which the OWNER is required to pay to any of its employees who undertake to correct such condition. Payment shall be made promptly upon sub - mission of a statement by the OWNER to the CONTRACTOR, and the determination by the OWNER or the ENGINEER shall be deemed conclusive as to whether or not an unsafe condition was actually present. This provision shall be deemed to relate only to emergency conditions and where feasible, notice of such ,condition shall first be given to the CONTRACTOR. The liability of the CONTRACTOR under this provision shall not exceed $200.00 for each such defective or hazardous condition. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed in duplicate as of the day and year first above written. In the presence of: CONTRACTOR: .. � By . President — And OWNER: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By Mayor • (SEAL) ` And L City Manager 7d Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1983 -K (HUMBOLDT AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1983 -11) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bid for Improvement Project No. 1983 -11, bids were received, opened,'and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer, on the 18th day of August, 1983. Said bids were as follows: Bid Amount Bid Amount Bidder Alternate A Alternate B Hardrives, Inc. $ 35,578.00 $ 23,785.25 Barber Construction Co., Inc. 37,570.00 22,015.00 Alexander Construction Co., Inc. 37,725.25 22,833.50 Bury & Carlson, Inc. 37,773.30 23,248.25 Asphalt Paving Materials, Inc. 38,808.00 23,952.00 C:S. McCrossan, Inc. 39.972.50 25,431.25 WHEREAS, it appears that Hardrives, Inc. of Maple Grove, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder for construction of Improvement Project No. 1983 -11, Alternate A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract in the amount of $35,578.00 with Hardrives, Inc. of Maple Grove, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1983 -11, Alternate A according the 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 -11 is hereby amended according to the following schedule: As Ordered As Bid Construction Cost $44,160.00 $35,578.00 r Engineering Cost 3,970.00 3,202.02 Administrative Cost 440.00 355.78 TOTAL $48,570.00 $39,135.80 t L t RESOLUTION NO. 0 2. The accountin g P j for Improvement Project No. 1983 -11 is to be done in � Municipal State Aid Account 2611. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: �., RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1983 -K (HUMBOLDT AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1983 -11) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1983 -11, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer, on the 18th day of August, 1983. Said bids were as follows: Bid Amount Bid Amount Bidder Alterante A Alternate B Hardrives, Inc. $ 35,578.00 $ 23,785.25 Barber Construction Co., Inc. 37,570.00 22,015.00 Alexander Construction Co., Inc. 37,725.25 22,833.50 Bury & Carlson, Inc. 37,773.30 23,248.25 Asphalt Paving Materials, Inc. 38,808.00 23,952.00 C.S. McCrossan, Inc. 39.972:50 25,431.25 WHEREAS, it appears that Barber Construction Company, Inc. of ' Minnetonka, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bid der for construction ction of Improvement Project No. 1983 -11, Alternate B. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $22,015.00 with Barber Construction Company, Inc. of Minnetonka, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1983 -11, Alternate B 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 -11 is hereby amended according to the following schedule: As Ordered As Bid Construction Cost $44,160.00 $22,015.00 Engineering Cost 3,970.00 1,981.35 Administrative Cost 440.00 220.15 TOTAL $48,570.00 $24,216.50 RESOLUTION N0. 2. The accounting for Improvement Project No. 1983 -11 is to be done in Municipal State Aid Account 2611. i t 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. 1 CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY yr Is BRUUAL x BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 N TELEPHONE 561 -5440 E N E R TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 19, 1983 RE: Evaluation of Bids Received for Contract 1983 -K Bids were received and opened on August 18, 1983, for the widening of Humboldt Avenue northerly of 69th Avenue. Upon review of the proposals, it has been determined that the lowest responsible bid for widening both the southbound and northbound lanes (Alternate A) was submitted by Hardrives, Inc. The lowest responsible bid for widening of the southbound lane (Alternate B.) was submitted by Barber Construction Company, Inc. Both contractors have worked on City construction projects within the last two years and performed in an acceptable manner. A comparison of the proposals shows that the construction cost of Alternate B (at $22,015.00) is approximately 62% of the construction cost of Alternate A (at $35,578.00). Staff considers the benefits derived from roadway construction under Alternate A (i.e. more efficient use of the northbound lanes) to be justi ficiation for the $13;563.00 increase in expenditure. Therefore, it is recommended the City Council accept the proposal of Hardrives, Inc. for Alternate A. Alternate resolutions are submitted for consideration by the City Council. SK:jn 4 `74 Soave 4441 73Zeae &e# .. CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY "Oolwly� B Im KLY li BROOKLYN CENTER,` MINNESOTA 55430 li TELEPHONE 561 -5440 CEN"R TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 18, 1983 RE: Traffic Counts at Humboldt Avenue North /69th Avenue North Intersection Attached hereto are sketches showing traffic movement counts taken at the Humboldt Avenue /69th Avenue intersection on Thursday, April 7, 1983. Exhibit A shows the total traffic movements for the 16 hour period between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. This exhibit also notes the total 24 hour count on each leg of the intersection. Exhibit B shows graphs of hourly vehicular volumes on each leg of the intersection. Exhibit C through F show traffic movements in 15 minute increments during the morning rush hour (7:00 A.M. to 8:00 A.M.) Exhibits G through J show traffic movements in 15 minute increments during the ,afternoon rush hour (5:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.) We have also taken to show the physical condition of Humboldt Avenue between 69th and 70th Avenues and video -tapes showing traffic movement through the intersection. These will be available for viewing at the City Council meeting on August 22, 1983. Respectfully submitted, SK: j n "74 .SaHCCttc� 7X o,ce ;•trr; ;;�;. , �; ri ")V ; ,,., r r , N 69TH 6 HUMBOLDT DATE: APRIL 7, 19133 iimc: 6:00 A.11. to 10:00 P.M. Day: TH URSD AY r CLOUDY 33 NAMIE OF COUiiTLIL• G GIVING, A. HA P.TMANN� . BERG, A._ BRAUN C 6754 j (8890- 24 HR Q . 0 M t co 2 N ' • 9 ' M .p D A E • Y �; 20D 343 F E 2966 a v 3293 NC . 6 i 4104 O � CIJ 2331 L N 536 --�- 1863 69 TH AVE N. K to- G co o _ i �- NOTE:" (10118. 24 1-10) ALL COUNTS ARE FOR A 8367 16HR PERIOD (6:OOAM-10:00 ) EXCEPT' AS NOTED. ' • -- 24 HR COUNTS TAKEN 4 -27 -83 REMARY.S: _. -... ...r.... E XHIBIT /�,? G L� P" - 4 Jf. /Td�!r�� ✓L7 �n 97 HOURLY VOL. HOURLY VOL. - w w f --4 3 oa > m J ZOO > > /00 -- 6 8 10 12 2 4° 6, 8 10 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 t HOURLY V L . , HOURLY V L. Boa /00 - ozoa > - - - > �o ioo 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10- r r��CI loL,oT //E 1 TOTAL t�URLY V�L. (MAIN) i Boo m w b00 w 1 O ° — > > Co ..� 6 8 10 12 2 . 4 6 a IA 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 LUtti�� h;1 \ ?Uk,I'✓fi�. (.t.11)Iti,l' WTERSF.CTION: HUMBOLDT AVENUE AND 69TH AVENUE DATE: A PRIL 7, 19r03 Time: 7:00 A.M. to 7 : 15 A. M. Day. THURSDAY WEATHER: CLOUDY 33 NAME OF COUINTEi C Z W K . �t ,J �- o m e a A E A p I . i g F 14 28 N 8 E 13 68 28 L 0 0 . J a 69TH_ AVE N. K 39 G J N ' M REMARKS: EXHIBI C jG I'll Oy.I'r untlrax INTERSECTION: HUMBOLDT AVENUE AND 69TH AVENUE DATE: APRIL 7, 1983 Time: 7:15 A.M. jo 7:30 A.M. Day: THURSDAY - WEATHER: CLOUDY 33 NAME OF COULI7TER: C Z Q • N .J • N O m B 0 A E 4O0) 0 13 3 e F 21 E 8 0 aoI 47 17L �y 3 69TH AVE N. J K 30 G J ti • � REMARKS: EXH INTER SECTION: HUMBOLDT AVENUE AND 69TH AVENUE DATE: APRIL 7, 1903 Time: 7:30 A.M. to 7:45 A. M. Day: THURSDAY WEATHER CLOUDY 33 NAME OF COIJNTEIL• C w i— . 0 to --� M — m 8 D A E A 14. 1.1 F 21 12 L 3 c°vI 74 30 4 4 69TH AVE N. J N a K 41 G co J - K N REMARKS: EXri ti IT l,N= tSFCTIQN : - HUMBOLDT AVENUE AND 69TH AVENUE DATE: APRIL 7, 1883 Time: 7:45 A. M•. to 8:00 A.M. Day. THURSDAY WEATHER CLOUDY 33 NAME OF C ITER: C Z w Q O J nJ O 8 D A E 4 A p B F 5 23 13 7 C i1l 4 L � � 5 �I 55 21 L 6 H 69TH AVE N. J a 12 w K 29 G J N N M • REMARKS: EXH I BIT .. ..,.... ...,.....•. .....K...._._,...,._...._ , ,_.._. _...._.__. ...,., .._ ...... _ � m . ..,,,ems,.,,, r1 h1C�VF ;l�t?;I`3r_c:;(')LTN INTLMECTION: HUMBOLDT AVENUE AND 69TH - AVENUE DATE: APRIL 7. 1983 Mm e: 5:00 P.M. to 5 P�;,,,,,,,, TH 1 5QLY WEATHER: CLOUDY 33 fl NAME OF COUNTER: C z �W a . o • .rJ o O to • ® D A E 22 .a o 1 0 B8 F39 75 14 F L 14 I M 68 °- L 31 - 13 69TH AVE N. J 40 N a % K 14 G ' ti I REMARKS: EXHIBIT G"" ;INTERSECTION; HUMBOLDT AVENUE AND 69TH AVENUE DATE: Mli 7. 192] me: 5:15 P.M. to 5 :30 P.M. Day: THURSDA WEATHER: CLOUDY 330 NAME OF COUNTER: C or !.� W Q 0 J 0 D 9 A E A 1? D WO 4 M e6 X 26 51 6 E L 8 coI F 49 - ---- -- L 29 11 69TH AVE N. J 20 M 0 K 21 G 0 Z . REMARKS: E XHIBI T H .. �, 7 '' kiJ rJ C; r T:IJ COUNT INTERSECTION: HUPIBOLDT AVENUE & 69TH AVENUE DATE: APRTL 7 1983 Time: 5:.3Q P.lI _ "to54,�.� ,a�.,Day:.jJ i- 12SDa.Y..._._.._ WEATHER CLOUDY 33 NAME OF COUNTER: C Lu - . v J 0 0 m B p A E A 19 0 7 By F32 61 cQ _ C 10 E . F 3 h 29 L 28 13 69TH AVE N . 16 H 3 K 10 6 J N - N REMARKS: EXHIBI It "J i�I *,�,�Vk:I�rI+I't' Cc?tJf�T INTERSECTION: HUMBOLDT AVENUE & 69TH AVENUE DA APRIL 7, 1983 3yrae; 5:45 P.M. to 6: _ R P J1. Day: TH( AY HER: CLOUDY 33 WE T ___.__...._... NAME OF COUNTER: C cl w 4 H J Q � m 8 A E II y (D B X28 47 6 c� ? E 8 F L 8 I_ 49 L 30 10 69TH AVE N. 30 N 0 K it J N N Z REMARKS:- AA T 1 1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 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) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1982 -P signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Julian Johnson Construction Company has satisfactorily completed the following improvements in accordance with said contract: LIONS PARK TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -20, PHASE I MUNICIPAL SERVICE GARAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -28, PHASE I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BE 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: LIONS PARK TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -20, PHASE I Previously° Final Approved Amount Original Contract $18,801.50 $10,791.01 MUNICIPAL SERVICE GARAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -28, PHASE I Original Contract $71,686.00 $85,090.04 Change Order. No. .1 (170.00 (170.00 m TOTAL $71,516.00 $84,920.04 2. The total value of the work performed at a cost of $95,711.05, is greater than the sum of the original contract and Change Order by $5,393.55 due to a general underestimation of the 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 fo be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $95,711.05. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk RESOLUTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by p g g y 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 CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY a J B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 18, 1983 RE: Review of Contract Costs for Contract 1982 -P (Lions Park Tennis Court Improvement Project No. 1982 -20, Phase I Municipal Service Garage Improvement Project No. 1982 -28, Phase I) The City's contractor, Julian Johnson Construction Company, has completed soil corrections for the Lions Park tennis courts and Municipal Service Garage area. The attached resolution provides for acceptance of the contractor's work, and also provides a .comparison of original and final contract costs for the projects. It is obvious that a wide variation occurred between anticipated and actual .costs for both projects- the Lions Park improvement coming in $8,010.49 below the anticipated amount and the Municipal Garage project coming in $13,404.04 over the anticipated amount. Contract quantities for both projects were based upon soil borings taken in conjunction with development of plans and specifications. Actual field conditions differed substantially from the staff's interpolation of conditions between consecutive soil boring samples, resulting in an overestimation of necessary soil correction in the Lions Park project and an underestimation of necessary soil correction at the Municipal Garage. Project Cost Review Following is a review of the estimated total costs for these projects: Lions Park Tennis Court Improvement Project No. 1982 -20 This project should be completed at a total contract cost of approximately $34,000 ($10,800 for soil correction and $23,200 for court construction). The City Council authorized the work based upon as estimated contract cost of $48,550. Municipal Service Garage Improvement Project No. 1982 -28 The City Council has approved a total project budget of $618,000 for all improvements to the Municipal Garage. Contractural costs to date include $84,920 for soil correction, $319,790 for the unheated storage building, garage improvements and perimeter wall, $32,000-for architectural fees and, if the low bid for Contract 1983 -J is approved by the City Council, $100,850 August 18, 1983 - G.G. Splinter Page 2 0. for storage yard paving, bin construction, and site landscaping, for a total of $537,060. The addition of estimated overhead casts of $50,510 and non - contractural costs of $2,000 result in an estimated total project cost of $589,570 (or approximately $28,430 less than the budgeted amount). Respectfully submitted, SK :jn e . Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: ie RESOLUTION N0. 4 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR BEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR 1983 DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL COSTS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1., A hearing shall be held on the 26th day of September, 1983, in the City Hall at 8;00 P.M. to pass upon the proposed assessments for the following charges: 1983 Diseased Shade Tree Removal Costs. At such time and place all persons owning property to be assessed for such charges will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessments. 2. The City Clerk with the assistance of the City Engineer, shall forthwith prepare assessment rolls for the above charges, and shall keep them on file and open to inspection by any interested persons. 3. The City Clerk is directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the r 1 proposed assessments to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing. 4. The City Clerk shall cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in such assessment rolls not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. t RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER RATE FOR THE-ELDERLY BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA, that a special sanitary sewer rate is hereby established for elderly residents with the head of household or spouse 62 years of age or older and a maximum of 2 persons, in the household. The maximum limitation of 2 persons in the household may be exceeded by any additional persons who are at least 62 years of age or who are disabled. Persons meeting the above requirements shall file with the City a certification on a forma roved b the City. Such certification PP Y Y shall be filed between September 1st p and December 31st of the year preceding. Falsification of information submitted on said certification shall consitute a violation of Section 4 of the City Code and shall be prosecuted in accordance with Section 4 -501 of the City Code. The special sanitary sewer rate for all accounts billed during calendar year 1984 shall be equal to fifty -five percent (55%) of the rate established for single family 1 home g Y s. 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. d E CITY E OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B R n-F7 T BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 1 �l <, TELEPHONE 561 -5440 "Y"E" TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 19, 1983 RE: Sanitary Sewer Rate Schedule For Elderly In 1978 the City Council initiated a program for reducing the sanitary sewer rates paid by the elderly. The residential rates adopted at that time were as follows: Year Single Family Rate Elderly Rate 1979 $15.75 /quarter $8.75 /quarter 1980 $19.00 /quarter $9.50 /quarter In September, 1980 the Council extended the special rates for the elderly through 1982. The residential rates adopted at that time were as follows: Year Single Family Rate Elderly Rate 1981 $20.00 /quarter $10.00 /quarter 1982 $21.25 /quarter $10.50 /quarter In September, 1982 the City Council continued the program through 1983 with two minor amendments: (a) The elderly _rate was established at 55% of the single family rate. (Since the 1983 rate for single family units was retained at $21.25 per quarter the 1983 elderly rate is $11.69 /quarter.) (b) The system was changed to allow filing of a "certificate" instead of an "affidavit ". Because this seems to work well, without serious problems, we recommend this system be continued. Because the policy allows elderly citizens to apply for the special rate between September 1st and December 31st of the year preceding, we recommend that a determination be made as to whether a special rate will continue to be offered, and if so, what that rate should be. "74C 50*fta&�Cq nau Orel" August 19, 1983 - G.G. Splinter Page 2 Attached is.a summary sheet which compares actual 1982 water consumption records for Senior Citizens to those for other single family units. This summary shows that the Senior Citizen's actual water consumption, on a year -round basis is 64.81 of the non - Senior consumption. During the non -peak (winter quarter) period, the Senior Citizen consumption is 53.01 of the non- Senior consumption. These figures indicate that there is a valid basis for continuing the practice of offering reduced rates to Senior Citizens. Because sewer usage is more directly related to winter- quarter usage than to year -round usage (i.e'. much of the usage during the other 3 quarters relates to watering lawns, etc.) it is recommended that the special rate be established at 551 of the single family rate. A resolution for that purpose is provided for consideration by the City Council. Respectfully submitted, SK:jn 1982 WATER CONSUMPTION COMPARISON SENIOR CITIZENS WATER USEAGE Time Period Units Total Gallons Gallons /Unit /Day 1ST QUARTER January March 1982 1,070 13,367,000 138.8 2ND QUARTER April - June 1982 1,070 21,437,000 222.6 3RD QUARTER July - September 1982 1,205 35,905,000 331.1 4TH QUARTER October - December 1982 1 ,205 14,892,000 137.3 YEARLY 1,138 85,601,000 208.9 TOTAL SINGLE FAMILY WATER USEAGE Time Period Units Total Gallons Gallons /Unit /Day 1ST QUARTER January - March 1982 7,073 155,144,000 243.7 2ND QUARTER April - June 1982 7,076 135,582,000 212.9 3RD QUARTER July - Septerber 7,104 255,565,000 399.7 4TH QUARTER October - December 1982 7,111 221,477,000 346.1 YEARLY 7,091 767,768,000 300.7 LESS SENIOR CITIZENS 1,205 - 85,601,000 208.9 YEARLY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES CONSUMPTION 5,886 682,167,000 321.9 WITHOUT SENIOR CITIZENS The overall total Senior Citizen consumption is approximately 64.8% of the non - Senior Citizen consumption. N ON -PEAK COMPARISON Time Period Units Total Gallons Gallons /Unit /Day TOTAL SINGLE FAMILY USEAGE January to March 1982 7,073 155,144,000 243.7 SENIOR CITIZEN USEAGE January to March 1982 1 ,070 13,367,000 138.8 ESTIMATED NON - SENIOR CITIZEN USAGE 6,003 141,777,000 262.4 January to March 1982 The non -peak Senior Citizen consumption was approximately 53_0% of the non - Senior Citizen water usage for 1982. Member introduced the following resolution.and moved its adoption: Ile RESOLUTION NO. 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 WHEREAS, one of the park improvements proposed in the special park bond referendum of May 6, 1980 was a plaza area for Central Park; and WHEREAS, the City has received a proposal from Brauer & Associates, LTD. Inc., to provide landscaping, architectural, and engineering services for development of a concept plan for a plaza area in Central Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into an agreement with Brauer & Associates LTD. Inc., for the development of a concept plan for a plaza area in Central Park as described in paragraphs Al through A5 of the contract agreement. The fee for said services shall be $2,400 and the accounting for the project shall be done in the Central Park III Account. 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 duly passed and adopted. i t August 2, 1983 • City - of Brooklyn Center Parks and Recreation Department City Hall 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 RE: Contract Proposal for Professional Services Plaza Area Central Park Gentlemen: This letter proposal outlines a scope of services, fee sche- dule and other elements which, if approved, constitutes an Agreement between the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, herein referred to as the OWNER, and BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD., herein referred to as the CONSULTANT. The OWNER hereby retains the CONSULTANT to provide landscape, architectural, and engineering services required to complete a concept plan for a Plaza Area within Central Park, hereinafter referred to as the PROJECT. A. SCOPE OF SERVICES - Basic Services 1. Review all prior studies and planning recommendations for die PROJECT area. 2. Prepare a land use concept plan that embodies the following requirements: a. Enhance pedestrian circulation, embellishments, landscaping, benches, etc. from northwest parking lot to Community Center. C b. Consider potential relocation of north -south -v interconnect road west of Community Center. d c. Walk distributor /interconnect within the plaza - area suitable to handle small vehicles. U d. Several minor plazas suitable to serve as bases for tent - festival s'. These plazas will be con- e d nected to the walk distributor /interconnect. e Plant materials positioned to create and support m ` a visual quality in the absence of tents on the individual minor plazas. 7901 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 ❑ (612) 941 -1660 p S q 1 Ci of Brooklyn Center - 2 - August 2, 1983 j a f. Retain a central turf area that can accommodate several thousand people for major community functions. g. Locate a children's play area to effectively ser - vice the Community Center, baseball diamonds, as well as the central turf area. h. Two or three sections of the distributor walk and plaza should be adequate in scale to accommodate a major scale portable bandstand. i. Consider splitting trails east of the two soft- ba.11 and football fields. j Design for spectator area between two softball fields. 3. Meetings with staff to share land use concept propo- sa� _ s _ 4. Prep aration of a preliminary cost analysis based on an assumed med 1984.construction schedule. 5. Prepar of a land use concept plan in sufficient graphic quality for presentation to City Council for review and approval. The anticipated timeline for this PROJECT would allow for Council presentation in September. B., SCOPE OF SERVICES - Additional Services 1. Design development,drawings for the basic facilities included on the attached list, which describe construction details and establish construction dimensions, quantities, materials, and furnishings which will serve as the basis for.a development cost estimate. 2. Development cost estimate in detail according to a logical and useful rea own. Costs will include allowance for fees, construction, administration costs, and probable increase in construction costs which may occur over the - period required to complete design and bidding of construction work. 3. The Preparation of working drawi and specifica- tions - setting forth in detail the requirements for e construction of the PROJECT. City of Brooklyn Center 3 August 2, 1983 Substantial changes, additions, modifications or revisions to the construction drawings or specifica- tions after acceptance and approval by the OWNER when ordered by the OWNER by reference to this paragraph, shall be compensated on the basis of the current hourly rate fee schedule of the CONSULTANT in addi - tion to any lump sum fees agreed upon for the Basic Services. Minor changes or revisions needed to correct or complete the drawings or specifications shall be made without additional compensation 4. Bidding procedures which include preparation of advertis for bids, issuance of drawings and specifications to bidders, clarification of questions by addenda during the bidding period, direction of bidders conference, analysis of bids received, recom- mendations for contract aware and assistance in pre- paration of contract documents for each contract awarded. 5. Construction observation - is provided by the Project Manager by the CONSULTANT, and includes periodic communication with the Contractors and OWNER staff, and regular visits to the site to interpret design intent'of the plans and specifications; review and recommend payment and construction schedules; approve shop drawings; prepare and process change orders; make general progress reports; review all field changes; review and comment on inspection reports; and participate in final construction and guarantee inspections. C. FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The OWNER shall compensate the CONSULTANT for completion of professional services described above as follows: 1. For the CONSULTANT'S Basic Services, as described in Paragraphs A -1 through A -5, above, a lump sum fee of TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS ($2,400.00) 2. For the CONSULTANT'S Additional Services, as described in Paragraphs-B-1 through B -5, above,. a Lump Sum Fee, current hourly rates or a.Percentage Fee to be determined following completion of Paragraph A and determination of anticipated construction budget. City of Brooklyn Center - 4 August 2, 1983 3, For the CONSULTANT'S Reimbursable Expenses, actual expenditures for the CONSULTANT'S Additional Services, other than the hourly fee, directly con- nected with the PROJECT including mileage, cost of soil borings, testing or special consultants as directed by the OWNER, and identifiable materials, services or supplies used in reproduction of reports, drawings, specifications or field work. D. PAYMENT TO THE CONSULTANT I. Statements will be submitted to the OWNER on a monthly basis, with a breakdown of time and expenses for services performed, or work completed, through the 25th of the previous month. 2. Payments on account of CONSULTANT'S services are due and payable within thirty days of receipt of CONSULTANT'S statement of services rendered. E E. OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY The OWNER shall make available or allow access to all existing data related to the work and all other data or information which may develop that could possibly have a bearing on the decisions or recommendations made under this Agreement. The OWNER shall specifically provide where available: 1. Direct expenses including mileage, blueprinting of drawings - preliminary through construction docu- ments, printing of specifications, etc. 2. Identification of any site restrictions. 3. Soil surveys, utilities, borings and other data which describes the general nature and conditions of the site. 4. Topographic mapping of all areas to be studied including adjacent activity areas. 5. Additional data or information which will have a bearing on the planning or design conclusions and recommendations of the CONSULTANT. 6. One designated individual with whom the CONSULTANT E: can meet, receive instructions and deliver infor- mation and coordinate all planning activities. City of Brooklyn Center - 5 - August 2, -1.9$3 F. TERM, TERMINATION, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS 1. The Term of the Agreement shall be concurrent with the work authorized. 2. Termination may be accomplished by either party at any time by written notice, and shall be effective upon payment in full for all services performed to the date of receipt of such notice. 3. The OWNER and the CONSULTANT each binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and legal represen- tatives to the other party of this Agreement, and to the partners, successors, assigns and legal represen- tatives of such other party with respect to all cove- nants of this Agreement. 4. Neither the OWNER nor the CONSULTANT shall assign, sublet or transfer his interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. G. NONDISCRIMINATION The CONSULTANT will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for'employment because of race, color, reli- gion, sex, national origin, physical condition or age. The CONSULTANT will take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, physical condition or age. Such action shall include but not be limited to the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion or trans- fer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation and selec- tion for training including apprenticeship. H. CONSULTANT'S RECORDS, DOCUMENTS AND INSURANCE 1. The CONSULTANT shall maintain time records for hourly fees, design calculations and research notes in legible form and will be made availabl -e to the OWNER, if requested. 2. The CONSULTANT shall carry insurance to protect him from claims under Workman's Compensation Acts; from claims for damages because of bodily injury including death to his employees and the public, and from claims for property damage. City of Brooklyn Center 6 - August 2,-1983 3. The CONSULTANT reserves the right to secure and main- tain statutory copyright in all published books,, published or unpublished drawings of a scientific or technical character, and other works related to this PROJECT in which copyright may be claimed. The OWNER shall have full rights to reproduce works under this Agreement either in whole or in part as related to this PROJECT. One copy of each drawing shall be pro - vided in reproducible form for use by the OWNER, but the original drawings will remain the property of the CONSULTANT, I. EXTENT OF AGREEMENT AND APPLICABLE LAW 1. This agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the OWNER and the CONSULTANT and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, whether written or oral, with respect to the PROJECT. This agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both OWNER and CONSULTANT. 2. Unless otherwise specified, this Agreement shall be governed by the law of the principal place of busi- ness of the CONSULTANT. City of Brooklyn Center - 7 - August 2, 1983 J. The OWNER hereby contracts for the Basic Services as out lined in Paragraphs of this Agreement.. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the OWNER and the CONSULTANT have made and executed this Agreement, This day of 1983. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Brooklyn Center, Minnesota in presence of: BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD. In presence of: Eden Prairie, Minnesota V\ja ;t`, &Lc au. S. dare, M.L.A. h President ; lk - 7y Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption; 4. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1983 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND AUTHORIZING THE TPA14SFER OF FUNDS FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT EQUIPMENT ACCOUNT WHEREAS, the dry chemical fire extinguishers carried in the City's squad cars are primarily used for'the purpose of containing vehicle fires; and WHEREAS, the experience of the police department has been that the dry chemical extinguishers can cause damage to vehicles distinct from the damage from the fire; and WHEREAS, the police department has determined that Helon fire extinguishers would better meet the needs of the police department for portable fire extinguishers; and WHEREAS, the estimated cost of replacing the dry chemical fire extinguishers is $800; and WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide that the City Council may, by majority vote of it's members, transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from one office, department, or agency to (_ another within the same fund. F NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend the 1983 General Fund'Budget by transferring $800 from the Council Contingency Account to the Police Department Other Equipment Account. for the purchase of seven Helon fire extinguishers. 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 duly passed and adopted. A 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: James Lindsay, Chief. of . Police � ;\ a DATE: August 16, 1983 SUBJECT: Fire Extinguishers Carried in Police Vehicles Currently the Police Department is carrying dry chemical fire extinguishers in the seven (7) marked police vehicles. These extinguishers are used primarily for putting out or containing a vehicle fire until the fire department arrives. It has been brought to our attention that the dry chemical causes additional damage to the vehicle over what the fire has already caused. What occurs-is that the chemical dust contaminates the engine, the upholstery, and gauges mounted in the dash. We have been told by the insurance industry and by auto renovators that the chemical etches metal, corrodes electrical circuits, and makes gauges unuseable. This damage is not covered by the vehicle owner's insurance policy. I have been in contact with Fire Chief Boman about this problem. He has informed me that the helon fire extinguisher which is used in computer rooms, radio communication rooms, et cetera; would be an adequate extinguisher for the vehicle fires that the Police Department attends to. The helon extinguisher uses a chemical that is easily cleaned up without causing additional damage. We have been told that sometimes the damage caused by the dry chemical is more costly than the fire would have been by itself. The estimated cost of the helon replacement extinguishers is approximately eight hundred dollars ($800.00). The estimated cost per extinguisher is one hundred dollars ($100.00) plus fifteen dollars ($15.00) for the bracket to hold the extin- guisher. The cost for refilling a helon extinguisher versus a dry chemical is approximately eighty dollars ($80.00) to fifteen dollars ($15.00). I have also been informed that the present extinguishers cannot be converted into helon extinguishers. Because of these problems, I request that the seven (7) dry chemical extinguishers be replaced as soon as possible with the helon extinguishers. The total cost should not exceed eight hundred dollars ($800.00). / 11 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its .. adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 4 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1983 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT TO THE PARKS MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT ACCOUNT WHEREAS, the Park & Recreation Department staff has determined that the refrigerator in the Park & Recreation Department's trailer is no longer functioning properly and cannot economically be repaired; and WHEREAS, replacement of the refrigerator was not contemplated in the 1983 General Fund Budget; and WHEREAS, the cost for replacement of the refrigerator unit is $1,200; and WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide that the City Council may, by majority vote of it's members, transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from one office, department, or agency to another within the same fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend the 1983 General Fund Budget by transferring $1,200 from the Council Contingency Account to the Parks Maintenance Other Equipment Account for the purchase of a refrigerator for the Park & Recreation concession trailer. 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 duly passed and adopted. L CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PARKS AND RECREATION 6301.Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Telephone 561 -5448 •.00n.w ua.. .................. TO G. G. Splinter, City Paanager FROM Gene Hagel, Director of Parks and Recreatio DATE August 16, 1983 SUBJECT: Refrigerator Unit (Concession Trailer) This memo is 'to inform you that the refrigerator in the Concession Trailer is worn beyond repair; and to request funds to replace the unit. The Concession Trailer was built to our specifications in 1971. Since that time, the trailer has been used countless times for civic and school events of all kinds We have used it, and intend to use it extensively�in connection with future events in Central Park. The cost for replacement of the refrigerator, which is a .combination gas and electric unit, is $1200. installed. The expense was not expected and was therefore not provided for in the current budget. An examination of all accounts in the Park.Maintenance Budget does not show any surplus dollars that could be used for this expenditure. I am therefore requesting an adjustment to the Parks Maintenance Budget, Division #69 to cover the expense of a replacement of the refrigerator in the Concession Trailer. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. t RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR 69TH-70TH AVENUE STREET, f SANITARY SEWER, AND WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS WHEREAS, the City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer, assessment rolls identifying red assess Y g each and every lot, piece, has prepared proposed P P 1 or parcel of land to be specially a ssac>sed and the amount calculated against the same, for the following improvements:. Improvement Project No. 1982 -09 Street grading and bituminous paving of the 69th Avenue 70th Avenue street connection between Dupont Avenue.and Camden Avenue Improvement Project No. 1982 -10 Extension of sanitary sewer service to property adjacent to the 69th Avenue - 70th Avenue street connection between Dupont Avenue and Camden Avenue Improvement Project No. 198 -11 Extension of water main service to property adjacent to the 69th Avenue - 70th Avenue street connection between Dupont Avenue and Camden Avenue WHEREAS, such proposed assessments have been on file with the City Clerk and open to inspection and copying by all persons interested; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to such proposed assessments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Such proposed assessments, a copy of which shall be certified to by the City Clerk and filed in his office, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in accordance with the following schedule: Improvement Project No. 1982 -09; Levy No. 8888 -. seven years The first of the installments shall be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1984, and shall bear interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum from September 1, 1983, until the amounts have been paid in full. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment for sixteen months from September 1, 1983, until December 31, 1984. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. S RESOLUTION NO. x The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment, , essment with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time there - after, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining c:npaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15, or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. Improvement Project No. 1982 -10; Levy No. 8889 Schedule of payments in accordance with the provisions of Resolution No. 83 -105, as follows: The Council acknowledges prepayment of special assessments for Improvement Project No. 1982 -10 attributable to Lots 1 and 2 of Blocks 1, 2, -3, and 4, Evergreen Estates in accordance with the following schedule: $467.27 per lot, or $3,738.16 total The assessment for Improvement Project No. 1982 -10 in the amount of $3,500.00 against that part of Lot 52, Auditor's Subdivision No. 309, lying South of the North 660 feet (P.I.D. 25- 119 -21 -34 -0007) shall be deferred in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 429.061, said deferment to be five years, or until such time as development.or transfer of title occurs (whichever occurs earlier) during which time no interest shall accrue. Upon reinstate- ment of said deferred assessment, payment shall be spread over twenty years with the annual rate of interest on the unpaid balance' .established at 12 percent. Improvement Project No. 1982 -11; Levy No. 8890 Schedule of payments in accordance with the provisions of Resolution No. 83 -105, as follows: The Council acknowledges prepayment of special assessments for Improvement Project No. 1982 -11 attributable to Lots 1 and 2 of Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4 Evergreen Estates in accordance with the following schedule: $731.32 per lot, or $5,850.56 total That part of Lot 52, Auditor's Subdivision No. 309, lying South of the North 660 feet (P.I.D. 25-119-21-34-0007) is benefited by said Improvement Project No. 1982 -11 and is subject to a water hookup charge at such time as development or transfer of title occurs. Said hookup charge shall be determined by the City Council at the time of said development or transfer of title in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 444. • RESOLUTION NO. � 3. The City. Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper ' tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. 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 4 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 R 0 0 1 i"L Y T N BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 z B, TELEPHONE 561 -5440 rn N..) EiNThR TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 18, 1983 RE: Project Costs /Special Assessments for 69th -70th Avenue Street, Sanitary Sewer, and Water Main Improvement Projects The following information is submitted to assist in the review of assessment costs to be considered for the referenced improvements along the recently completed 69th -70th Avenue connection: STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -09 As Estimated As Assessed /Financed Construction Cost $ 86,489.00 $ 53,651.25 Land Acquisition Cost 22,701.00 16,113.75 Utility Relocation 3,450.00 0.00 Soil Testing 0.00 2; Engineering Cost 10,140.00 12,426.17 Administrative Cost 1,125.00 722.81 Legal & Bonding 1,125.00 722.81 Interest 11,260.00 4,951.67 TOTAL $136,290.00 $ 91,104.22 Assessable Amount Private $ _5,650.00 $ 4,099.76 City 8,340.00 6,579.38 City Cost 122,300.00 80,425.08 TOTAL $136,290.00 $ 91,104.22 Assessment Rate $10.40 /Assessable $10.40 /Assessable Foot Foot Assessment Period 7 Years 7 Years «. 7lcG .So.fc��iucq ?fZaze � .. August 18, 1983 - G.G. Splinter Page 2 A comparison of project costs shows the original estimate presented at the May 24, 1982, improvement hearing was significantly greater than the actual cost. The cost reduction was a result of the elimination of curb and gutter from the project, reduction in the project length and an overestimation of project costs. Such changes were incorporated to reflect negotiations with the affected property owners. In accordance with the improvement hearing of May 24, 1982, and subsequent land acquisition negotiations, the assessment rate was established at $10.40 per assessable foot. The reduction in assessable amounts reflects the reduction in project length, thereby eliminating a portion of the previously estimated assess- able footage. The City cost will be charged to the City's local Municipal State Aid Fund (Account No. 2611) as provided for in City Council Resolution 82 -98. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -10 As Estimated As Assessed /Financed Construction Cost $ 11,210.00 $. 9,013.90 Engineering Cost 1,010.00 2,110.85 Administrative Cost 110.00 90.14 Legal & Bonding 110.00 90.14 Interest 1,120.00 894.68 TOTAL $ 13,560.00 $ 12,199.71 Assessable Amount Private $ 7,710.00 $ 7,238.16 City 0.00 0.00 City Cost 5,850.00 4,961.55 TOTAL $ 13,560.00 $ 12,199.71 Assessment Rate $23.33 /Assessable $23.33 /Assessable Foot Foot Assessment Period 20 Years 20 Years In accordance with the improvement hearing of May 24, 1982, and subsequent land acquisition negotiations, the assessment rate was established at $23.33 per assessable foot. The reduction in the assessable amount is the result of the platting of the 69th -70th Avenue connection, causing a reduction in the adjacent front footage. As acknowledged on the accompanying resolution, the developer of Evergreen Estates has prepaid the assessment, since the amount ($3,738.16) was established as part of the land acquisition negotiations. The balance ($3,500.00) is to be assessed against property owned by Mrs. Melba Evanson. As part of the negotiated settlement for a roadway easement over a portion of the property it was agreed that the assess - ment would be deferred for five years, or until development or title transfer takes place. August 18, 1983 - G.G. Splinter Page 3 . The City cost will be charged to the Public Utilities Fund as provided for in City Council Resolution No. 82 -98. WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -11 As Estimated As Assessed /Financed Construction Cost $ 4,930.00 $ 9,010.00 Engineering Cost .440.00 2,086.80 Administrative Cost 50.00 90.10 Legal & Bonding 50.00 90.10 Interest 500.00 1,168.48 TOTAL $ 5,970.00 $ 12,445.48 Assessable Amount Private $ 14,280.00 $ 5,850.56 City 0.00 0.00 City Cost (8,310.00 6,594.92 $ 5,970.00 $ 12,445.48 Assessment Rate $22.60 /Assessable $22.60 /Assessable Foot + Service Foot + Service Cost Cost' Single Family Rate Assessment Period- 20 Years The increase in actual construction cost over the estimated cost is a result of the Contractor's "profit taking" on this portion of the overall construction (which) included the Evergreen Park soccer field and construction of an alley in the southeast neighborhood). In accordance with the improvement hearing of May 24, 1982, and subsequent land acquisition negotiations the assessment rate for the Evergreen Estates development was established at $22.60 per assessable foot plus the cost of service extension r a total of 5 850.56. Benefited property owned (for $ ) p P Y b y - Mrs. Melba Evanson will be subject to a water hookup charge at such time as development or title transfer occurs (if charged at this time $4,420.00). Said charge, to be established in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 444, will be based upon the property zoning at the time and the proposal for land development. The City cost will be charged to the Public Utilities Fund as provided for in City Council Resolution No. 82 -98. August 18, 1983 - G.G. Splinter Page SUMMARY The accompanying resolution provides for certification of the special assessment amounts as outlined above. In addition the resolution acknowledges the deferr- merit of the sanitary sewer assessment and future water hookup charge against the Evanson property as outlined above. Respectfully submitted, SK: jn CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL. PAGE I OF EROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project No. 1982 -09 Levy No. eE85 Fund /Code No. 59/005 Description Levy Description: STREET (82 -09) 83 Levy runs seven (7) years (from 19£4 to 1990 ) with interest at the rate of twe percent ( 12 Location: First payment, with property taxes payable in 19£4 shall include sixteen (16), whole =cnths interest. Improvement hearing date Play 24, 1982 Date of Assessment Hearing Aug ust 22 19 ^3 Improvement ordered on f :ay 24, 1982 Adopted on A,uqust 22, 1983 by Resolution No. 82-9& by Resolution No. Assessment District (from Notice of Hearing): Corrections, Deletions or Deferments: Those properties between 69th and 70th Avenues and Dupont Avenue and Camden Avenue (extended) abutting, and benefited by the improvement. Method of Apportionment: Cost Summary (from Resolution No. ) Total Improvement Cost Less Direct City Share (Fund ) Less Other Payments Total Assessed to Property Assessed to City Owned Property Assessed to Other Public Property Assessed to Private Property -- CITY OF 9ROOKLYN CENTER MUNIC CODE NO. zz SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS PROPERTY TOTAL PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER LEVY NO. PROJ. NO. ADDN. NO. LOT BLOCK UNITS ADDRESS NAME IDENTIFICATION N0. PRINCIPAL ADDIT /I^EGA DESCRIPTION MAILING ADDRESS 111 88£8 25- 119- 21 -34- 0007 89104 S 1,768.72 52 That part of Lot 52 lying South Xelba P. Evanson of the North 660 feet thereof, f,00 - 69th Avenue North subject to road Brooklyn Center, iIN 55430 £CO - 69th Avenue North 8888 25- 119 -21 -34 -0009 01737 291.38 1 1 Evergreen Estates Lawrence R. Florian 861 -.70th Avenue North 116'5 !orth 37th Place Plyouth, rllinnesuta 55441 8888 25- 119 -21 -34 -0010 01737 291.38 2 1 Evergreen Estates Lawrence P. Florian 857 - 70th Avenue North 8888 25- 119 -21 -34 -0011 01737 291.38 1 2 Evergreen Estates Robert W. Rode 869 '- 70th Avenue North 133 Kentucky Avenue South Golden Valley, '!N 55427 888 25- 119 -21 -34 -0012 01737 291.38 2 2 Evergreen Estates David J. Rode 865 - 70th Avenue North 865 - 70th Avenue Nortb Brooklyn Center, 55430 8888 25- 119 -21 -34 -0013 01737 291.38 1 3 Evergreen Estates S. Richard Silverness 873 - 70th Avenue North £316 Northwood Parkway New Hope, Minnesota 55427 8888 25- 119 -21 -34 -0014 01737 291.38 2 3 Evergreen Estates S. Richard Silverness 877 - 70th Avenue North 8888 25- 119 -21 -34 -0015 01737 291.38 1 4 Evergreen Estates James Hokanson 881 - 70th Avenue North 3252 Ensign Avenue North tinneapolis, Minnesota 55427 8888 25- 119 -21 -34 -0016 01737 291.40 2 4 Evergreen Estates James Hokanson £85 - 70th Avenue North COUNCIL ACTION NOTES CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL PAGE i oF_.._ PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project No. 1982 -10 Levy No. FIPF9 Fund /Code No. 59/006 Description: Levy Description: SANITARY SEWER (F2 -10) 83 Levy runs twenty (20) years (from 19F4 to 2003 with interest at the rate of twelve percent ( I? Location: First payment, with property taxes payable in 1Q shall include sixteen (16) whole months interest. Improvement hearing date May 24, 1982 Date of Assessment Hearing August 22, 1983 Improvement ordered on May 24, 1982 Adopted on August 22, 19F_3 by Resolution No. 8 ?-9R by Resolution No. Assessment District (from Notice of Hearing): Corrections, Deletions or Deferments: The benefited areas of Lot 50, Lot 51, and Lot 52, Auditor's Subdivision No. 309 . Method of Apportionment: Cost Summary (from Resolution No. ) Total Improvement Cost Less Direct City Share (Fund j Less Other Payments Total Assessed to Property Assessed to City Owned Property Assessed to Other Public Property Assessed to Private Property --- CITY CI: BROOKLYN CENTER P, rr* t7w MIUNIC CODE NO. 22 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS PROPERTY TOTAL PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER LEVY NO. PROD. NO. ADON. NO. LOT BLOCK UNITS ADDRESS NAME IDENTIFICATION NO. PRINCIPAL A0 01T1O N / I.EGALQESCRtPTtON MAIL AO,')R 3889 25- 119 -21 -34 -0007 69104 S 3,500.00 52 ' hat part of Lot 52 lying South Neiba P. Evanson of the North 660 feet thereof, C00 - 69th Avenue "forth subject to road 6rooKlyn Center, t;d 55430 300 - 69th Avenue '4orth • COUNCIL ACTION NOTES CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL PAGE OF- PROTECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project 'N 1982 -11 Levy No. 8890 Fund Code No. 59/007 Description: Levy Description: WATER MAIN (82 -11) 83 Levy runs twenty (20) years (from 1984 to 2003 ) with interest at the rate of Location• First payment, with property taxes payable in 1981 • shall include sixteen (16) whole months interest. Improvement hearing date May 24, 1982 Date of Assessment Hearing August 22,19F3 Improvement ordered on Mlay 24, 1982 Adopted on August 22, 1983 by Resolution No. 82-59' by Resolution No. Assessment District (from Notice of Hearing): Corrections, Deletions or Deferments: The benefited areas of Lot 50, Lot 51, and Lot 52, Auditor's Subdivision No. 309 Method of Apportionment: Cost Summary (from Resolution No. ) Total Improvement Cost Less Direct City Share (Fund ) Less Other Payments Total Assessed to Property Assessed to City Owned Property. Assessed to Other Public Property Assessed to Private Property --- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER --- PACE OF MUNIC CODE NO. 22 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS PROPERTY TOTAL PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER LEVY NO. PROJ. NO. ADDN. NO. LOT BLOCK UNITS ADDRESS NAME -- IDENTIFICATION NO. PRINCIPAL I I — AD DITION /L DESCRIPT MAILING ADDRE 8890 25- 119 -21 -34 -0007 89104 See Res 83 -105 52 That part of Lot 52 lying South Melba P. Evanson for Hookup of the North 660 feet.thereof, 800 - 69th Avenue North charge provisi ns subject to road Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 800 - 69th Avenue North •, COUNCIL ACTION NOTES t Member . introdtced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR 51ST AVENUE NORTH WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.NO. 1982 -07 WHEREAS, the City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer, has prepared the proposed assessment roll identifying each and every lot, piece, or parcel of land to be specially assessed and the amount calculated against the same for the described project: Improvement Project No. 1982 -07 Construction of water main along 51st Avenue North extended westerly from East Twin Lake Boulevard WHEREAS, the City Clerk has recommended that City Council Resolution No. 83 -106 be amended to state that the amount to be assessed against the benefited properties be declared to be $34,981.18 and the amount to be paid by the City be declared to be $172.62; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections as it deems just - for the said improvement; and WHEREAS, written objection has been received from Tri- State Land Company, owner of that parcel.of land described as: Unplatted Section 10, Township 118, Range 21 commencing at a point where the southeasterly line of Lake Drive (now known as East Twin Lake Boulevard) extended southwesterly intersects the north line of Government Lot 2, thence southwesterly along said extension 11.95 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence westerly 423.58 feet to a point 20 feet south of the north line of Government Lot 2; thence northwesterly 100 feet to a point in said north line 527.98 feet west from the point of beginning; thence west along said north line 300 feet; thence south at right angles 50.feet; thence west at right angles 100 feet; thence north at right angles 50 feet; thence west to the westerly line of Government Lot 2; thence southerly to the northeasterly line of the Railroad right of way; thence southerly along said right of way line to the south line of the north 160 feet of Government Lot 2; thence easterly along the last described line to its intersection with a line running south at right angles to the north line of Government Lot 2 through the point of beginning; thence north to the point of beginning. to the proposed • assessment in the amount of $21,191.18, which purports to be in the form required by Minnesota Statute 429.061, Subdivision 1; and WHEREAS, the City Council reserves its right to object to the form, content, timeliness, and other objections to the said written objection: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 1. The hearing on the protest of Tri- State Land Company as to said property described above is adjourned until September 26, 1983, at 8:00 P.M. in the Brooklyn Center Council Chambers. 2. The proposed assessment of Tri -State Land Company in the amount of $21,191.18 on the above described property, is hereby deleted from the proposed assessment roll without prejudice to the right of the .City Council to give further consideration thereto. 3. The City Engineer is hereby directed to make further detailed investigations regarding benefits to said property, which detailed investigations shall be presented to the City Council. 4. Such proposed assessment, as amended, a copy of which shall be certified to by the City Clerk and filed in his office, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 5.- Such assessment for all parcels except Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 235 shall be payable ih equal annual installments extending over ' a period of 20 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1984, L10 and shall bear interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment for sixteen months from September 1, 1983, until December 31, 1984. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 6. Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 235 (P.I.D. 10- 118- 21 -21- 0007) is benefited by said improvement and is subject to a hookup charge at such time that said property is developed beyond its present joint use with Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 235 as a single residential site. Said hookup charge shall be determined by the City Council at the time of said development, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, 444. 7. .The-owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15, or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. ! RESOLUTION NO. 8. The City Clerk shall forthwith - transmit a certified duplicated of this assessment to the County Auditor.to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. 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. Soo Line Railroad Company Soo Line building + Box 530 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 (612) 332 -1261 August 17, 1983 Mr. Gerald G. Splinter ' City Clerk City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Mr. Splinter: The'City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota will meet at the City Rall on Monday, August 22, 1983 at 8 :QO p.m. to hear and pass upon all objecting to the proposed assessments for Watermain Improvement No. 1982 -07 constructed along 51st Avenue North extended westerly from Twin Lake Boulevard in the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Enclosed is Tri- State.Land Company's written notice of protest objecting to the proposed assessment in the amount of $21,191.18. } Please turn this protest over to the Chairman of the City Council # so it may be presented to the Council for consideration at the above mentioned meeting. Yours truly, S. M. Mrosak Director of Real Estate Development & Management SMM:sb f IN THE MATTER OF THE ACTION OF THE CITY'COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA, AND ITS CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -07, WHICH ASSESSMENTS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 1983, AT 8:00 P.M. NOTICE OF PROTEST TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA: You and each of you are hereby notified that the Tri -State Land Company, being aggrieved, does hereby protest the action of the City Council and does file this Notice of Protest with the City Clerk of said City and the grounds upon which this protest is based are as follows: That it is an owner of property within the City of ► } Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. i That a portion of its property is located adjacent to the watermain improvement and is proposed to be assessed therefor. r That the proposed improvement will not benefit the Tri -State Land Company's property. IV. That the Tri -State Land Company's property is presently served with an eight (8) inch.watermain and the additional water main adds no value to the'Tri -State Land Company's property for its highest and best use. V . That any assessment against the'Tri -State Land Company's property would result in depriving the protestant of said property without due process of lbw in violation of Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and in violation of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota. - • . VI. •. That any proposed benefit method for spreading costa for the watermain against Tri- State -Land Company property within the City produces assessments which are arbitrary, t capricious, unjust, discriminatory, and inequitable. VII. That Tri -State Land Company respectfully requests that the City Council exclude its property from any benefits of the above improvement. Dated this 17th day of August, 1983 Respectfully submitted, j TRI -STATE LAND COMPANY ! 1601 Soo Line Building Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 09 gy . • � "+ 2 S. M. Mrosak Director of Real Estate Dev. & Mgmt. k Soo Line Railroad Company Soo line Buildin ZVI Box 530 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 (612) 332 -1261 August 17, 1983 Mr. Gerald G. Splinter . City Clerk City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Mr. Splinter: The'City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota will meet at the City Hall on Monday, August 22, 1983 at 8:00 p.m. to hear and ass upon all objecting to the i? P J g proposed assessments for Watermain Improvement No. 1982 -07 constructed along 51st Avenue North extended westerly from Twin Lake Boulevard in the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Enclosed is Tri- State.Land Company's written notice of protest: objecting to the proposed assessment in the amount of $21,191.18. Please turn this protest over to the Chairman of the City Council so it may be presented to the Council for consideration at the above mentioned meeting. Yours truly, S. M. Mros a(C Director of Real Estate Development & Management SMM:sb IN THE MATTER OF THE ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA, AND ITS CONSIDERATION FOR I APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -07, WHICH ASSESSMENTS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 1983, AT 8:00 P.M. 3, i 4 NOTICE OF PROTEST t TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA: P You and each of you are hereby notified that the Tri -State Land Company, being aggrieved, does hereby protest the action of the City Council and does file this Notice of Protest with the i C Clerk of said City and the rounds u k ty y on g P which this protest is based are as follows: t I. } i That it is an owner of property within the City of i Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. . II, That a portion of its property is located adjacent to the watermain improvement and is proposed to be assessed therefor. i Than the proposed improvement will not benefit the Tri -State Land Company's property. That the Tri -State Land Company's property is presently served with an eight (8) inch.watermain and the additional water main adds no value to the Tri- State Land Company's property for its highest and best use. V . That any assessment against the'Tri -State Land Company's property would result in depriving the protestant of said property without due process of law in violation of Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and in violation of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota. i I VI. - That any proposed benefit method for spreading costs for the watermain against Tri -State •Land Company property within the City produces assessments which are arbitrary, capricious, unjust, discriminatory, and inequitable. Vile That Tri -State Land Company respectfully requests that the City Council exclude its property from any benefits of the above improvement. Dated this 17th day of August, 1983' 1 Respectfully submitted, TRI -STATE LAND COMPANY 1601 Soo Line Building Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 By IA . kk..� S. M. Mrosak Director of Real Estate Dev. & Mgmt. } j CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY R0 0 AY7L'xl 1 7 N BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 E N th n TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 18, 1983 RE: Project Costs /Special Assessments for 51st Avenue North Water Main Improvement Project No. 1982 -07 The referenced project has been placed under contract (Contract 1983 -H) and the following information is submitted to assist in the review of estimated project costs and assessment amounts. WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -07 As Estimated As Assessed /Financed Construction Cost $ 32,560.00 $ 26,958.00 Easement Cost 0.00 3,500.00 Engineering Cost 2,930.00 2,426.22 Administrative Cost 325.00 269.58 Legal Cost 325.00 2,000.00 TOTAL $ 36,140.00 $ 35,153.80 Assessable Amount Private $ 32,181.23 $ 34,981.18 City 0.00 0.00 City Cost 3,958.77 172.62 TOTAL $ 36,140.00 $ 35,153.80 Assessment Rate Single Family Rate $2210.00 /lot $2330.00/lot (Incl. service) $1780.00 /lot (without service Commercial /Industrial Frontage $22.60 /foot $23.85 /foot Commercial /Industrial Area $7.00/100 S.F. .$7.40/100 S.F. Assessment Period 20 Years 20 Years August 18, 1983 - G.G. Splinter Page 2 A comparison of estimated total project costs shows that while construction costs may be 17 percent less than the amount reported at the May 10, 1982 improvement hearing, the costs involved in easement acquisition (estimated at $3,500.00 plus $2,000.00 for legal costs) were not anticipated. As a result, it is estimated that final total project cost will be comparable to the initial total cost estimate. A review of the assessment amounts attributable to the project shows that there is an approximate $2,800.00 difference between 1982 and 1983. The difference is the result of the yearly increase in assessment rates as established by the City Council in Resolution No. 82 -233, the proposed subdivision of the residential property north of 51st Avenue (proposed preliminary plat of Oaks of Twin Lake by Keith Harstad), and minor adjustments in the proposed assessments against the industrial property located southerly of the improvement. The accompanying resolution provides for assessment of all benefited properties at this time except Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 235. This parcel is currently combined with Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 235 to form a residen- tial site at 4000 51st Avenue and will be subject to a water hookup charge if developed independently in the'future. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that all benefited properties be assessed as provided on the accompanying resolution. FINAL NOTE Please be advised that City Council Resolution No. 83 -106 contained an error in reporting (1) the assessed amount was stated as $32,651.18, whereas the correct amount is $34,981.18, and (2) the City cost was stated as $2,502.62, whereas the correct amount is $172.62. The $2,330.00 error in each amount represents the amount to be assessed against 4100 51st Avenue, the owner who petitioned for the improvement. That owner has been notified of the August 22, 1983, hearing, as have all affected property owners. Respectfully submitted, SK: jn CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL PAGE I 6F PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project'No. 1982 -07 Levy No. 8887 Fund /Code No. 59/004 Description: Levy Description: WATER MAIN (82 -07) 83 Levy runs twenty (20) years (from 1984 to 2003 with interest at the rate of twelve percent ( _ 12 Location: First payment, with property taxes payable in 1984 shall include sixteen (16) whole months interest. Improvement hearing date May 10, 1982 Date of Assessment Hearing August 22, 1983 Improvement ordered on June 28, 1982 Adopted on August 22, 1983 by Resolution No. 82 -118 by Resolution No, Assessment District (from Notice of Hearing): Corrections, Deletions or Defermentsc All property benefiting from said improvement located southerly of Upper Twin Lake, northerly of the Soo Line Railroad, and westerly of East Twin Lake Boulevard (extended) Method of Apportionment: Cost Summary (from Resolution No. ) Total Improvement Cost { Less Direct City Share (Fund ) Less Other Payments Total Assessed to Property Assessed to City Owned Property Assessed to Other Public Property Assessed to Private Property r CITY 104. BROND r,( l' � - -- r,'.t' OF MUNIC CODE NO. 22 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS PROPERTY TOTAL PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER LEVY NO. PROJ.,NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. AODN. NO, PR LOT ©LOCK UNITS ADDRESS NAME - - ADDITION /LFGAL DESCRI MAILING DDRE 8887 10- 118- ,21 -22 -0003 89699 $ 2,330.00 The West 95 feet of the East Ronald R. Brixius 615 feet of Tract D, Registered 4100 51st Avenue North Land Survey No. 235 Brooklyn Center, MIN 55429 4100 - 51st Avenue North v 8887 10- 118 -21 -21 -0007 89699 See Res 83-106 Tract B William & Catherine Breier Gavzy for Hookup Registered Land Survey No. 235 4000 —51st Avenue North charge provisi ns (vacant - no address) Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 8887 10- 118 -21 -22 -0002 89699 8,900.00 The East 520 feet of Tract D Keith T. Harstad Registered Land Survey No. 235 2191 Silver Lake Road (vacant - no address) New Brighton, 55112 8887 10- 118 -21 -22 -0004 89699 3,560.00 That part of Tract E lying West Keith T. Harstad of the East 615 feet of Tract D 2191 Silver'Lake Road Registered Land Survey No. 235 New MN 55112 .(vacant - no address) 8887 10- 118 -21 -23 -'0002 20,191.18 Tri State Land Company UNPLATTED 10 118 21 a Division of Soo Line COM AT A PT WHERE THE SELY LINE OF LAKE DRIVE EXTENDED 501 Marquette Avenue SWLY INTERSECTS THEN LINE OF GOVT LOT 2 TH SWLY ALONG Minnea olis Minnesota 55440 SAID EXTENSION 11 95 & 100 FT TO ACTUAL PT OF BEG THE WLY 423 58 & 100 FT TO A PT 20 FT S OF N LINE OF GOVT LOT 2 TH NWLY 100 FT TO A PT IN SAID N LINE 527 98 & 100 FT W FROM PT OF BEG TH W ALONG SAID N LINE 300 FT TH S AT RT ANGLES 50 FT TH W AT RT ANGLES 100 FT TH N AT RT ANGLES 50 FT TH W TO WLY LINE OF GOVT LOT 2 TH SLY TO NELY LINE OF RR R/W TH SLY ALONG SAID R/W LINE TO S LINE OF N 160 FT OF GOVT LOT 2 TH ELY ALONG LAST DESO LINE TO ITS INTERSEC WITH A LINE RUNNING S AT RT ANGLES TO N LINE OF GOVT LOT 2 THRU PT OF BEG TH N TO BEG r. COUNCIL ACTION NOTES .R ,• Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. •RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR 51ST AVENUE NORTH J WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -07 WHEREAS, the City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer, has prepared the proposed assessment roll identifying each and every lot, piece, or parcel of land to be specially assessed and the amount calculated against the same for the following described project: Improvement Project No. 1982 -07 Construction of water main along 51st Avenue North extended westerly from East Twin Lake Boulevard WHEREAS, the City Clerk has recommended that City Council Resolution No. 83 -106 be amended to state that the amount to be assessed against the benefited properties be declared to be $34,981.18 and the amount to be paid by the City be declared to be $172.62; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections as it deems just for the said improvement; and WHEREAS, written objection has been received from Tri -State Land Company, owner of that parcel.of land described as: Unplatted Section 10, Township 118, Range 21 commencing at a point where the southeasterly line of Lake Drive (now known as East Twin Lake Boulevard) extended southwesterly intersects the north line of Government Lot 2, thence southwesterly along said extension 11.95 feet to the actual of beginning; thence westerly 423.58 feet to a point 20 feet south of the north line of Government Lot 2; thence northwesterly 100 feet to a point in.said north line 527.98 feet west from the point of beginning; thence west along said north line 300 feet; thence south at right angles 50 feet; thence west at right angles 100 feet; thence north at right angles 50 feet; thence west to the westerly line of Government Lot 2; thence southerly to the .northeasterly line of the Railroad right of.way; thence southerly along said right of way line to the south line of the north 160 feet of Government Lot 2; thence easterly along the last described line to its intersection with a line running south at right angles to the north line of Government Lot 2 through the point of beginning; thence north to the point of beginning. to the proposed assessment in the amount of $21,191.18, which purports to be in the form required by Minnesota Statute 429.061, Subdivision 1; and WHEREAS, the City Council reserves its right to object to the form, content, timeliness, and other objections to the written objection: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: RESOLUTION NO. frt�s ko 1. The hearing on the protest of Tri -State Land Company as to said property described above is adjourned until Septembe 26, 1983, at 8:00 P.M. in the Brooklyn Center Council Chambers. l0 // 2. The proposed assessment of Tri -State Land Company in the amount of $21,191.18 on the above described .property, i s hereby deleted from the proposed assessment roll without prejudice to the right of the City Council to give further consideration thereto. 3. The City Engineer is hereby directed to.make further detailed investigations regarding benefits to said property, which detailed investigations shall be presented to the City Council. 4. Such proposed assessment, as amended, a copy of which shall be certified to by the City Clerk and filed in his office, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the improvement in the amount of the assessment'levied against it. 5. Such assessment for all parcels except Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 235 shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 20 years, the first of the installments to be 1984 first Monday in January, , on or before the , payable Y ry and shall bear interest at the rate of twelve 'percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment for sixteen months from September 1, 1983, until December 31, 1984.' To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 6. Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 235 (P.I.D. 10- 118 -21 -21 -0007) is benefited by said improvement and is subject to a hookup charge at such time that said property is developed beyond its present joint use with Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 235 as a single residential site. Said hookup charge shall be determined by the City Council at the time of said development, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, 444. 7. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the 'assessment, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15, or interest will be charged through December 31 of-the succeeding year. 'RESOLUTION NO. 8. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of .J this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. 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. l . f Soo Line Railroad Company Soo line Building d!' Box 530 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 (612) 332 -1261 August 17, 1983 Mr. Gerald G. Splinter City Cle City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 i Dear Mr. Splinter: The'City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota will meet at the City all n M Y o Monday, August 22, 1983 at :Q • $ 0 .m. to hear and s P pass upon all objecting o the proposed g P P assessments for Watermain Improvement No.-1982-07 P constructed along 51st Avenue North extended westerly from Twin Lake Boulevard in the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. ,. Enclosed is Tri- State.Land Company's written notice of protest objecting to the proposed assessment in the amount of $21,191.18. Please turn this protest over to the Chairman of the City Council so it may be presented to the Council for consideration at the above mentioned meeting. t Yours truly, dd t S. M. Mrosak Director of Real Estate Development & Management SMM:sb • � i IN THE MATTER OF THE ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA, AND ITS CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -07, WHICH ASSESSMENTS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 1983, AT 8:00 P.M. NOTICE OF PROTEST 4 TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA: ! You and each of you are hereby notified that the Tri -State Land Company, being aggrieved, does hereby protest s • the action of the City Council and does file this Notice of Protest with the City Clerk of said City and the grounds upon which this protest is based are as follows: • i � I . 3 That it is an owner of property within the City of ► (! Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. z i � That a portion of its property is located adjacent to t the watermain improvement and is proposed to be assessed therefor. _ III. That the proposed improvement will not benefit the s Tri -State Land Company's property. IV. That the Tri -State Land Company's property is presently served with an eight (8) inch watermain and the additional water main adds no value to the'Tri -State Land Company's property for its highest and best use. V. That any assessment against the'Tri -State Land Company's property would result in depriving the protestant of said property } without'due process of law in violation of Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and in violation of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota. i . VI. , That any proposed benefit method for spreading costs for the watermain against Tri -State Land Company property within' the City produces assessments which are arbitrary, capricious, unjust, discriminatory, and inequitable. VU. That Tri -State Land 'Company respectfully requests that the City Council exclude its property from any benefits of the above improvement. Dated this 17th day of August, 1983 Respectfully submitted, TRI- STATE LAND COMPANY - t 1601 Soo Line Building } Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 i S. M. Mrosak 1 Director of Real Estate Dev. & Mgmt. 2 4 l - A MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEP IN AND THE STATE F M . E 0 INNESOTA . STUDY SESSION AUGUST 4, 1983 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Panning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:32 p.m., ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki,Lowe11 Ainas, Mary Simmons, and Nancy Manson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that,Commmissioner Versteeg had called to say he'would be unable to attend the evening's meeting and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 14, 1983 Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the July 14, 1983 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, and Manson. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Ainas. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 83037 (Cramer Company) Chairman Lucht then explained that Application No. 83037 would be considered first rather than last on the agenda. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet No. 83037 attached). The Secretary also pointed out that the Minnesota Department of Transportation has not reacted favorably to requests for more noise walls and that this would be un- favorable to residential development of the property. The Secretary explained that approval of the application was subject to approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He then reviewed a resolution recommending an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and also an amendment to allow one or two storey office buildings in the R3 Zoning District by special use permit. k Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. tarry` Cramer stated he had nothing to add to the presentation of the previous meetina and would respond to questions. PUBLIC HEARING (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to allow mid- density residential and office development on an interchangeable basis along Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary clarified that offices in the areas recommended for mid - density residential could not be more than two stories. He added that the amendment would allow mid - density residential in office areas: Mr. Donald Finnvik of 6101 Beard Avenue North asked if this amendment would apply to all of Brooklyn Boulevard. Chairman Lucht responded in the affirmative. Mr. Gary Zimmermann. owner of the property at 6527 Brooklyn'Boulevard,stated that he would prefer that the area at Brooklyn Boulevard and I -94 remain single- family residential. Chairman Lucht explained that that.land is zoned for multiple- family . The Secretary residential use, not single-family use Y ointed out that the P property >in that area.has been zoned R5 since 1966 or 1967. He explained that the - R5 zoning designation allows three storey apartments up to 16 units per acre. He pointed out that the single- family homes on Avenue North on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard are nonconforming uses and that, if they were more than 50% , destro ed the could not be rebuilt. Y Y 8 -4 -83 -1- Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone else had any comments on the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by on Commissier Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 83 -3 Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 83 -3. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT otion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend adoption of an ordinance to allow two storey office buildings in the R3 zoning district by special use permit and to decreasd the minimum size for a planned residential development from 15 acres to 5 acres. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion P assed. CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 83037) Chairman Lucht then reopened the public hearing for Application No. 83037 and asked whether anyone present had anything new to add regarding that application. Mr. Gary Zimmermann, owner of the property at 6527 Brooklyn Boulevard, (residing at 22950 Woodbine Street, St. Paul), stated that he was just notified of the proposed development last week and asked why he had received notice previously. Chairman Lucht checked the file to see that a notice had been sent. He asked Mr. Zimmermann what detriment the proposed development would bring about. Mr. Zimmermann answered that with office buildings to his rear and the exit to the north of his property and more traffic generated onto Brooklyn Boulevard, he did not know who would want to live in the house that he owned at 6527 Brooklyn Boulevard. He also stated that extending the median in Brooklyn Boulevard would make it tougher for tenants to get into the driveway. He stated that he had talked to people with the Minnesota Department of Transportation and that they are I not ha with the proposed access. The Secretary asked Mr. Zimmermann whether he PPY P P Y preferred an apartment development or whether he considereed any development to be bad for his property. Mr. Zimmermann answered that any development with the same access that is proposed in this case would be bad for him. The Secretary asked Mr. Zimmermann if he preferred that the City approved no development on the property. Mr. Zimmermann asnswered that, if he had to choose, he would probably prefer apartments. Commissioner Ainas asked Mr. Zimmermann if he didn't think apartment traffic would continue through the night whereas the office development P 9 9 P would not. Mr. Zimmermann answered that both types of developments would be a detriment. He argued that the City should not allow any development with the access that is proposed. Chairman Lucht pointed out that the proposed development has a right to access the same as Mr. Zimmermann 's property and that the proposed 9 P P Y P P access is probably as good as can be obtained. Mr. Donald Finnvik of 6101 Beard Avenue North asked that the 100' extension of the median be shown on the overhead transparency. The Assistant City'Engineer pointed out on the transparency that the median would extend in front of most of the property immediately south of the proposed office development. Mr. Finnvik asked whether the median would curtail traffic movements onto France Avenue North The Assistant City Engineer responded in the negative. The Assistant City Eng- ineer acknowledged that the access to this site is a problem, but pointed out that if an apartment development were proposed, the same median extension would be recommended by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Mr. Finnvik asked about the possibility of an acceleration lane going southbound on Brooklyn Boule- vard. The Assistant City Engineer responded that the Minnesota Department of Transporation did not feel. such an acceleration lane was necessary. He also 8 -4 -83 -2- pointed out that such a lane would not be feasible without running into the property immediately to the south. Mr. Finnvik asked what would happen to the sidewalk on Brooklyn Boulevard as a result of the deceleration lane. The Assist- ant City Engineer answered that it.would be relocated westward onto the office park property with an easement for sidewalk purposes. Mr. Zimmermann complained that the extension of the median would cut off the possibility of backing onto Brooklyn Boulevard and going north from 6527 Brooklyn Boulevard. He explained that there was no means of backing up and turning' around on the property in order to pull out head first. Chairman Lucht stated that the residents would simply have- to go south on Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that he thought this would be easier than trying to back across two lanes of traffic. The Secretary pointed out that the situation would be comparable to the single - family homes on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard across from the K Mart at 63rd Avenue North. The Secretary pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan simply does not consider single- family residential to be a good Land use along Brooklyn Boulevard. He again pointed out that the houses north of 65th, on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard are nonconforming uses. Mr. Finnvik asked whether the homes in that area could still be sold as single- family residences. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, but pointed out that if such uses were abandoned for a period of two years, any future use of the property would have to conform with the R5 zoning designation. Mr. Gary Zimmermann again complained about the problem of getting onto Brooklyn Boulevard presented by the proposed median and expressed concern that the office traffic would have similar problems. Commissioner Ainas pointed out that the office traffic would be heading onto Brooklyn Boulevard going forward. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING airman Lucht asked whether anyone else had anything to say regarding the appli- cation. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the site would be entirely fenced and whether the pond area would be lit at night. Mr. Cramer answered that fencing would be provided where it does not now exist and that there would be low -level security lighting around the site. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATIN NO. 83037 (Cramer Company) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend ap- proval of 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 -4 -83 -3- 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 MN /DOT. The median extension shall be approved by MN/ DOT rior to the issuance of building permits and construction of P 9p 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. g 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 including median construction on Brooklyn Boulevard. 9.' 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 MN /DOT recom mendations and the sidewalk along the west side of Brooklyn Boule- vard shall be relocated onto the applicant's property with the granting of an easement for sidewalk purposes. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 8 -4 -83 -4- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83037 Applicant: Cramer Company Location: I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Special Use Permit, Site and Building Plan This application involves the land at the southwest corner of'I -94 and Brooklyn Blvd. and was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 14, 1983. The action at that time was to table the application and continue the public hearing. As the Commis- sion probably recalls, this application is for an office park on land that is zoned R5 (office uses are allowed by special use permit in the R5 zone). The complex would contain 20 one- storey office units at approximately 1,000 sq. ft. each. The Commission is also probably aware that the granting of a special use permit for this proposed use would run counter to the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan for this area of the Boulevard (the current Plan recommends mid- density residential, or townhouse, use for this location). Staff have, therefore, prepared a draft Com- prehensive Plan amendment to allow office or mid - density residential development on an interchangeable basis under the Plan. A public hearing to consider such an amendment has been called for the August 4, 1983 meeting. Action on the Plan amend- ment is recommended prior to action on the special use permit application. During the last 3 weeks, the applicant has held one informational meeting with residents of the neighborhood (see summary of meeting attached). The applicant has informed us that, aside from the access question, the residents raised concerns that the development be fenced off where fences do not already exist, `that berming not block existing drainage patterns, and that parking lot lighting not produce glare into the neighborhood. The applicant has expressed willingness to address these concerns. Concerns regarding access and traffic have been expressed by neighboring residents along Brooklyn Boulevard. Essentially, they argue that the traffic resulting from the proposed use would have a detrimental effect on their property. Certainly the proposed use will add to traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard, but the total amount 'gener- ated will be an insignificant fraction of the total traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard. It should also be noted that, under the R5 zoning, the 4.48 acre site could support up to 72 apartment units which would likely generate considerably more traffic and have a greater visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Owner- occupied residential, such as townhouse, is made difficult by the freeway abutment, though this could be mitigated by extension of the noise wall. In short, it is felt that normally permitted uses in this zoning district would generate comparable or greater traffic than the proposed use. We have asked for comments from MnDOT regarding access to this site. The following are the comments received as of August 1, 1983: 1. Access to site should be limited to right turn in and out. 2. TH 182should be widened to include a right turn lane for turns into property: access should be 32' radii. 3. The median should be extended 100' ± southerly. 4. Proposed mounding should be laced so as not to interfere with s P 9 p sight lines. 5. Storm sewer in TH 152 has some capacity available, but a review of the plans is necessary_ Staff have also received comment from the owner of the lot immediately south of the office complex. He contends that the value of "his property (which he presently rents out) will be adversely affected by the proposed development, particularly the location of the access to the development. This concern and the concerns regarding 8 -4 -83 -1- Application No. 83037 conti -nued traffic congestion do raise issues relating to Standards (b) and (d) from the Standards for a Special Use Permit (attached). Staff certainly recognize that the proposed access is not ideal. A better situation would be obtained if the two lots to the south along Brooklyn Boulevard were acquired and the access shifted to the south. However, even though the proposed development is a special use and subject to the standards contained in Section 35 -220, there are reasons for accepting the access as proposed. One is that the property has a legal right to access on Brooklyn Boulevard. Secondly, the traffic impact of the ,proposed use is no greater and perhaps less than the traffic which would be generated by permitted uses not subject to the standards. Third, there is a private covenant on the three lots south of the site in question which prohibits commercial use of those properties. A developer using those properties for a commercial access would, therefore, be open to a lawsuit imposing the sanctions of the private covenant. Fourth, the proposed median exten- sion in Brooklyn Boulevard should mitigate the traffic problems caused by the access to the new development. Finally, to require that other properties be acquired to improve the position of the access would tend to prejudice negotiations for the property in favor of existing owners. While we would prefer an access further to the south, we do not believe the proposed access is unacceptable. Regarding Standard (b), we do-not believe the proposed access will have a noticeable effect on property values if it is located 15' north of the common property line with the parcel to the south and if it is a right -in /right -out access. The proposed represents n traffic on Brooklyn use a esents a insignificant .increase in the n Boulevard. The t P Y 9 location of the access 15' north of the residential property to the south is all that is required by ordinance and all that should be sought in lieu of the location of the freeway exit ramp. The applicant has indicated the desire to have the office complex a condominium. Platting or compliance with the State Condominium Act is required to accomplish this. In general and in light of the available alternatives, we feel that the Standards for a Special Use Permit are met in this case. Approval is therefore recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be ground for revocation. 2. Opaque fencing shall be installed along property lines abutting neigh- boring residences where none presently exist. Where fences do exist, a dense row of shrubbery shall be planted-and maintained. 3. The median in Brooklyn Boulevard shall be extended 100' to prevent turns into and out of the proposed complex. Said median extension shall be the responsibility of the applicant under permit.from the MN /DOT. The median extension shall be approved by MNIDOT prior to the issuance of building permits and construction of the median shall be in conjunction with 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 sub- mitted by the applicant. 8 -4 -83 -2- Application No. 83037 continued 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. 9. 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. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 8-4-83 -3- Neighborhood Meeting Re: Development of the southeast corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and I -94 Attached is a copy of the notice and mailing list, and a list of those who attended. The meeting opened at 7:40 P.M. with Jim Pearson, whose family owns the property and who is one of the developers, expressing appreciation to those who came and explaining that the purpose of the meeting was to acquaint the affected neighbors with the proposed project and solicit their comments and suggestions. He said that the developers, Mr. Len Samuelson, who is out of town and could not attend the meeting, Larry Cramer and he were interested in developing a good project which would be a complement rather than be a disturbing element in the neighbor hood. Larry Cramer showed slides of the site explaining the access and the development area together with slides of similar office buildings which were built on the south side of Highway 55, two blocks east of Highway 100 in Golden Valley. The proposed Brooklyn Center project was designed by the same architect using the same basic design and materials. Mr. Cramer also reviewed the site plan and proposed landscaping plan. Questions and answers followed. Mr. Cramer asked for comments on the nd P o as it related to safety. his did not draw a response. However, there was general agreement that a fence would be'of benefit both for safety and to discourage people from shortcutting through the yards. There was some discussion i ` on the traffic deaccleration lane and the extension of the median to prevent right turns and its affect on houses on Brooklyn Boulevard. The developers explained that the city has asked the highway department for a traffic access report which will be considered by the planning commission and council. Some people expressed concern that high mounted parking lot lighting would disturb them in the evening. The developers said no high mounted lighting was contemplated and night light- ing would be confined to low mounted lights and building security lighting. There was also concern that•the berm would restrict natural drainage. Mr. Pearson agreed that this was an important consid- eration and they would provide culverts if necessary to prevent water back -up damage. In response to other questions on drainage, the site drainage plan and storm sewer extension was explained. It was announced that the next planning commission meeting was August 4th which would afford people an opportunity to directly express their opinions on the proposal. Several people attending said the meeting was informative and a good idea. Three people asked for a copy of the site plan which the developers said they would send by mail The meeting concluded at 8:20 P.M. - ATTENDEES 1. Willard J. Bartos 4106 65th Ave.' 2, Lee Evenson 4112 65th Ave. N. 3. Russell & Esther Jensen 4213 66th Ave. N. 4. David Dehne 6530 Indiana Ave. N. 5. Derald & Shirley Johnson 6526 Framce Ave. N. 6. Dawn & Marlice Harrer 6521 Brooklyn Blvd. 7. Harry Spoden 4219 66th Ave N. 8. Chuck Gustafson . 3801 66th Ave. N. 9 Jim Busse 6506 Indiana Ave. N. 10. Bill Williams 4018 65th Ave. N. BROOKLYN CENTER ADDRESSES BROOKLYN BLVD. 6501 Ames Lance 536 -9665 (letter returned moved) 6505 Durbin, Connie 537 -6806 6515 Blazek, Greg J. NO # 6521 A & C Business Machines sls sery 533 -9683 6527 Clifford_, Glen H. 537 -0706 6500 Bermel Smeaby Realty Inc. -------- - - - - -- 6532 Aottelson, Russel C. 6538 Petrangelo, L.M. 566 -3641 (moved didn't receive letter) 6510 Dudley, Clarence W. 561 -3876 6520 Plummer, Rpbert J. 561 -6520 65th AVE. N. 4112 Evenson, Lee 535 -7330 4106 Bartos, Willard J. 533 -9883 4100 Buss Robert M. 533 -9957 4024 Bremseth, Alvin J. 537 -7118 4018 Williams, Wm R. Jr. 533 -3085 4012 Friedl, Arnold J., 533 -3150 4206 Quinn, James, F., 537 -5131 4200 Green, Elizabeth J. Mrs. 537 -3539 4212 Eckberg, Porter J. 537 -4224 66th AVE. N. 3800 Peterson, Roy E. 561 -1981 3801 Gustafson, Charles W. 561 -8565 4201 Hench,`Audrey, Mrs. NO # - 4207 Johnsen, Robert G. 533 -7985 4213 Jensen, Russell P. 533 -3207 4218 Kinch, Charles 537 -2822 4212 Tighe, Patrick B. 531 -0140 4206 Asplund, Eugene K. 533 -5225 4200 Iverson, Richard D. 533 -4200 4110 Brandvold, Paul D. 537 -7169 4225 NO return 4219 Spoden, Harold J. 537 -9262 INDIANA AVE. N. 6516 Busse, James D. 533 -7061 6512 Fairley, Frances J. 537 -8222 6518 Peterson, R. 536 -0380 6524 Gross, Virginia K. Mrs. 533 -7279 6530 Dehne, David 535 -1650 6536 Holmlund, Paul W. 537 -0121 WINCHESTER LANE 4212 Welch, Genevieve E. Mrs. 533 -7316 (Cont'd) WINCHESTER LANE (cone'd) 4206 Hovde, Arth L. 4200 Petros, Steph J. 4201 Schmidt, Lauri 4207 Sands, Lyle 537 -0031 4213 Espeland, Donald T. 533 -5229 FRANCE AVE. NO. 6526 Johnson, Derald S. 561 -3688 6532 McLellan, James S 560 -2646 6544 Cardinal Towing Service 535 -1202 ------------------ 6507 DeBoer V.L. 561 -3256 (wrong adress on letter- didn't receive) Minnesota r Dep artment of Trans � ortati � on a District F ive � 5801 Duluth Street 7 Golden Valley, Minnesota .55422 , Augus 1, 1983 ( 612) 545.376[ Mr. James N. Grube, P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 SP 2742 T.H. 152 Plat review of proposed office park located in the southwest quadrant of I -94 and T.H. 152 in Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County Dear Mr. Gruber g Your letter to Mr. Crawford requesting our review of the above referenced plat has been referred to this office for response. In 1976 a development was proposed for this site and it was reviewed by us and comments were sent to the City. Our main concerns at that time were the drainage and the access to the site. In regard to the access we recommend the following: Turns to the property should be limited to right turns on and off of TH •152. TH 152 should be widened between the free right turn from the I -94 ramp and the proposed entrance. The entrance should be constructed at least 32' wide with 30' radii. r { The entrance should be placed as far south as possible. Left turns from TH 152 should not be allowed. The most positive way to prevent this would be to extend the existing median island approximately a 100' to the south. — The approach grade to TH 152 on the entrance should be as flat as possible, x We suggest + 0.5%. -- The placement of proposed mounding and plantings near the entrance should be reviewed carefully so as not to restrict sight lines to and from the proposed entrance. An Equu! Oppo►tunity Employer Mr. James N. Grube, P.E. August 1, 1983 Page 2 In regard to the capacity of the existing storm sewer, our District Hydraulics Engineer, Mr. John Boynton, has determined there is some capacity available. Please contact Mr. Boynton to discuss this matter further. If you have any questions in regard to this review, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Evan R. Green Project Manager ERG:bn > 4 x, 1 No U S . ST ��£s Y - Yd u1 P E �2 T GLS/ -� -i� C O ' Wt OFFICE 68TH �AvF 66TH } i 1 t �,-9 INCH. E TER i La. _ R U71 t AV E. Y\ Y' } QROOKLAt�F 4 � — -- — 4 PARK GAROEN "` v CITY tt -isj jCH0 0� - S UJ 64Th AVE. N..1 —Uj C2 _ ,0 -� DR i Z f . #LA N . i n .. , � i • r"*._ , 1, u._ ♦� f C,.� J :•✓ Lv. irn .: .� 741 \ • n 1 HC7t�`:7. �RLiC:L.tie1 i . 1 �G 1 "ry ; 417wrrua )tw � / 1 � ( J L � _P Jrw.:9stV YPM + _�� 1 l,r , _�'• i .�. '� � i Ta "v LtGPto cs YFb� �l n G �• \ \ Y , 1W 't'L:Kfi \ 1 rr 1 �•:.+�.' �.,. I ���.., rt � �:_ -* ,.LVt .11 t.t S ,` •tt _ rki° -" t l�✓ •- ••�• --•� 1 � } ^ .._-� .. w��"' i . � - "1't. .�l`iY )1 ♦ Vii.'. ~ \ ~ _ . � ~ l pa k•' 1L+tiK M1'ht'T -E __ i. _ - - - 'f � ' �f � 'L ` , - j; �� a` � `.� -•� �, aar f' t� ti � y l \ - .{:..t.� R;e . h ` } i x 5„y -e. , A1YLt 1. - 4�or =11 L:rylav v - 1 1 - - \ > ✓- 1 E'tUt7 t n-11ry , s. � ;� .'Ca \ 1 /' /:a+'�::rJi.E • '� ( t� �"tt r 4 �y 1 ' t /c Y- :r 5.2tft , fh.w • ��e �•.� .w t' ,,,,... �, _ _p` -s:.^ �.' . Srk'< v:ett`i"�;ncaal _ _ l';t (`-J ,��'� - J r ,,. •°, s , � -� � -,.,s ''�'�.+� r • 3 a4�ur.. A04 tr � _-rtxe • � � ' ' ! 1 /�i<: � �.. _r3-r.: uvn crt .Ltriv % w �a..� . wrio y Ar + / ! P t^t N. FS� 1 �' -� -- c _Vif ti f/t�+l$ /. •''� -' :•, �. � ` '�• .~s., ., meta Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION 140. 83035 (Paul DesVernine /Iten Leasing) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend ap- proval of Application No. 83035, subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations, and any violation thereof shall grounds for revocation. 2. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 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. 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 extinguishing system -to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device 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. The plan shall be modified prior to review by the City Council to indicate curb and gutter along the west side of the site and a 5' greenstrip: 11. The existing roof sign at the northeast corner of the building shall be removed or reduced to no higher than 6' above the parapet wall line prior to the issuance of permits. 12.. Legal agreements for cross access, joint parking and drainage across property lines shall be filed at the County covering the Iten Chevrolet property and the Iten Leasing property prior to the issuance of permits. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: - none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 83037 (Cramer Company) The Secretary then introduced the lust item of business, a request for site and 7 -14 -33 -10- building plan and special use permit approval to construct an office park de- velopment on the R5 zoned property the southwest corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 83037 attached). The Secretary explained the process for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment which required a public hearing by the Planning Commission and review by the'lletro Council prior to -adoption by the City Council Chairman Lucht explained that four Commissioners would be absent on the July 28' meeting and that that meeting would have to be rescheduled. Following a brief discussion, it was agreed that the meeting could be held on August 4, 1933. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Larry Cramer of "Cramer Company explained to the Planning Commission that he was a building contractor and that he had studied the property for two years. to find a suitable use. He noted that the property is zoned R5, but stated that felt the noise at that inter- section would make a residential use unsound. He explained to the Planning Com- mission that there is a trend in the office market toward office condominiums and that the proposed development would be geared to that market. He noted the re- quirement for a special use permit for office uses in the R5 zone. Mr. Cramer pointed out the low density of the development and stated that the site would be well landscaped. He compared the proposed 21,000 sq. ft. of office space with the possibility of larger areas of either townhouse or apartment living space. He also stated that the traffic generated by the development would be experienced primarily during the daytime and that the area would be fairly quiet at night. He showed the Planning Commission a set of slides of the property in question and of a similar office park development in Golden Valley. Mr. Cramer stated that he felt this development was compatible with the neighborhood and meets a market demand as well. He stated that he had talked with the Minnesota Department of Transportation regarding traffic movements on Brooklyn Boulevard and pointed out that the plan is to extend the median in Brooklyn Boulevard south of the existing access to prevent left turns in or left turns out. He also noted that the traffic . pattern of the proposed use would not be similar to a factory where masses of people come and go at the same time. He stated that the various office users would come and go at fairly different times, preventing a major traffic problem. Commissioner Malecki asked Mr. Cramer how he would control kids getting to the open holding pond in the middle of the site. Mr. Cramer answered that the pond was not absolutely necessary, but was proposed as an aesthetic asset to the site. He stated that if the Planning Commission were opposed to a pond, it could be re- placed with some kind of landscaped area that could be commonly used by the office users. Chairman Lucht added that fencing around the perimeter of the site abut- ting residential areas could be required. Commissioner Simmons expressed concern about small children wandering into the site in the evening when no one would -be present in the office complex. Mr. Cramer explained that the pond would have a catch basin at a certain height so that the water would never get very deep in the pond. He added that the area adjacent to the residences could be fenced. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that a`fence is sometimes considered a challenge by young children. The Assistant City Engineer stated that he has asked Minnesota Department of Transportation for drainage calculations' of the runoff from Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that the applicant has not calculated the drainage flows for the entire site and that this must be done before any judgment can be made as to whether the ponding system will work. l PUBLIC HEARING (Application Pao. 83037) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application. Mr. Don Finnvik of 6101 Beard Avenue North and Ms. Dawn Harre addressed the Planning Commission regarding the traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Finnvik pointed out that people would have to make a right turn out of the project and that even a right turn onto Brooklyn 7 -14 -33 -11- Boulevard is very difficult in this location._ He also stated that when people turn left into the residences south of the proposed office complex, they would experience a problem because of the increased traffic corning out of the office complex. He stated that 'there were a lot of accidents in this area of Brooklyn Boulevard and asked how emergency vehicles would get to the property. Ms. Harre stated that people have tried to buy the property in question in the past and were not allowed access onto Brooklyn: Boulevard. She stated that there was not enough room between the exit ramp from the freeway and the proposed access to the property for people to react. She asked why the developer was not re- quired to acquire homes along the entire block to provide an access further south on Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary explained that there were legal covenants restricting the use of a number of the lots to the south and disallowing any commercial use. He explained that any commercial use of these properties would have to be; approved by everyone in Pearson's Northgate Addition and that there are between 100 and 200 property owners in this subdivision. He stated that the staff have encouraged previous developers to combine property, but explained that the City cannot deny the use of the property if it is of an acceptable size. Mr. Finnvik stressed the access problems to the site. Commissioner Simmons interpreted his statements as saying that a right hand turn onto Brooklyn Boulevard is about as dangerous as a left hand turn in many other locations. There followed a brief discussion of the problems of traffic along Brooklyn Boulevard. Chairman Lucht stated that he did not think 50 townhouses on the property would be any better from a traffic standpoint than-the proposed use. "Commissioner Sandstrom agreed and pointed to the low density of the proposed use. Mr. Finnvik asked how to change the covenant on the properties to the sough. The Secretary answered that it would have to be lifted by all of the people partici- pating in the covenant. (GIs. Harre stated that the traffic coning out of the office complex would disrupt the business which she runs out of her home at 6521 Brooklyn Boulevard, a business machine repair operation. Chairman Lucht asked whether this was a licensed home occupation. Ms. Harre answered in the affirmative. She stated that the proposed median extension would either cut people off from turning into her property or would encourage people to do U turns in front of her property. Commissioner Simmons stated that this was a problem similar to living on a one -way street and she stated that one -way streets are not all that rare. qtr. Finnvik stated that he did not think the resulting traffic pattern on Brooklyn Boulevard would be fair to the residents in the area. Commissioner Simmons answered that Brooklyn Boulevard has changed a great deal since it was originally built and that traffic has increased many times over the years. She stated that the traffic problems on Brooklyn Boulevard are a fact of life. Commissioner Sandstrom added that the traffic along the Boulevard will force a change in the use of the property along the Boulevard. Mr. Finnvik concluded by saying that he did not think the access onto Brooklyn Boulevard would work. Chairman Lucht summarized the concerns of Mr. Finnvik and tis. Harre as being: access, traffic and vandalism. Mr. Bill Williams, of 4018 -65th Avenue North, stated that the proposed office complex is the nicest proposal that the neighbors have seen in 20 years. He stated that he would like to see a fence adjacent to the residential properties and also expressed concern regarding light ollution from the parking lot lights. P 9 g 9 P He also expressed concern. regarding access to the site,-but did not belabor the point. The Secretary clarified that the ordinance requires.a 15' greenstrip where offices abut single- family residential and that some type of screening device is required, although it is not necessarily fencing. He stated that the choice of the screening device was open to review by the Planning Commission. Mr. Williams stated that berming does not keep anything out and expressed concern regarding undesirable .characters coming to the office complex at night and perhaps burglarizing surrounding homes. 7 -14 -83 -12- The Assistant City Engineer explained that the City has asked for comments from the Minnesota Department of Transportation regarding the access question. He stated that he expected the Minnesota Department of Transportation to require improvements that would make the access to the property as safe as possible under the circumstances. Mr. Finnvik suggested the P ossibilit Y of a right turn out merge lane as well as the right turn in merge lane indicated on the plan. The .Assistant City Engineer stated that that option would be looked at. Mrs Hitch of 66th and Indiana stated that fencing would not keep kids out of the property. She expressed concern about kids getting down into the property and also expressed concern regarding runoff and dirt from the parking lot causing pollution generally in the neighborhood. She also expressed concern regarding p g 9 the poss:ibilit of gaining access North Y s to th 9 9 e site from Indiana Avenue e ue , North at the northwest corner of the site. Chairman Lucht assured those present that the Planning Commission would not allow access off Indiana Avenue North: The Secretary asked the applicant whether he intended to meet with the people who lived in the area. Mr. Cramer stated that he would be happy to meet with the residents, that he had intended to meet prior to the Planning Commission meeting, but it became impossible to reach.everyone before the meeting. ACTION RECOMMENDING CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 83037) Motion by Commissioner Halecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to continue the public hearing regarding Application No. 83037 until the August 4, 1983 Planning Commission meeting. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO 83037 (Cramer Company) Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Manson to table Application No. 83037 until the August 4, 1983 Planning Commission meeting at which time a hearing will be held on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS The - Secretary referred the Commission's attention to a Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Draft Ordinance Amendment which related to the application pre- viously considered., He asked them to review these drafts prior to the August 4, 1933 meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom om seconded by Commissioner tlaTecki Y to adjourn the he meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 12:02 a.m. Chairman 7 -14 -83 -13- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83037 Applicant: Cramer Company Location: Brooklyn Boulevard and I -94 (southwest corner) Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct an office condominium complex at the southwest quadrant of 1 -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. The parcel in question is zoned R5 and is bounded by an- 1 -94 exit ramp on the north, by Brooklyn Boulevard on the east, and b single- family residences on the south and west. Office uses are a special use in the R5 zone. As the Planning Commission is aware, the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan for this area of the Boulevard is for mid - density residential development (ie.townhouses). In order to issue a special use permit for office use on this parcel, it is felt that an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must be adopted allowing office uses within areas recommended for mid- density residential (and vice versa). Such an amendment has been discussed by the Planning Commission and a draft amendment is attached for its consideration. A public hearing to consider this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan has been scheduled for the Planning Commission's study meeting on July 28, 1983 The proposed use consists of five separate buildings with a total of 20 office units at roughly 1,000 sq. ft. of floor space per unit. The complex provides a total of 21,400 sq. ft. of office space which, at the general office formula,_ (one space/ 200 s . f . gross floor area) requires 107 parking spaces A minimum of 110 have been provided on the plan and staff have asked the applicant to provide addi- tional spaces to allow for more medical uses which have a more stringent parking requirement (one space /150 s'.f. gross floor area). Access to the site would be from a single driveway on Brooklyn Boulevard. No access is proposed from Indiana Avenue North at the northwest corner of the site The plan shows an extended median in Brooklyn Boulevard which would allow the development to have right -in /right -out access only. Such a median extension would require a permit from the State. Although the median extension is shown' on the plan, we recommend that it be included as a condition of approval. The landscape plan for the site calls for sod in all landscaped areas. Under- ground irrigation has not been noted on the landscape plan; however, it is noted in the site work specifications which have been submitted with the plans. Section 35 -411 of the Zoning Ordinance requires screening when Cl uses abut Rl, R2 or R3 zoned property as is the case along the south and west sides of this develop- ment. When this screening is fulfilled by a fence, it is to be 4' high. No fencing is proposed. There is a fairly continuous row of plantings along the west property line, but not along the south property line. Staff would recommend that dense vegetation be planted where private fences already exist and that 4' high fencing be provided where no fencing exists. Proposed plantings include a wide variety of shade trees (35 total trees) , decorative trees (37 ), conifers (24) , shrubs (162) and flowers ( 230) As to drainage, the entire site drains toward the west central area of the site into a large holding pond. This holding pond is connected by storm sewer to an existing 15" storm sewer near. the southwest. corner of the property. Water service would be obtained from a 16 main running along the south side of the freeway right -of -way. Sanitary sewer sere -ice • would be connected to an 8" existing service extending from Brooklyn Boulevard. 7 -14 -83 -1- Application No. 83037 continued i The office units themselves have 6 wide cedar lap siding exterior with cedar shingles on the roofs. To the rear of each unit would be two wood decks 4' deep by 8' wide. These decks would face the pond area -while the front entrance faced the outer ring of parking. Restrooms and mechanical rooms would be located in common areas shared by two units. The applicant has expressed a desire to sell individual units to office clients. If so, he must either submit a preliminary plat similar to a townhouse subdivision with association documents or an office condominium must be declared in accordance with the State Condominium Act. This 'form of ownership probably cannot be controlled through the zoning approval process. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. Following discussion of the site plan and the opening of the public hearing, we would recommend that the application be tabled until the public hearing on the Compre- hensive Plan amendment is held 'on July 28, 1983. - - 7 -14 -83 -2- MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection DATE:. July 8, 1983 SUBJECT: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment The Planning Commission has, been considering •and discussing, over the past month and a half, the possibility of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment which would allow some flexibility or interchangeability between mid- density residential development (R3) and certain office uses (Cl) recommended along Brooklyn Boulevard. The staff has been approached by the owner 'of the land at the southwest quadrant of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard regarding a "low- rise" office develop- ment on the property. The land is zoned R5 and certain service /office uses are permitted by a special use permit. However, the Comprehensive Plan recommerds this area for mid - density residential development which creates somewhat of a conflict. The Comprehensive Plan recommended alternative for Brooklyn Boulevard also designates other areas for future development of a mid- density residential nature and also, - service /office nature. The Planning Commission has discussed the possibility of introducing flexibility in these areas by allowing, as a special use, certain office uses (not service or retail uses) no greater than two storeys in height that would be compatible in appearance and density with townhouses. Attached is a copy of a May 24, 1983 staff memo to the Planning Commission regarding this matter and also, Planning Commission minutes from May 26', 1983 ('pages 2 and 3) and June 16, 1983 (pages 4 through 6) regarding this matter. The Commission has requested the staff to prepare 'the necessary amendments and schedule a public hearing for July 28, 1983 for consideration of this matter. Section 35- 202, Subdivision 1 (a) of the City Ordinances establishes the procedure for Comprehensive Plan Amendments and requires _ that a copy of the proposed amendment be transmitted to the City Council prior to the publication of the notice of hearing. The notice of public hearing will be published in the Brooklyn Center Post on July 14, 1983 .and', as indicated, the hearing by the Planning Commission will be held on July 28, 1983. Pursuant to the above ordinance provision I ' have enclosed a copy of the draft resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan which will be presented to the Plan - ning Commission and a copy of the notice of public hearing which will be published on July 14. Please forward these items along with the staff memo,. Planning Com- mission 'minutes, and a proposed ordinance amendment to _implement the above mentioned flexibility to the City Council. Any questions that you have; or the Council might have concerning this matter may be directed to me. mlg. NOTICE OF HEAPING ON PROPOSED COhiPREIIENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby 'given of a public hearing to be held on the 28th day of July, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 ,Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider a proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment relating to all land along Brooklyn Boulevard recommended for 'eventual development as offices, or townhouses. Statement of the contents of the proposed amendment is to allow land designated for service /office to be developed alternately as townhouses and land designated for townhouses to be developed alternately as low -rise - offices, but not as service or retail use: Date: July ' 7, 1983 Ronald A. Warren .Planning Commission Secretary (Published: in the Brooklyn Center kPost July 14, 1983) MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission Members. FROM: Planning Staff DATE: May 24, 1983 SUBJECT: Proposed Office. Development at Southwest corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Blvd. We have had preliminary discussions with .Mr. Jim Pearson, the owner of an approximate 4.5 acre tract of land at the southwest corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Blvd Mr. Pearson has submitted a conceptual site plan for 20 office condominiums in one storey buildings. The property in question is zoned R5 and is surrounded by 1 -94 on the north, by Brooklyn Blvd, on the east, and by single- family homes on the south and west. Permiited uses in the R5 zone include: townhouses at 8 units per acre, one and one -half to two storey apartments at 12 units per acre, and two and one -half to three storey apartments at 16 units per acre. Certain Service /Office uses are allowed by special use permit. The reason we have chosen to bring this matter to the Planning Commission's attention is because of the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan as most of you probably know, contains a special section on Brooklyn Blvd. ( pages 139` -182) . Within this section various alternative concepts for development along Brooklyn Blvd, are reviewed. All of the concepts, including the recommended alternative, call for mid density residential development north of 63rd Avenue North (and , of K -Mart. on the east) up to the freeway. The Land Use Plan Revisions Map on Figure 15 and the .accompanying Table 14 on page 98 list - mid - density residential development as. the recommended land use for this parcel. Mid- density residential means townhouses in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the recommended use for this parcel is townhouse development. The Plan, on page .167, specifically recomjnends: _ "The residential area immediately south of I -94 and that area north of 70th Avenue should receive infill development and redevelopment with medium- density housing. Commercial uses other than those already in existence should not be allowed .to stray into these residential enclaves and detract from the character which is being sought." The Plan aims at accomplishing certain land use objectives found. on 163 and repeated below .to contain commercial land uses within clearly defined sectors of the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor; propose means of preventing; the evolution of a "strip" of retail and service businesses from State Highway (TH) 100 to the northern City boundary. i flow along Brooklyn Boulevard .to . preserve .the. smooth traffic f o g y . to protect adjacent residential neighborhoods from undue negative environmental influences generated by development along Brooklyn Boulevard . .to minimize disruption during redevelopment to the residential character of areas :along Brooklyn Boulevard which are recommended to remain residential to provide an adequate amount of land designated for commercial use within the corridor to meet reasonable" future community needs for goods and services to enhance the image and appearance of the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor. The first objective _i's probably the most important since it works towards and epito- mizes the fulfillment of the other objectives. All this material in the Plan leads us; to conclude that the proposed office development is not consistent with the City's Com- prehensive Plan and that a special use permit should not be issued to allow an office use on the subject parcel We confess, however., that we are attracted to the proposed development because: -It appears to have little negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood -The architectural style of the buildings is low -rise and similar to townhouse construction The' Araffic impact of the proposed use is comparable to a townhouse development Residential use adjacent to an intersection with the freeway seems unwise in spite of- the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations. -The proposed office condominium complex meets a unique segment of the office market. Based on the above points, it may be that the Plan could be amended and the special use permit granted. The Commission is also reminded that the alternative concepts in the Brooklyn Blvd. study are depicted with a schematic graphic representation to, as the Plan puts it: "permit interpretation and refinement by City staff according to individual circums'tances." The Plan can be amended specifically' for this individual parcel with the possible result that the overall direction of the Plan is somewhat eroded. - Or, some of the basic assumptions of the Plan can be addressed head -on. Namely, is. the segregation of land uses along the Boulevard of prime importance in ensuring both the preservation of property values (stability) and the orderly functioning of the Boulevard as a traffic artery (efficiency)? Certainly retail and service uses and single - family uses should. be well segregated either by buffering uses (such as offices or townhouses) or by frontage roads (as is the case between Highway 100 and 58th Avenue North). But we find a great deal of similarity between townhouse and office uses in terms of their overall space requirements, their traffic impact, their buffering qualities, and their relationship to single- family neighborhoods (15' wide buffer strips, 4' high fences, etc). The Plan re- flects this similarity by evaluating both office and townhouse developments as the preferred redevelopment options in the "focus area" between 58th Avenue - North and 63rd Avenue North (pages 168 -175) ° Perhaps . the Plan should be amended to allow mid- density residential or office ( use on' an interchangeable basis. Meanwhile, the Plan would continue to segregate ` the higher intensity retail and service uses, clustering them to identifiable nodes at Brookdale. 63rd and 69th A%ienues North. One way of effectuating such a change inpolicy would be to allow-office (but, not service) uses in the R3 zoning district. That way, land experiencing redevelopment or infill pressure could be zoned R3 allowing both flexibility to the developer and control to the City. 5 -26 -83 -2- These are certainly major policy questions which. should be examined carefully . and not decided at a - single meeting in response to a . single application. For that reason, we have brought this matter to your attention at this time before the application is presented. 5 -26 -83 -3- ' major thoroughfare;.. Commissioner Sandstrom noted that the ordinance designates France Avenue between Highway 1 00 and 50th Avenue North as a major thoroughfare. . tie asked* why France was not considered a major thoroughfare up to 53rd Avenue. The Secretary explained that A rance.Avenue is a state -aid street in the industrial area and that it is only a ollector street north; of 50th. ACTION RECOMIMENDING ADOPTION OF ORDIIANCE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING 69TH AVENUE NORTH AS A MAJOR THOROU (Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommen adoption of an ordinance amendment establishing 69th Avenue North between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway as a major thoroughfare. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners 11alecki, Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. G' -_ " " DEVELOPMENT AT I -94 AND BROOKLYN BOULEVARD /COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Secretary then read a memorandum from the-Planning staff regarding the pro - spective development at the southwest corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard and the implications such a development would have for the Comprehensive Plan. He showed the Planning Commission a site plan of the development and stated that there would probably be an application sometime in June. Commissioner Simmons noted that the plan looks like a residential development, but asked whether the Planning Commission could limit the office use to a one storey condominium arrangement:. The Secretary pointed out that ari office use* would be a special use permit in the R5 zone.and that this might give the Planning Commission greater latitude in deciding what to apprrove_ He related the history of the special use provision for offices in the R5 zone. He explained that the office building at 70th and Brooklyn Boulevard was allowed by a special use permit fter,the Council had decided not to 1 rezone the land from R5 to C1, but to allow office uses by special use permit in the R5 zone. Chairman Lucht stated that the land in question has not been rezoned from R5 to R3 in accordance with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. The Secretary explained that the general policy.with regard to the new Comprehensive Plan was to withhold -any rezoning action until a development plan is proposed. Chairman Lucht noted that there is more control over 'an-office development in the R5 zone, since it is a special use. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that access to Boulevard in this location was poor. The Secretary agreed, but stated that that problem would exist with any type of development in this location. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether it would be possible to allow access onto the exit ramp from I -94 to Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary stated that the Highway Department would never permit such an access to be gained onto their exit ramp. Chairman Lucht asked whether it would be possible to gain access to the site from Indiana Avenue at the northwest corner of the site. The Secretary recommended against allowing access in this location si►'ice it would bring commercial traffic into a residential neighbQrhood. He also recommended against this kind of access even if the property were developed residentially. Commissioner Sandstrom noted that an office development would .create mostly daytime traffic. 'There folldwed a brief discussion regarding access to the property from Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary stated that the City would wish to prohibit left turns �. onto Brooklyn Boulevard. The_Planni-ng Assistant stated that the perspective applicant had anticipated that it would be a right -•in, right -out access only. tie stated that if it was necessary to extend the median, this could perhaps be required as a condition of the special use permit. 5 -26 -83 -2 .. Chairman l.ucht asked about the covenant on the surrounding property. The Secretary briefly explained that a covenant had been placed on all of the property surrounding the lot at the southwest corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard to prohibit any conunercial development of those lots. He stated. 0 at the covenant was recently renewed for an additional ten years. There llowed a brief discussion regarding the acceptance of an office development relative to acceptance of townhouses. It -was generally agreed that an office development would probably be as acceptable as any other kind of development in that location. The Secretary asked the Commission whether the Comprehensive Plan should be amended to allow for offices in areas which the Plan has designated for mid density residential. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he thought a good job had been done on the Comprehensive Plan, but that that did not mean it could not be changed. Commissioner Simmons stated that if the Comprehensive Plan were amended, it should not allow just any type of office, but .something that was low - rise and compatible with a residential The Secretary stated that an ordinance amendment could be drafted to allow office uses in the R3 zoning district by a special use permit and only up to the height of the normal townhouse (two stories). Commissioner Manson asked whether, if the Plan were changed, the commercial area would eventually be affected by the change. The Secretary explained that most of the other land along Brooklyn Boulevard is already developed and that redevelopment .pressures would have to build before a land use change would actually take place. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether. offices are allowed now in the R3 zone. The Secretary explained that offices are only allowed in the R5 zone* by a special use .permit and in the C1 zone as permitted uses. Commissioner Simmons stated that the height and bulk should be limited in the R3 zone if offices are allowed in that oning district. The Secretary stated that that was.a possibility. ant uestions to answer C.) The Planning Assistant stated that one of the most rmport questions of land with respect to a possible plan amendment was whether the various types uses along the Boulevard should be strictly segregated or whether some mixing of uses could be allowed. He stated that retail and service uses should probably be separated from residential uses, but that office and townhouse uses are often -interchangeable in their impact on surrounding property. The Secretary stated that single - family uses have a hard time existing along Brooklyn Boulevard with the high traffic counts north of Highway 100. Commissioner Simmons questioned the wisdom of trying to preserve single - family in that area with the noise and other impacts of the traffic and commercial uses. The Planning Assistant pointed out that Commissioner Ainas, when calling to say he was unable to attend the evening's meeting, stated that he Brooklyn Boulevard should be primarily commercial from Highway 100 to 71st Avenue North. Chairman !_ucht asked whether it would be possible to allow offices as part of a planned residential development in the R3 zone. The Secretary stated that that was a possibility.- Commissioner Sinunons stated that she did not want the Boulevard to look like it does in Brooklyn Park. The Secretary agreed and stated that the Plan allowed for a fair amount of service /office use along the Boulevard, but that it confined commercial /retail development to certain nodes at Brookdaie, 63rd .Avenue North and 69th Avenue North. ACCCS APARTM . YYie Secretary tlFen asked the 'Planning Commission to review a couple of publications from the Association of Metropolitan Municipali ties -regarding accessory apartments in single - family neighborhoods. Co- meaissioner Malecki asked what the City's.current regulation was. The Secretary stated that accessory apartments are not presently permitted in single - family neighborhoods, He,stated.that it is possible to rent up to two sleeping rooms without a separate kitchen unit. lie stated that allowing 5 -26-83 Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tom Hanson, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOf -'Lt lEt APPRO OF APPL � O. 8 30 2 5 (DeV B Inc. Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 83025, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by th*e City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The Fifth Addition shall be governed by the same Homeowners` Association and bylaws as in effect for-the previous phase of the Earle Brown Farm Estates. Homeowners' Association agreements and bylaws are subject to review by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. -Voting against: none. The motion passed. Mr. John DeVries, of DeVries Builders, Inc.,.thanked the Planning Commission for the pleasant experience that he had dealing with the City during the Earle Brown Farm Estates project. DISCUSSION ITEMS ' a) ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING TRUCK RENTAL AND LEASING The Secretary asked whether there were any comments on the proposed ordinance. amendment: Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether* there would be any limitations on the truck rental and leasing. The Secretary answered that the general standards for a special use permit would apply to truck rental and leasing.. He explained that truck rental and leasing would be a special use within the C2 zoning district, the general commerce district. He stated that regarding outdoor display of vehicles, . truck rental.and leasing would be subject to the same conditions as car dealers. The Secretary also explained to the Commission that amendments to the Zoning Ordi- nance do require the formal review by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ainas asked whether neighborhood advisory groups ever had to be consulted. The Secretary answered in the negative. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW TRUCK RENTAL AND LEASING IN THE C2 ZONE Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment to allow truck rental. and leasing as a special use within the C2 zoning district. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. b) B R00KUYN BOU PLANNING Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the access problems to-the - site at the south - west corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard could be solved. The Secretary suggested that the median in Brooklyn Boulevard be extended to prevent left turns in and out' of the site. Commissioner Simmons stated that she had been past the site recently and noted that left turns were possible with the present location in the median in (7 Brooklyn Boulevard. She asked whether this would be a City project to extend the median. The Secretary answered that it would probably be made a requirement of the applicant to obtain the special use permit to extend the median. lie - stated that this extension could 'be required as a condition of the special use permit. 6 -16 -83 _�_ . Secretary stated that the major question for the.Planning Commission to consider is whether offices should be allowed interchangeably with mid - density residential along Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary stated that tie preferred to amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow flexibii between C1 and R3 type uses'in various_ locations along the Boulevard. He stressed, however, that major commercial retail 0 reas should be isolated and not allowed to proliferate along the Boulevard. Com mtssioner Simmons asked how the Commission could control the type of office develop - ment that would go into an area otherwise designated for mid- density residential on the Boulevard. The Secretary stated that the district allows a Tot R5•zoning of flexibility to have either low -rise apartments, townhouses, or offices by 'a special use permit. tie explained that the Comprehensive Plan recommends mid-density residential at the southwest corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary stated that preferred to have the flexibility to go with either an office use or mid - density residential in this location. The Secretary also pointed out that wholesale.l and *conversions of existing develop- ment along the Boulevard were not likely to take place while vacant-C1 land exists in the City. The Secretary noted that single- family homes can be expanded if the property is zoned residential, but cannot if the property is zoned commercial. He noted, therefore, a residential zoning along the Boulevard which might allow com � .mercial uses by a sp.ecial use permit would be the easiest way to preserve single- family homes until wholesale redevelopment should occur. He suggested also that the homes along Brooklyn Boulevard might be converted to rental use by expansion with accessory apartments. Commissioner Simmons stated that she favored flexibility on Brooklyn Boulevard, but she did not - think.that accessory apartments would be a positive change for the houses along Brooklyn Boulevard. She asked the Secretary whether he was asking for the flexibility to make decisions on a case -by -case basis. The Secretary answered in the affirmative to some extent. He stated that R3, R5 and C1 type uses seemed fairly interchangeable to him, but that commercial retail uses should be isolated at specific intersections. ; Comma . ss io r Ainas stated' that he wished to add to.his comment that he had sent ne to the Planning Commission at the last meeting although he was not present. He explained that he did not prefer C2 type commercial to be expanded along the :Boulevard, but that office and mid - density residential should be allowed. He kl stated that he did not think the ultimate use of land along Brookl Boulevard should 'be R1.. He stated that the City should consider traffic access along the Boulevard in its redevelopment plan. Commissioner Ainas stated that he did not think a developer would hesitate to buy four residential lots to put an office building on even though the cost of the land might run as high as $25.0,000. He in with developers flexibility in deal P f should be y 9 stated that he -felt the staff given f1 s u g proposing change along the Boulevard. He also stated that he.felt the pocket of land at the southwest corner of 1 -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard should be commercial because of the traffic in that area. In response to a question from Chairman Pro tem Manson regarding an amendment ' to the Comprehensive Plan, the. Secretary explained t hat a p ublic hearing would have to be held by the Planning Commission, that a draft of the .plan amendment would have to be sent to the City Council 10 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing and sent to the Metropolitan Council after Planning Commission- action. The Secretary stated that.the staff could. begin drafting such a change if the Planning Commission has no problem with it. Commissioner Simmons stated that it should to worded so that not just any type of change can be sou.dht from.the original Plan recomiendations. The Secretary explained that the Zoning Ordinance is written 'so that offices are a special use permit in the R5 zoning district, but that retail uses are not. a In answer *to another question M an s on regarding from Chairman Pro tem 1 ma 'or land for an office development, the Secretary explained that Cl uses on � -thoroughfares must have at least 150 ft. of width and one acre of land which•would certainly 6 -16 -33 -5- require more than one residential lot. Commissioner Sandstrom stated. that it appeared the residents living along Brooklyn Boulevard are stuck with houses that irted by are not good for residential and yet cannot beco ' V ences havehbecn mercial uses. The Secretary stated that such r ime. lie stated that residents along Broo-kiyn Boulevard often think that they have ('''a small cold mine in their property, but this is not really the c ased hat�sim�lar that it is not desirable for single- family use. The Secretary st. types of redevelopment problems have been addressed in other conu»Einities where major. thoroughfares have widened over time to the point where a residential use :s no longer viable. ADJOURNMENT w of upcoming business items, there was a motion by Commis -' Following a 'brief revie sioner Sandstrom .seconded by Commissioner Versteeg to adjourn the meeting of the nimously. The' Planning Con�niissiorr Planning Conunission. The motion passed una adjourned at 8 :57 Chairman i 6 -16 -83 - . Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: k RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENT OF COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82-255 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) RELATIVE TO LAND ALONG BROOKLYN BOULEVARD RECOMMENDED FOR OFFICE OR MID - DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Council on December 20, 1982 adopted Resolution No. 82 -255, adopting the updated Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its August 4, 1983 meeting held a duly called public heari,in and consiu,;rcd an amendmont to the Comprehensive Plan to allow office uses and mid- density residential uses along Brooklyn Boulevard on an interchangeable basis and recommended such an amendment favorably under Plan- ning Commission Resolution No. 83 -3; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered such an amendment to the Plan at its August 22, 1983 regular meeting; and WHEREAS, the Plan (at page 98) recommends service /office development or townhouse development at various locations along Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Plan (at various pages in the Brooklyn Boulevard study) recommends that areas of commercial and residential development be clearly separated; and WHEREAS, the Plan (at figures 26 and 27) treats office uses and medium density residential uses as interchangeable in their relationship to the Boulevard and to adjacent residential uses; and WHEREAS, both office and medium density residential (townhouse) develop- ment require 15' wide buffer strips and 4' high opaque fencing adjacent to single- family residential; and WHEREAS, a policy of allowing offices and townhouses on an interchange- able basis would not likely increase traffic or the demand on public utilities beyond what is comprehended presently under the Plan; .NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center City Council pursuant to Section 35 -202 of the City Ordinances, that.Council Resolution No. 82 -255 (Comprehensive Plan) be amended to allow offices and townhouses on an t interchangeable basis along the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor and that the following specific amendments be made in the text of the Plan: At page 167: "The residential area immediately south of I -94 and that area north of 70th Avenue should receive infill development and • redevelopment with medium density. [Commercial] Retail and serv ice uses other than those already in existence should - not be a oT'f wed`to stray into these residential enclaves and detract from the character which.is being sought," I -• RESOLUTION NO. At page 163. RECOMMENDED CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE Land Uses The recommended Conceptual Alternative for the continued evolution of the Brooklyn Boulevard °corridor recognizes the constraints which certain existing developments have placed upon the City's -options for change within the corridor. Working within these parameters, the Recommended Conceptual Alternative attempts to strike a reasonable balance between the status quo shown in conceptual Alternative A and the close -to -ideal situation portrayed by Conceptual Alternative C. This option was designed with the following objectives in mind: to contain [commercial] retail and service land uses within clearly defined sectors of the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor; propose means of preventing the evolution of a "strip" of retail and service businesses from State Highway (TH) 100 to the northern City Boundary t j At page • 9'3 TABLE 14 Land Use Plan Revisions f Location i • Number R ecomme n ded-Land Use Ia. Mid- Density Residential or Public Land , 1b. Mid Density Residential 2. Single Family Residential 3. Commercial Retail 4. Commercial Retail 5. Mid- Density Residential 6a. Light Industrial 6b. Light Industrial 6c. Mid- Density'Residential 7a. Single- Family Residential 7b. Public Open Space 8. Multiple - Family Residential 9. Commercial Retail . 10. Commercial /Retail 11. Service /Office 12. Mid- Density Residential 13. Mid- Density Residential 14. Single- or Two - Family Residential 15. Public Open Space 16. Public Open Space 17. Mid- Density Residential / Office 18. Light Indus"trail 19. Commercial 20. Low- Density Residential 21. Service/Office -Dens, Residentiai 22. Low- Density Residential 23. Service/Of f ice i ili d- Density Residential • 24. Service /Office - 25. Service /Off ice /'ii Density Resident 26. Sery i ce /Of'f f ce / i I i d - Densi t `:esi denti u i 27. Service /Off ice / �1id - Density Residential 28. Service /Office / i id - aensit� Residential - -29. Commercial Retail 30. Mid - Density Residential / Off i ce 31. Service /Office 32. Mid- Density Residential /Off 33.. Mid- Density Residential / Office 34. Mid- Density Residential 35. Commercial Retail 36. Mid-Density Residential / Office 37. Mid- Density Residential 38. Single- Family Residential 39. Service /Office 40. Commerc Retail , 41. Service /Office / iiid- density Residential 42. Mid- Density Residential 98 RESOLUTION N0. s s Date Mayor g ATTEST: Clerk s 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. 0 l - 10� CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 26th day of September, 1963 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow low -rise offices in the R3 zone by special use permit. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENGINu CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES TO ALLOW LOW -RISE OFFICE USES IN THE R3 ZONING DISTRICT BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -312. R3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 3. S pecial Uses (c) Offi uses not more than 2 storeys in height a wh ich are described in Section 35 -320, Subsection 1 c through d and 1 j through (s j. Such office uses shall be subject to the requirements set forth in Section 35-411. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this Gay of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted). design one o 7097 Robmwood Bay, Woodbury, MN 55125 Phone 612 /738 -7277 August 10, 1983 City Council City of Brooklyn Center 630 Shingle 1S Creek e k 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 rack 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 I - Har y E. President :mhb PC: Hilltop Builders R. Warren, Director of Planning f City Manager, Brooklyn Center d } i l N '7. NIV '7 . 1 3J. S Hla'ON b/ 107 dO 31Vf9 X.+4005 9N/NNJ9 s� i dco 54,/ oo•s 9' Z ' o (VV•o?J 3XV7 SSVV) OJ �7ray .i1NRO7 .. ._:� oo'S . • - 71 ?gM9Qi5 7/79Rd „ <. � t co v V 7 + NOUYN379 Q9 Sr �•- �-- /VISV9 H91X9` i 3S`o'S7 Y SSY7P Jvo l/ - •'(J�tl) 2Jlilln9 �lN /Awd snorvJwnlJ4 - -` -_) 0 ON`v 9a'J�7 •9N0 3J ? 9H T-ill y ft I { s x bar+- j . I _ y a a 1d a 0 > 7 9 7d ls! b(� — �►_ o ' 19; ny Jinn - n _ TIR R � ivvfy7d •A2 - VA1Wd vooA4 H9 /H • ;Iifv / aura •�NOS .,oJ',g✓' . - a lsdWnv •C iAi) - yenSo79N3 v2 .LsdN nv 37lY�d vooM tfVIH ld'7• , •sd�vd �s�Hl lr sevn� _ • - � Ss��d3v •SNotlwvoi b31Sdt.�f+v .. Nlov LY dal 9V75 - 7Ivov.r wished to speak at the jublic hearing. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the blic hearing on Planning Commission Pu � € Application No. 83032. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Planning Commission Application No. 83032, 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 remove driveway segments which encroach into the proposed hots 1 and 3 and install a new driveway on hot 2 prior to final plat approval. 4. The existing 15' x 30' brick shed on the proposed hot 1 may continue as an accessory structure. However, this building may not be used as a dwelling by either the current or future owners. 5. The applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City prior to final plat approval for payment of deferred assessments for water service. Voting in favor: 'Mayor Payquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. PLAl��`3IP�G COP'T'iISSIOIv' APPLICATION T10. 83033 SLTRIZITTED BY HILLTOP BUILDERS, IlV'C. FOR O�BASS LA's RCAD Al A PARCEL AI;LRE.�ED 583 IAJCR ti��'u� T•CRTH: � ��7f �p} fi 7 L7I2�ER5 7 , � ` INC YHIL11t! li rROEI S- , — V 1.�i11i1'9_ 7 1 T1 v d V • ti , 1U , TO A 1 { TROI N - T AT 5 MR S=A�KS � ll Mff, G=STR TO BE 117ss TTi.1� THAT Q-uTR � �AF�. _ _ Th e Direc or of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members pages 2 through 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 contracted on an irregularly shaped lot which would require a variance from set back requirements of the City_ ordinance. Pollowing 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 hake Road: He noted that the question before the Council is a classic case for a variance and how much 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 � f i 7 -25 -83 -6- precedent. He concluded that the Council has a great deal of latitude in their determinations. RECESS Me Erooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:10 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. CONTINUATION OP PM I'ITTG COPIITSSIOU ECS. 83033 AIM 83034 .ayo�;yqu st opene th meeting or ne. purpose off `a public hearing on Planning Commission Applicaton Ios. 83033 and 83034• Mayor Tvyquist recognized Evelyn Schmidt who introduced herself as a realtor handling the property. She spoke in support of the application. Councilmember Scott inquired of I;s. Schmidt if she could recall how much land had been taken from the site for the roadway. Ks. Schmidt could not recall. The City Manager noted that the City Engineer had checked City records during recess, and it appeared that ?' had been taken from the site. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Kathy Moore, attorney for the owners of Twin Lake North Apartments. Ms. 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 note 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 Lake North garages at the rear setback. Councilmember Theis inquired of A.s. PRoore 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. She also added that Twin hake North had been approached about a joint driveway and that Twin hake north had not refused the proposal. Ils. Moore then submitted a petition to the Council with signatures objecting to the proposed variance. 1"%Yor Nyquist requested that petitions be entered into the record. The concern was raised relative to children living in the units, and the lack of ample playground space for them. Councilmember Ihotka inquired if the proposed rental units would be for adults only. The architect, Mr. Harry Gerrisch for Hilltop 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 hake North resident, objected to the application for a variance. Evelyn Schmidt, a realtor,- 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. Following the comments from those in attendance, Mayor Nyquist 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. 83033 and 83034. Voting in favor: 1 ayor ryquist, Councilriembers 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 driveway. Councilmember ILhotka indicated that he had a problem with granting such a large variance to a developer who is trying to maximize development on the site. He indicated that the project was just too big for the site. 7 - -83 -7- There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka to deny Planning Commission Application No. 83034• The motion died for lack of second. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and Seconded by Councilmember Scott to table Planning Commission Application Nos.'83033 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: I'layor hyquist, Councilmembers Ihotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against none. The motion passed unanimously. ' PIARNING CO? APPLICAT 1,0. , 83035 SUBMITTED BY PAUL DESVI'Rl`IINE /ITEN ASII G FOR SI Ai:D EliIIII?;G PI ?I'I rI;D .MCIA USE P£FP "_IT APPROVAL T' RBI ODFI, THE i1 RCfEL - ' UTU 717 i TRLCI'T �k.:AS h-G Cri t . -- I IX C 'ISSICI APPLICATICI NOO 83036 SUTP- ITTED BY PALZ DFSVFf UNE /ITEN 1tLL�1CS.EG A V ARI iI y • ,l ' HE' S! iV 1 r 0 , 7 e .r. r�U7 Y I-; I; 'CRi . L. - S G! v E A �� 3b' T''. ET Al OV tt 1 go � Fri' . T+ 1 . A . : I DEARS AFT R T FTSSA.GE EAD BED•, 1 OVED. The 1) re`�or o Ong motion presen e an reviewed for Council members pages 6 through 7 of the July 14, 1983 Planning Commission meeting minutes. He noted that Application No. 83035 was a request for a site and building plan and a special use permit for the approval to remodel the commercial building at 4301 68th Avenue North, formerly the Servcmation Building. He also noted that the building would be used as an auto and truck rental leasing center. Pollowing the Planning Director's presentation, f-IVor Nyquist - opened the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 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 from 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 al could see t south. sign from the out h Mr. I ten indicated than the billboard b 11 oard h signing i on both sides. There being no further comment for or against the application, Mayor Nyquist entertained a motion to close the public hearing on Planning,Commission Application No 83035• There was a motion by Councilmember Ihotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83035. Voting in favor: hayor Iyquist, Councilmembers Ihotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Ihotka to f approve Planning Commission Application No. 83035. Voting in favor: Councilmembers Ihotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Mayor Nyquist abstained from the vote. ?Mayor Nyquist then opened the public hearin on Planning Commission Pu g g o Application No. 83036. There being no one to speak for or against the application, Mayor Nyquist 7 -25 -83 -8- 1. The final plat is subject-to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3, The applicant shall remove driveway segments which encroach into the proposed Lots 1 and 3 and install a new driveway on Lot 2 prior to final plat approval 4. The existing 15' x 30' brick shed on the proposed Lot 1 may continue as an accessory structure. However, this building may not be used as a dwelling by either the current or future owners, 5. The applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City prior to final plat approval for payment of deferred assessments for water service. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht," Commissioner "falecki, Simons, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. V F APPLICATIO N NOS. 33033 AND 83034 (Hilltop Builders, Inc.) The Secretary 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 5839 Major Avenue North and a request .for a variance from Section 35 -400 and Section 35 -700 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow front and rear setbacks and the front greenstrip to be less than that re- quired by the ordinance. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos.' 83033 and 83034 attached). The Secretary also 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 permit 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. itr. 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. Commissioner Hanson stated that the landscaped area appeared unusually small to her. She asked qtr. Gerrish how he felt about that. Mr. Gerrish answered that the number of units on the site fall within the limitations of the Zoning Ordi- 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 make the site more attractive. Cor- issioner Sandstrom asked whether the driveway would be 'a problem 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'livin in the complex 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- P UBLIC HEARING (Application No. 83034) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on the variance application and asked whether anyone present wished to speak.. Ms. Kathy Moore, an attorney for the Winer 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 was created by the former owner of the property contrary to Standard (c) of the Standards for a Variance in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Cynthia Gonyer, a representative of the owner of the Twin Lake North Apart- ments, 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. fir. Gerrish stated that he had not been instructed by the applicant as to any tenant restrictions. Ms. Kathy Moore argued that granting of the variance would set a great precedent and would -erode the City's Zoning Ordinance in other cases Chairman Lucht answered that the applicant might build a 20' wide complex that would look rather ugly or would also require further variances. Psis. Moore pointed out that the variance could be minimized further. Commissioner Simmons asked whether anyone from the R1 property across Bass Lake Road was present to speak on the application. An undentified person from the audience made 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. Mr. 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 HEARING (Application No. 83034) Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone present had anything to add. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. 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 noted 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 Chfairman Lucht asked the Commission to consider whether the Standards for a Variance were met. Commissioner Sandstrom asked how the units would conform 7 -14 -33 -3- quality wise to the Twin Lake North Apartments. Chairman Lucht answered that 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 affirmative. 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 buiit 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. Commissioner 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 minimize 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 care to buy the property at the price being asked. He stated that he assumed that Twin Lake North would seek to build on the property if they had bought it and would probably seek the same number of units now being sought by the builder. Regarding the quest4on 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. Commissioner rtalecki asked how the City and the property owner got into this predicament. Commmissioner 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 commercial 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 Brookdale Ten Apartments. Commissioner Manson asked whether it would be possible 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 for comments on the variance application. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he did not feel a hardship was proven. Chairman Lucht- 7 -14 -u3 -4- pointed to the fact that the property was basically unbuildable. Commissioner Sandstrom 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 RECOHMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83034 (Hilltop Builders, Inc.) F1otion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner 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 Manson 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 Nalecki pointed out that the City was a party to that decision. The 'd Planning Assistant suggested that the Planning-Commission consider the historic a 1 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 Earl Brown Farm where parcels have been created in order to preserve historic structures Later, the farm buildings may be destroyed and the parcels are no l onger appropriate. He stated that his might turn out to be poor planning, but that at the time decisi are made, they appear appropriate. In response to a questi from d Commissioner Manson reg arding County .Road 10 the Assistant Ci E shows 9 9 � Y 0 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, Hanson, 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. Mr. Harry Gerrish, architect for the project, stated that the decision had not been Wade as to what use to make of the space. He stated that the bui Mer could expand one unit to make a luxury unit on the third fl oor 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 sol ution would be to expand a couple of the apartment units into the space that would have been used by the 12th unit. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83033 (Hilltop Builders, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner r1alecki 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 drainag utility and bermin plans are subject 9 9 Y 9P J to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City n ►tanager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements.. 7 - 14 -83 5 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" di ameter 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 Ordi nance. 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 utility purposes, said easement to be over the southerly 7' of the easterly 15' of the property. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Hanson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RE CESS t - be. Planning Commission recessed at 8:55 p.m. and resumed at 9:13 p.m. APPLICATION NOS. 83035 and 83036 (Paul DesVernine /Iten Leasing) ' oA owin the re ess, the creta introd e next tw items of usines a request for site and buiMing p n and special use permi� approval to remodel the com building at 4301 -68th 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 Nos. 83035 and 83036 attached). The Secretary also showed the revised plans to the Planning Commission. 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 wa11 were extended along the east. and west walls as proposed, that this would be considered an integral 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 Servomation building with the Iten Chevrolet building. He 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 Servonation building was much further than the Iten building. Commissioner Versteeg asked for the location of the roof sign in quesion. The pointed out that it.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 -83 -6- Planning Commission Information Sheet 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 2 zone at a density of up to 16 units per acre. The parcel in question is 9, 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 Suburban Engineering shows a different configuration of County Road 10 right -of -way and 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 he east and west ends ofthe buildin g addition, there is one In 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 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" 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 i the adjacent R5 development, the fence will serve to block headlights. ea g 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 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. 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 b ' the Building g P J PP Y g Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming 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 7 -14 -83 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet 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 P arcel. Finally, PP 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 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 light 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 abuts 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 to 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 -1- 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. 7 -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. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Mary Simmons, Nancy Manson, Lowell Ai.nas 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 Motion 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 I -94 and also a request for a variance from Section 15- 106 of the Subdivision Ordinance to 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 l 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. fir. 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 Simons asked whether the buildings shown on the preliminary plat were actual' plans for construction or just .comcepts. fir. Lindgren answered that fir. Welty would probablyy 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 33043) 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- a 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 to 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 1 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 smaller 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 Simons 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 a lot would be much larger than most people want. Mr. 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 that 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 11r. 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. Welty) 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 to construct 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. e 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 maintain 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- of regrading the overall site was going. Chairman Lucht asked how the operation g g . 9 9 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. In response to a question from Commissioner Simmons, Mr. Beisner stated that they had been approached by seven or eight restaurants wishing to locate in this area. 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. Commis,&' 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, 93046 and 83047) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on the two special use permits and the preliminary R.L.S. concurrent P P Y . He asked whether anyone present Y 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 by this R.L.S. and the areas occupied by Specs. 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 iste 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 -5- 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 /A1 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 .9 � P 9 9 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- 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 Be 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 a t 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 public 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 otion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ° 8 -11 -83 -7- 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. fir. 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. ACTION 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- gairemants of the Zoning Ordinance, 8-11-83 8 W ommissioner Simmons asked what recourse the City would have and what expense would e incurred if Mr. Reavely continued to violate the City'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 pursui i n court action on the criminal im inal 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. 9 �1r Com- �i 1 n Mr. missioner Sandstrom stated that he thought . Reave y 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 - hast stipulation in writing whether a roof of arkin should be accepted with p 9 from P P 9 P Mr. Reavely that he would put in the remainder of the stalls upon a determi 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 congesti 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 L 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 i operation which almost had its permit revoked because the proprietor had committed misdemeanors. H e stated that applicants I I pp icants will usually continue their operation unti l a court orders them to cease. The Secretary-explained that the legal procedure in obtaining such 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 kin p g 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 e Aina s stated that he was concerned that the City might jeopardize 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 initiatinqa 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 elt strongly about t f' Y g y he first plan that he drew up for the Planning He stated that the lan do b Suburban p ne y En ineerin l g verified Mr. Reavel s measurements. Y Chairman Lucht explained that the Planning 9 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 p qu rements 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 sinner Sandstrom stated that it was not to the _ Planning mission to judge the character of Mr. Reavely, but to analyze the parking issue. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 83029) 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 Use permit are met with the proof -of- parking that has been drawn up by Suburban Engineering. Commission 9 Commissioner Manson noted that the proof-of-parking plan P 9P 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 N0. 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 approvalkto 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 briefly 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 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 b Commissioner Manson to recommend adoption Y 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 residential property. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioner Simmons Manson, Ainas and Sandstrom. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 8 -11 -83 -11- I t 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 d asse :unanimous) P passed The tannin Commission.ad'ourned at 11:32 .m. 9 J P 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 R1 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 superseded by an NSP power line easement which is 55.5' wide over Lot 1 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 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 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. 8 -11 -83 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83043 Applicant: Robert D. Welty Location: 66th and Xerxes Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant reqests 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 RI 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 he street if the variance ance is 9 ranted: 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 must 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 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 variances) 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 1 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 orr 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 not 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 fora 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 Inn /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 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 D and F will carry traffic 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. The 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 -l- 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 Potentilla, and Green and Red Barberries. 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 t-o 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. 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 flog -r 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 site and building plans. Staff see no conflict 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 congestio -n can be manageable if: 1) only two accesses to Freeway Boulevard are allowed between Shingle Creek and Shingle Creek Parkway; 2) the median opening 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 industrial uses in this area. A separate Peformance Agree- ment and supporting financial guarantee shall be secured by the City or improvements to the central parking lot rior to the Y P P 9 P 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, 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- tinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device 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. 8-11-83 $3 4 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83046 Applicant: Ramada Inn /A1 Beisner Location: Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Preliminary R.L.S. 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 land in question is zoned I -1 and is bounded on the north by 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- 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 Spec. 9 on the north to the hotel and restaurant sites adjacent to Freeway Blvd. 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 City Engineer's memo of Au ust 8 1983, prior Y 9 9 � P to consideration by the City Council. 8 -11 -83 -1- Application cation No. 83 4 06 continued ed I 4. Preliminary approval 9 R.L.S. a roval acknowled es 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 i a site development plans is not ether .p p s thereby e Y 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 f 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 Inn Hotel proposed along the north'side of Freeway Boulevard, immedi- ately east of Shingle Creek. The accessory off-site 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 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 !Jest 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 s P Y aces. p 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 f 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 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 1' 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 public health, safety, morals or comfort "(emphasis added). Selling food products without tie 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 by Boyer Palmer, owner of the apartment complex 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 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. 8 -11 -83 -2 APPLICA N0 8 3029 (Wes' Sta ndard ) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for special use permit to sell groceries at the gas station at-6044 Brooklyn Boulevard. The. Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see "Planning Commission In- formation Sheet for Application No. 83029 and also addendum for the same appli- cation attached). The Secretary also briefly revievfed - with the Planning Commission Othe possible layout of parking stalls around the site in order to meet the re- quirement of 23 parking stalls. He noted a discrepancy between-the site sketch that Mr. Reavely had submitted and an architectural drawing made about 10 years previously for the car wash addition. He stated that this is one of the reasons the Planning Commission should have an accurate, professionally drawn plan. The Secretary also noted that,the establishment must meet the requirements of the Health Inspector in order to obtain a food establishment license and a special handler's license for the sale of various food items. He added that no such licenses have been granted to the operation, therefore, no retail sales of food of any kind can be done on the premises until.the - licenses -and special.use Permit are obtained. Commissioner Simmons stated that it should be easy for customers to get in and out of the parking stalls. She suggested that the out -of -the way stalls be reserved for employee parking only_. The Secretary agreed and pointed out certain areas where employees should probably park and other areas where customers would be able to park. Commissioner Simmons stated that when there isn't enough parking, it is a real problem trying to maneuver within a small lot such as this. She stated that the site plan should be carefully thought out and provide generous parking. She recommended that all of the required stalls be put in and that no proof -of- parking be approved.- Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to say. Mr. Reavely began by saying that he felt like an accused criminal, but acknowledged bringing in items for retail sale before obtaining the necessary license-and permit. He in what the term proof -of- parking meant. The Secretary explained that proof-of- parking is when a plan shows that there is room on the site for the required parking stalls, but they may not necessarily be installed. Mr. Reavely stated that he had drawn the site sketch from directions given him by Mr. Harren as to parking stall size. He stated that most of the traffic entering his station is coming from the south and that there would be no problem with the angle parking stalls on the north side of the site. He went over the sketch he had prepared showing the various parking stalls including some parallel stalls behind the building and along the north side of the site which he said were 20' in length. He stated that he did not understand the necessity of 24' wide driving lanes. He also asserted that parking at the gas pumps would have to be counted because 90% of his sales would probably be to gas customers. Commissioner Simmons pointed to parking stalls No. 12 and 13 on the site sketch and asked how the cars parked would have to get out.. I.1r.. Reavely acknowledged that at least one would probably have to head in the direction of the car wash, but he stated that this was an area where employees would park. There followed a lengthy discussion regarding the various parking stalls and how people would be able to make use of the stalls. Commissioner Simmons asked Mr. Reavely about moving curbs-and providing all of the parking required under the ordinance. Mr. Reavely stated that he felt the parking spaces are on the site already. He argued that the Secretary only assumes that the measurements are inaccurate. He challenged the Secretary to come to.the ate and check his measurements. Chairman Lucht stated that the accuracy of the ieasurements could.not be verified based on.the sketch that was presented to the \,_, Planni.ng Commission. He stated that the Planning Commission regularly requires accurate drawings. Isir. Reavely.then explained how he had obtained some of his measurements. The Planning Assistant explained that the mode of operation when 6 -30 -83 -4- the Planning Commission considers site plan applications is to have a professionally drawn site plan with accurate measurements. He stated that such plans should be developed by professional architects or engineers who are trained to develop accurate drawings and should not be roughly drawn plans with no accurate scale. '* . keavely asked the Commission to make -a recommendation rather than table the atter so that he could go to the City Council with his plan as•.submitted. Chairman Lucht asked for a recommendation from the Secretary. The Secretary stated that he did not feel the Planning Commission could make a proper decision on the application without an accurately drawn site plan. He recommended that the Planning Commission table the application and direct the applicant to submit a professionally drawn plan to verify that the required parking can be provided on the site. Mr. Reavely com plained that he felt that his integrity had been challenged and that he had been called a liar by the Secretary. He asked the Chairman what the action of the Planning Commission would be. Chairman Lucht stated that he felt the Planning Commission would probably table the application as recommended by-the staff. Mr. Reavely resigned himself to the action of the Planning Commission and walked out of the Council Chambers. ACTION RECOMMENDING CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING APPLICATION NO. 83029 (VIes' Standard) following a brief discussion of the procedures in handling the application, there was a motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Manson to continue the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the Planning Commission had to take any action regarding the sale of food at the premises. The Secretary stated that the staff would pursue that matter through the Sanitarian and the Police Department. Chairman Lucht asked whether cars parked at the gas pumps could be considered as some of the parking stalls required _by the ordinance. The Secretary answered that ealistically he understood that a number of the customers would be gas customers also, but he pointed out that the ordinance specifically requires parking based on two separate parking formulas, one for service stations and another for retail uses and that pump island parking has not been considered as meeting these requirements. He explained that it was his understanding that the case involving the Super America at 57th and Logan resulted in the City adopting requirements for parking based on the two specific ordinance formulas. He also noted that tandem parking is not acknowledged by the Zoning Ordinance as meeting parking requirements Commissioner Simmons stated that she felt all required parking should be installed,' especially in light of the fact that a number of the stalls would not really be evident to people coming into the station. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he _felt the situation was different from a Super Valu store or other large retail operations, in that ,people are getting gas at the same time they may be getting other food items. Commissioner Simmons countered that quite.often people will get gas and go into the store and chit -chat with their friends for awhile and get something to drunk and that this results in a parking problem. The Secretary> pointed out that the gas station in question was on Brooklyn Boulevard which is a heavily traveled street. He stated that congestion on the 'lot could easily back up onto Brooklyn Boulevard which would have'a greater impact in this case than in the case of the Super America station at 57th and Logan. He also pointed out that the Planning Commission could not control the number of goods that would.. be in the store after a special use permit is granted. He explained that Mr. Reavely could expand the area used for selling groceries and sell a wide array of items which are not presently being contemplated. Commissioner Ainas agreed and pointed to he Holiday Station on Brooklyn Boulevard in Brooklyn Park. He stated that this station presents problems and that he did not want Wes' Standard to present the same kind of problem in Brooklyn Center. 6-30 -83 -5- A CTION TABLING APPLICAT NO. 83029 (Hes' Stan Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Counissioner Malecki to table Application No. 83029 and direct the applicant to have a professionally drawn plan prepared and submitted to show required parking on the site. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht,, Commissioners Nalecki, Simmons, Hanson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9 :10 p.m. and resumed at 9 :31 p.m. Commissioner Simmons left the meeting during the recess. t ADDENDUM Application No. 83029 . Applicant: Wes' Standard Location: 6044 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Special Use Permit t We have received a site sketch prepared by the applicant showing 23 parking stalls in various locations around the site. The site sketch is not a professionally drawn plan and some of the stalls shown on it are very questionable. Nevertheless, it appears there may be room on the site for up to the required 23 parking stalls with some site alterations, but that these should be drawn on an accurate site plan by a professional architect or engineer showing adequate driving lanes and proper parking space dimensions which meet ordinance requirements. We, therefore, recommend that the Commission table the application until such a plan is submitted. Another question the Commission will have to resolve is whether the parking spaces will actually be installed and striped or whether some could be left as proof-of- parking. It is staff's judgment, inasmuch as most of these stalls are already being used, that the full 23 parking stalls should be installed and striped. This will probably require the realignment of concrete curb in some areas. It does not appear that any greenstrip variances would be necessary. The applicant has informed us that he is already selling some convenience items at the gas station. Our records indicate that no food establishment or special handler's license has been issued to the applicant and this -activity must cease until such a license is obtained Oe. after the granting of the special use permit). Again, we recommend that 'the matter .be tabled until an appropriate plan is submitted in order to verify that parking requirements can indeed be met. 6 -30 -83 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83029 Applicant: Wes' Standard Location: 6044 Brooklyn Boulevard ` Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests a special use permit to sell groceries from the service station at 6044 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property is zoned C2 and the sale or vending at gasoline service stations of items other than fuels, lubricants or automotive parts and accessories (and other than the vending of soft drinks, candy, cigarettes and other incidental items for the convenience of customers within the principal building) is allowed as. a - special use "provided adequate parking is available consistent with Section 35 -704, 2(b) and 2(c)." The estab- lishment is bounded by the Brookdale Manaor apartments on the north, east, and south and by Brooklyn Boulevard on the west. Across Brooklyn Boulevard are an office' building and an apartment building. Since service stations are allowed to abut property zoned R4 or higher, there is no abutment problem. Central to this application is the calculation of required parking. The ordinance calls for parking consistent with Section 35 -704, 2(b) and 2(c). Section 35 -704, 2(b) deals with service stations and requires three spaces for each enclosed bay Plus one space for each day shift employee plus a minimum of two spaces for service vehicles. There are two service bays and four employees on the day shift resulting in a requirement of 12 spaces. Section 35 -704, 2(c) deals with retail sales and requires 11 spaces for the first 1,000 sq. ft.- of floor space or any fraction thereof. The area of the station excluding the service bays and the car wash is approximately 1,000 sq. ft. and, therefore, requires 11 additional parking stalls under the retail formula. We feel the entire front portion of the station should be used in calculating parking requirements for retail space because that is essentially how parking requirements have been calculated in similar situations Also, of course, the 11 stalls are required even if the retail area were only a few square feet because the formula literally states: I'll spaces for the first 1,000 square feet o r fraction thereof. The site presently has 12 parking stalls. No parking has been required for the car wash, but adequare stacking space should be available. The applicant has submitted no new parking plan and staff are convinced there is no reasonable way of providing 11 additional parking stalls. That is. proper driving lanes and turn- around areas could not be provided along with additional parking stalls. The applicant has submitted no request for a variance from the parking requirements. We cannot, therefore, recommend approval of the application. The applicant also has not submitted any evidence that the Standards for a Special Use Permit (attached) can be met. We feel that failure to provide the parking required by ordinance is one strong indication that the Standards for a Special Use Permit are not all met, particularly Standard (d) which requires that "adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets." The applicant has not shown that adequate parking can be provided. We, therefore, recommend that the application be denied on the grounds that the Standards for Special Use Permits (particularly Standard d) are not met and that the required parking for the use as stated in Section 35-322 cannot be accommodated on the site. 6 -30 -83 -1- Y Application No. 83029 continued A`public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. Staff have received a phone call from Boyer Palmer, owner_ ofd. the apartment to the east, stating he did not object to the application. 6 -30 -82 -2- 35 -704 b. Automobile Service Stations: Three spaces for each enclosed bay plus one space for each day shift employee plus a minimum of two ;paces for service vehicles and one additional space for each service vehicle over two in number, c. Other retail stores or centers: Eleven spaces for the first 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or fraction thereof; eight spaces for each 1 ,000 square feet of gross floor area in excess of 1,000 .quare feet, but not exceeding 15,000 r r r U floor six spaces for each 1 000 square re feet. of gross .square feet,. pa , q g area in excess of 15,000 square feet, but not exceeding 30,000 square feet ; 5.5 spaces for each 1 ,000 square feet of gross floor area exceeding 30,000 square - feet. In multi- tenant retail centers, no additional parking spaces beyond those required by the retail formula shall be required of restaurant uses which altogether occupy not more than 10 / , o' of the gross floor area of the center. The parking formula for eating and drinking establishments shall apply proportionately to the seats and employees occupying space in the center over and above 10% of the gross floor area. - d. Motels and Hotels: 'One space for each unit plus one space -for each employee on any one shift. '.` e._ Bowling Establishments: Five spaces for each lane. Additional parking for food and refreshment facilities shall be determined according to subsection (a) above. f. Medical and dental clinics: Three spaces for each doctor or dentist, plus one space for every two employees or one space for each 150 square feet of gross floor area, whichever requirement is the greater. g. Office Buildings, exclusive of those specific uses otherwise listed in this section: Building Gross , Floor Area (G.F.A.) Required Spaces 0 - 20,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. 20,000 - 220,000 sq. ft. G.F.A. .0005 G.F A. + 190 Over 220,000 sq. ft. G �.../ �AFr � wm J •� j ' L'vZ � t \ •,, »rte c � ti� mot. 4 '� �?`;�� � -- �•� � All IL L V9- - d 1 . A l ' t � • - -� 63RD � � :: 1) �a � •, a0,,; R5 cl CD - � F I ^ ._ - - -rte ORD 1 ` S --- E N i AVE ; N G 7 a RID- rV PAR r 61ST 61 S i t , � ,� NTH �� �-•- . - t pit . r ' S pRE + , l TION NO p,pPLi S 302 9 , j- ` -,--� LANE - ► -- x � - AVc N ` c CL --� a -- �--� N p R T H W,a, \ r y LAMS '� n • 57T 06- �,� x ` \�� � `��, ' t- ORDINANCE NO. 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 AI4D TO USE THE PUBLIC GROUND OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNL•'SOTA FOR SUCH PURPOSES; AND PRESCRIBING CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITONS THEREOF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. DEFINITIONS. The following terms shall mean: 1.1. Compa Minnegasco, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, its successors and assigns 1.2. Gas Natural gas, manufactured gas, mixture of natural gas and manufactured gas or other forms of gas energy. 1.3. Municipality Municipal Council Municipal Clerk These terms mean respectively, the City of Brooklyn Center, the Council of the City of Brooklyn Center and the Clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center. 1.4. Public Ground All streets, alleys, public ways, utility easements` and public grounds of the Municipality as to which it has the right to grant the use to the Company. Section 2. FRANCHISE GENERALLY. 2.1. Grant of Franchise There is hereby granted to the Company, from the effective date hereof through June 30, 2003, the right to import, manufacture, transport, distribute and sell gas for public and private use in the Municipality, and for these purposes to construct, operate, repair and maintain in, on, over, under and across the Public Ground of the Municipality, all facilities and equip- ment used in cotrnection therewith, and to do all things which are necessary or customary in the accomplishment of these objectives, subject to zoning ordinances, other applicable ordinances, permit procedures, customary practices, and the provisions of this franchise. 2.2. Effective'Date Written Acceptance This franchise shall be in force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law, and its acceptance by the Company in writing filed with the Municipal Clerk within 60 days after publication. 2.3. Nonexclusive Franchise This is not an exclusive franchise. 2.4. Franchise Fee The Company may be required to pay to the Municipality, in the manner and at a rate prescribed by a separate ordinance, a fee determined by collections from sales of Gas, but not to exceed 5% of the Company's gross revenues from the sale of Gas within the Municipality. Such ordinance may be adopted, amended, repealed or readopted at any time during the ORDINANCE NO. term of this franchise. The fee, if required,-shall be effective 90 days after written notice of tYie ordinance to the Company. No such fee shall be effective as to sales made before January 1, 1984. The fee shall be separately stated on • gas bills rendered to customers within the Municipality. 2.5. P Expense The expense of publication of this ordinance shall be paid by the Company. 2.6. Default If the Company is in default in the performance of any material part of this franchise for more than 90 days after receiving written notice from the Municipality of such default, the Municipal Council may, by ordinance,,terminate all rights granted hereunder to the Company. The notice of default shall be in writing and shall specify the provisions of this franchise under which the default is claimed and state the basis therefor. Such notice shall be . served on the Company by personally delivering it to an officer thereof at its principal place of business in Minnesota. If the Company is in default as to any part of this franchise, the Municipality may, after reasonable notice to the Company and the failure of the Company to cure the default within a reasonable time, take such action as may be reasonably necessary to abate the condition caused by the default, and the Company agrees to reimburse the Municipality for all its reasonable costs and for its costs of collection, including attorney fees. Nothing in this section shall bar the Company from challenging the Municipality's claim that a default has occurred. In the event of disagreement over the existence of a default, the burden of proving the default shall be on the Municipality. SECTION 3. CONDITIONS OF USE. 3.1. Use of Public Ground All utility facilities and equipment of the Company shall be located, constructed, installed and maintained so as not to endanger or unnecessarily interfere with the usal and customary traffic, travel, and use of Public Ground, and shall be subject to permit conditions of the Municipality. The permit conditions may provide for the right of inspection by the Municipality, and the Company agrees to make its facilities and equipment available for inspection at all reasonable ,times and places. 3.2. Permit Required The Company shall not open or disturb the surface of any Public Ground for any purpose without first having obtained a permit from the Municipality, for which the Municipality may impose a reasonable fee to be paid by the Company. The permit conditions imposed on the Company shall not be more burdensome than those imposed on other utilities for similar facilities or work. The mains, services and other property placed pursuant to such permit shall be located as shall be designated by the Municipality. The Company may, however, open and disturb the surface of any ,Public Ground without a permit where an emergency exists requiring the immediate repair of its facilities. The Company in such event shall request a permit not later than the second working day thereafter. 3.3. Restoration Upon completion of any work requiring the opening of any Public Ground, the Company shall restore the same, including paving and its foundations, to as good condition as formerly, and shall exercise reasonable care to maintain the same for two years thereafter in good condition. Said work shall be completed as promptly as weather permits, and if the Company shall not promptly perform and complete the work, remove all dirt, rubbish, equipment and ORDINANCE N0. material, and put the Public Ground in good condition, the Municipality shall have the right to put it in good condition at the expense of the Company; and the Company shall, upon demand, pay to the Municipality the cost of such work done for'or performed by the Municipality, including its administrative expense and overhead, together with ten percent additional as liquidated damages. This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedy available to the Municipality. 3.4. Relocation of Utility Facilities The Company shall promptly, with due regard for seasonal working conditions, permanently relocate its facilities or equipment whenever the Municipality orders such relocation. If the relocation is a result of the proper exercise of the police power in grading, regrading, changing the location or shape of or otherwise improving any Public Ground or constructing or reconstructing any sewer or water system therein, the relocation shall be at the expense of the Company. If the relocation is not a result of the proper exercise of the police power, the relocation shall be at the expense of the Municipality. If such relocation is done without an agreement first being made as to who shall pay the relocation cost, such relocation of the facilities by the Company shall not be construed as a waiver of its right to be reimbursed for the relocation cost. If the Company claims that it should be reimbursed for such relocation costs, it shall notify the Municipality within , thirty days after receipt of such order. The Municipality shall give the Company reasonable notice of plans requiring such relocation. Nothing contained in this subsection shall require the Company to remove and replace its mains or to cut and reconnect its service pipe running from the main to a customer's premises at its own expense where the removal and replacement or cutting and reconnecting is made for the purpose of a more expeditious operation for the construction or reconstruction of underground facilities; nor shall anything contained herein relieve any person from liability arising out of the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid damaging the Company's facilities while performing any work in any Public Ground. 3.5. Relocation When Public Ground Vacated The vacation of any Public Ground shall not operate to deprive the Company of the right to operate and maintain its facilities therein. Unless ordered under Section 3.4, the Company need not relocate until the reasonable cost of relocating and the loss and expense resulting from such relocation are first paid to the Company. When the vacation is for the benefit of the Municipality in the furtherance of a public purpose, the Company shall relocate at its own expense. 3.6. Street Improvements, Paving or Resurfacing The Municipality shall give the Company reasonable-written notice of plans for street improvements where paving or resurfacing of a permanent nature is involved. The notice shall contain the nature and character of the improvements, the streets upon which the improvements are to be made, the extent of the improvements and the time when the Municipality will start the work, and, if more than one street is involved, the order in which this work is to proceed. The notice shall be given to the Company a sufficient length of time, considering seasonable working conditions, in advance of the actual commencement of the work to permit the Company to make any additions, alterations or repairs to its facilities the Company deems necessary. In cases where streets are at final width and grade, and the Municipality has installed underground sewer and water mains and service connections to the ORDINANCE" N0. property line abutting the streets prior to a permanent paving or resurfacing of such streets, and the Company's main is located under such street, the Company may be required to install gas service connections prior to such paving or resurfacing, whenever it is apparent that gas service will be required during the five years following the paving or resurfacing. SECTION 4. INDEMNIFICATION. The Company shall indemnify, keep and d o officers, employees, an agents hold Municipality, fice the b1 n ci alit .its elected officials of Y g p Y. � to P free and harmless from any and all claims and actions on account of injury or death or persons or damage to property occasioned by the construction, maintenance, repair, removal, or operation of the Company's property located in, on, over, under, or across the Public Ground of the Municipality, unless such injury or damage is the result of the negligence of the Municipality, its elected officials, employees, officers, or agents. The Municipality shall not be entitled to reimbursement for its costs incurred prior to notification to the Company of claims or actions and a reasonable opportunity for the Company to accept and undertake the defense. If a claim or action shall be brought against the Municipality under circumstances where indemnification applies, the Company, at its sole cost and expense, shall defend the Municipality if written notice of the claim or action is promptly given to the Company within a period wherein the Company is not prejudiced by lack of such notice. The Company shall have complete control of such claim or action, but it may not settle without the consent of the Municipality, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. This section is not, as to third parties, 'a waiver of any defense or immunity otherwise available to the Municipality, and the Company in defending any action on behalf of the Municipality shall be entitled to assert every defense or immunity that the Municipality could assert in its own behalf." Section 5. ASSIGNMENT. The Company, upon notice to the Municipality, shall have the right and authority to assign all rights conferred upon it by this franchise to any person. The assignee of such rights, by accepting such assignment, shall become subject to the terms and provisions of this franchise SECTION 6. CHANGE IN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Any change in the form of government of the Municipality shall not affect the validity of this franchise. Any governmental unit succeeding the Municipality shall, without the consent of the Company, automatically succeed to all of the rights and obligations of the Municipality provided in this franchise. SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this franchise is found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, the validity of the rest of this franchise shall not be affected. SECTION 8. NOTICES. Any notice required by this franchise shall be sufficient if, in the case of notice to.the Company, it is delivered to Minnegasco, Inc., attention Vice President, Minnesota Operations, 201 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55402, and, in the case of the Municipality, it is delivered to: City of Brooklyn Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430. I� ORDINANCE NO. SECTION 9. PREVIOUS FRANCHISES SUPERCEDED. This franchise supercedes all previous franchises granted to the Company or its predecessors. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date I C y3 FA pY 4 t 1'� 4 3 J t �{ �S'a��dt:fi(£I1 %TRib`+}�iY$Y' � • ° ..c.�ta"64G1`�',�' i%•:= �fCNJC�6 (54�(e�:�fif�>SKtit�SkiiL y >�ob�dyX %e1Gtl <3't'�+ ¢� ' Members May 18, 1983 Bloomington BrookZun center Members of the Suburban Rate Authority: BrookZun Park BurnsviZZe !h,�. For the past several months a committee of the Suburban Rate Authority Colurcbia freights has been working with Minnegasco to produce a revision of the Suburban Ee Prai Eden Prairie Rate Authority Uniform Gas Franchise. At its April 20 Board meeting . ° Edina the SRA Board of Directors approved a model ordinance. A copy is Excelsior enclosed. Fridley Greenwood We e that Minnegasco will accept the SRA model. The Board encour- Hastirgs P g p P.orkins ages each city in which Minnegasco requires a franchise to use the SRA Lakeland model, either presently or when a current franchise expires. Minnegasco Lake St. Croix Beach Lauderdale has expressed a willingness to consider surrendering its present fran- Loretto chise in favor of the SRA Uniform Franchise in those cities in which A:tple Plain the present franchises have a number of years to run. All cities are a:dota Heights tood e encouraged to include the uniform expiration date of June 30, 2003 in r'nd Minnetonka their new franchises to provide for a joint renegotiation at that time. ..'inretrista `•` The benefits of a uniform franchise have long been recognized. The "founds View New Brighton enclosed uniform franchise is quite similar to the original SRA Uniform "north St. Paul Franchise, negotiated over twenty years ago. SRA attorneys have previ- O seo ously sent each member a memorandum comparing the enclosed draft with umou to ich=,-e',d the Minnegasco proposal. If that is.not readily available, a copy will Fo i n sda Z e be sent to you on request. PoseviZZe St. Anthony The enclosure contains some changes from the draft sent to y ou with the St. Louis Park, g Y Shakopee earlier memorandum. These changes are rewordings for the purpose of Skoreview clarity, or they are additional provisions favorable to the city. Shorewood S r:ng Park "adrais Heights Sections 1.4, 2.1, 2.4, 3.3 and 3.4 contain new wording, without sub Victor stantial changes of meaning intended. Wayzata Woodland The second paragraph has been added to Section 2.6 to provide an addi- tional remedy for defaults of the company, and Section 4 now includes "elected officials" within the group the company must indemnify and defend. Sections 8 and 9 are new. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact either myself (559 -2800) or Glenn Purdue, the SRA attorney (333- 0543). Encl., Fred .G . Moore L Chairman Suburban Rate.Authority 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 t trw- Members August 5, 1983 Bloomington Brooklyn. Center BrookZun Park BurnsviZle Mr. Gerald Splinter Chtaaplin City Manager ' Columbia �Beight e h City of Brooklyn Center Eden prairie 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Edina Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 ExceZsior Fridley Greenwood Dear Mr. Splinter: Pastinns La`eZas At its Jul 20, 1983 meeting, the Suburban Rate Author Laieland Y Authority Y Lake St. Croi: Beach Board of Directors adopted a resolution authorizing Lauderdale $40, 000 in revenue during 1984 by an assessment of the Lcretto membership. Under Article X of the Suburban Rate Author - � r Z r. d.Y it Joint and Co Agreement, the Board may estab- ram �e�;cc� Y P �3 Y Pe�.dota Ueiarts lish a total ' annual contribution to be made by the '!inretor;= membership during the following calendar year. The Agree- - k'-nnetrista ,, turd merit further provides that the contribution is to be Mounds spread across the membership in proportion to respective Te• ?riahton voting strength. There are a total of 163 votes among the North S pain eo 41 cities which are members. Each vote was assessed s mouth $245.40. The City of Brooklyn Center has 7 votes and its �iEtd assessment is $1,717.80. P.o..! .nsdale Roseville St. Antrony This letter is the notice of assessment required by the St. Louis Dark Agreement. The assessment is payable to the Suburban Rate Shakopee Authority, c /o J.N. Dalen, Secretary- Treasurer, Edina City Shoreview Hall, 4801 West 50th Street, Edina, Minnesota 55424. ShoreWood Spring park Assessments are payable 1/2 on or before February 1, 1984 vadnais Heights and the remaining 1/2 on or before August -1, 1984. No Victoria statement will be sent: wauzata Woodland Our quarterly minutes, sent to all members, have detailed SRA's activities. The most recent general benefit of membership in the SRA has been the negotiation with Minnegasco of a Uniform Gas Franchise ordinance, which was mailed to each member last May.' The model ordinance was the result of lengthy negotiation with the gas company concerning the provisions of the ordinance. While the draft ordinance was negotiated with Minnegasco, it has been presented to at least one other gas utility, and it is likely that it will be used with gas suppliers other than Minnegasco. During discussion* of the assessment at the SRA Board meeting, it - was suggested that the draft ordinance itself was worth the -cost of membership in the SRA and that most cities would have spent far more to negotiate individual ordinances, possibly with less favor- able terms. August 5, 19.83 Page Two There has been only one previous assessment of SRA members, and that assessment was in a very small amount. Funding of SRA activities to date has come from a fund originally provided by the Minneapolis Gas Company as a franchise administration fee. The fee was paid to the SRA_ prior to the transfer of the responsibility for supervision of the company to the Minnesota Public Service Commission in 1975. That fund has been nearly depleted as a result of SRA's intervention in rate cases involving Northern States Power Company, Minnegasco, Northwestern Bell, and further by the Board's activities related to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. 4 Attendance at SRA Board meetings has been good; interest in its activities is keen. Our strength is dependent on our collective effort to continue the useful work of the SRA. I will be happy to answer your questions or listen to your comments. You may also contact Clayton LeFevere, F the SRA attorney. My phone number is 559 -2800 and Clayt's number is 333 -0543. Sincerely, Fred G. Moore, Chairman cc: SRA Board Member l CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 26th day of September, 1983 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway✓, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the classification of tennis and swim clubs and health spas. ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPT•R 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING SPECIAL USES IN THE G2 ZON ING DISTRI THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35- 322. C2 COMMERCE DISTRICT 3. Special Uses d. Eating estab•l i s'iments offering - 1 i ve entertainment; recreation and amusement places such as motion picture theaters and legitimate theater; sorts arenas bowling alleys, skating 9 sports g Y g rinks; [recreation centers;] gymnasiums and [athletic clubs;] suntan studios, [and health spas,' all provided they do not abut an Rl, R2 or R3 district, including abutment at a. street line. o. Tennis clubs, racket and swim clubs and other athletic clubs and health spas. Section 2. This ordinance shallbecome effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Date of Publication - Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted). L Licenses to be approved by the City Council on August 22, 1983 AtIUSBUNT DETICE LICENSE - OPERATOR Pizza Factory 6816 Humboldt Ave. N. ChiY O ESTABLISH1='!f11T LICENSE of Police T M`uer Corp. 2101 Freeway Blvd . ;itarian � ''ttf - \ ` 14ECHA14ICAL SYSTIES LICD,SE 'Allan Heating & Air Cond. 6020 Culligan Way Cedar Valley Heating & Air Cond. 4770 Nicals Rd. Faircon, Inc. ,80 2nd Ave. S.E. F.leve Heating & Air Cond. 13075 Pioneer Trail i.cia -f_ RENTAL DWELLI Z LICENSE nit al: 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. N. Raymond & Betty Anderson 7113 N. Willow Lane Genevieve Schultz 4201 Winchester In. Robert & Patricia Bobleter 4807 Wingard Pl. 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. Director of anning and Inspection SIGIy'HA.NGERR' S LICENSE T� ��V� Arrow Sign Co. 18607 Highway 65 N.E. ��, ildi fficial GENERAL APPROVAL. r n r, C ity 'er AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center (hereinafter called the City) has cho- sen Bennett- Ringrose- Wolsfeld- Jarvis - Gardner., Inc. (hereinafter called the Contractor) to provide the services spec Med in Appendix B, NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually understood and agreed upon that (1) The Contractor shall comply with all of the articles of Appendix A. (2) The Contractor will complete all the services of this agreement., as described 'in Appendix B, according to a schedule to be agreed upon, and implemented as described in Appendix C. (3) The method of payment shall be as specified in Appendix,B. IN WITNESS.WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of • BENNETT- RINGROSE- WOLSFELD- JARVIS- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER GARDNER.' INC. BY: BY: TITLE: TITLE: f APPENDIX A AGREEMENT ARTICLES 1.0. Services The Contractor is retained as an independent contractor to utilize its pro - fessionat skill during the term of the agreement to provide those pro- fessional services (hereinafter. the "services ") described as•the responsibility of the Contractor in the work program attached hereto as Appendix B, which is incorporated herein by this reference. Said services shall be provided with timely assistance from the City and other par - ticipating agencies. 2.0 Schedule All services described in•Appendix B will be completed as agreed upon unless delayed by forces, beyond the reasonable control of the Contractor. 3.0 Personnel In addition to any personnel specified in the agreement, the Contractor may assign other personnel to represent the Contractor with -City approval. The Contractor may assign other personnel to the project as necessary to complete the work in an effective and timely manner. Overall direction of the project will be the responsibility of the City Public Works Director. 4.0 Compensation Compensation shall be as set forth in the agreement. Invoices will be sub- mitted monthly for work completed the previous month with a description of work performed. The City agrees to pay all invoices within 30.days of receiving them. 5.0 Materials Ownership. All materials produced under the terms of this contract are the property of the City. The term "materials" includes ali documents, data, reports, studies, maps and other similar terms. - 6.0 Equal Employment Opportunity A. The Contractor agrees to comply with the Equal Employment Opportunity regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (listed at 24 CFR Part 130). B. During the performance of thls contract, the Contractor agrees as follows: t1) The Contractor w.1 1-1 not discriminate :against any'employee or applicant for employment because of raco, color, religion, sex or national origin. The Contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, - sex, or national. origin. Such' action shall.include, but not be�lim -ited to, the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, Including apprenticeship. The Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employement, notices to be provided by the contracting officer ti n clause. h n o c .. forth the pr ovisio ns this nondiscrimina o se i o p 9 (2) The Contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the Contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration'for employment, without regard to race, .color, religion, sex, or national origin. (3) The Contractor will-send to each -labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a noti be provided by the said labor union nt t Compl iance Officer-advisi the Co rac c© P or workers representativo5 of the Contractor's commitment under this section and shall post copies of the notice in • conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employement. (4) The Contractor wi ll furnish all information and reports required by the City or Executive Order 11246, and Revised Order No. 4, and by the rules and regulations and orders of the Secretary of Labor or the.State of-Minnesota for purposes of Investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regula- tions and orders. (5) The Contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and of the rules, regula- tions, and relevant orders of the .Secretary of Labor. (6) In the event of the Contractor's non - compliance with the non- discrimination clauses of this contract or with any such rules, regulations, or orders, this contract may be canceled, ter- minated or suspended in whole or in part, and the Contractor ' may be declared Ineligible for further City, County and /or Federal contracts. (7) The Contractor agrees to submit a signed statement signifying that the Contractor intends to comply with -the standards of equal employment and anti - di as cited in the Civil ` Rights Act. of 1964 as a in 1972 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, said statement to be submitted on a form pro- vided by the City. (8) Thy: Contractor acgreo;s to submit a completed Equal Employment P q Y Opportunity Re ort as re ui.red b the City's Affirmative.Action Program. (9) 1969 Minnesota Statute 181.59 is made a part-of this contract with the same force and off ect as if it were. here set forth verbatim. (10) The Contractor will include th6 portion of the sentence Imme- diately preceding paragraph (1) and the provision of paragraphs (1) through (9) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules, regulations, or order of the Secretary of Labor: issued pursuant to Section 204 of Executive Order 11246 ..of September 25, 1965, so that such provisions wi -11 be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor." The Contractor will take action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the Department of Housing and Urban Development may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for bon- compliance; provided, however, that in the event the Contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with litiga- tion with a, subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direc- tion by the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the Contractor may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interest of the United States. 7.0 Breach of Contract A. The City of Brooklyn Center retains the right to refuse to consider the Contractor for ;any future work should the Contractor violate or .. breach the terms of this contract. B. The City further retains the right to invoke normal administration, contractual or legal remedies should the Contractor violate or breach this contract. 8.0 Termination 'This contract may be terminated at any time by either the Contractor or by the City upon receipt of a 10 -day written notice in which event the Contractor shall be compensated for all work completed to date of ter- mination. Such compensation shall be based on charge time of those Contractor employees used, based on ordinary charge rates of those specific employees, and other expenses.. 9.0 Other Parties If is mutually agreed that this agreement is not transferable by either party to a non -named party without the written consent of the other party. 10.0 Conflict of Interest No member, officer, or employee ofthe City, or its designees or agents, no member of the governing body - of the locality.•In which the program is situated, and no other public official of such locality or localities who exercises any functions or responsibilities with respect to the program during his tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, In any contract or subcontract, or other proceeds thereof for work to be performed in connection with the program assisted undor this contract. The City shall incorporate, or cause to be incor- porated, in all such contracts or subcontracts a provision prohibiting such Interest pursuant to'the purposes of this section. 11.0. Access to Certain Documents Brooklyn or of their duly appointed representations, shall have access to any boors, documents, papers, and records of the Contractor which are directly pertinent to Contractor work performed under this contract for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and-transcriptions. APPENDIX B SCOPE OF SERVICES WORK PROGRAM - SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT STUDY Following is a detailed description of BRW's approach to the Southwest Neighborhood Redevelopment Study. We would propose the following basic steps in the planning process. o Site 'Inventory o Development of ternative Land Use Programs and Refinement of Selected Plan o implementation Strategy o Market Study Each of these steps Is described below. A) Site Inventory Before beginning_to develop alternative programs, a complete inven- Gory of available information regarding the study area will be made. It Is assumed that most of the raw•data exists and that there will be* no need to generate new site data. 'Such an inventory would inlcude: ' o Land Use Data - The land use data w111 be collected, mapped, and analyzed on a parcel -by- parcel basis as well as summarized and analyzed from a Study Area -wide perspective. 0 o Transportation Data - The transportation data to be gathered and analyzed would be: a) traffic volumes on the major streets b) utilization of the current accesses off TH 100 c) future upgrading of TH 100 d) current utilization of Soo Line Railroad o• Engineering Data - Collection, mapping and analysis of all environmental constraints and opportunities including: a) all major natural features which enhance the study area b) all currently known soli /water contamination sites and their condition »6- B) Development of Alternative Land Use /Trjnsportatlon Programs Based upon input from the City, the neighborhood, and the site invon tory, I3RW will develop - a number of alternative land use programs and complementary transportation systems. These alternatives will be diagrammatic in nature, with supporting text, describing land uses, vehicular and pedestrian systems, public •improvements and associated costs, financing alternatives, and staging. After the alternative programs have been developed, they.wili be exposed to a thorough review by the City staff, and others within the City as appropriate, so that'a consensus can be arrived at as to the ."best" alternative. After selection of the "best" alternative, BRW will then refine the design through a series of subsequent steps Involving alternative design and review sessions, possibly with the larger land owners, leading to an approval of the final refined plan, C) Implementatlon Strategy BRW will prepare a plan for Implementing the selected land use and transportation concept which would include available implementation tools and organizational framework best meeting the needs of the expected participant private and public sector interests, appropriate project staging, project costs, identification of the appropriate funding sources, and the sequence of specific actions needed to actually bring the proposed_ improvement product into fruition. As • Important, is the strategy for resolution of the Joslyn site contamination. To either actively assist •!n the redevelopment of the Joslyn site or remain in a rev.iew and.approval position the City must fully understand the nature of the problem and the actions needed to place the site back into a usable condition. The City must also • ities t may take on b • responsibilities i fully understand an and all legal reso bi Y Y 9 P Y Y approving utilization of the site. 0) Market Study If the City feels It may want to further reinforce some of the planning decisions made, with regard to the alternative uses, inten- t marketability, BRW will rovide a market stud sities and heir . P Y This study would analyze the proposed uses with regard to their potential, possible market segments, and possible timing. Based upon the alternative development uses proposed for the study area, we will: o Evaluate highway access and street patterns within the project • area as they relate to marketing factors for alternative uses. es in street This will include consideration of possible changes _. P 9 patterns. o Evaluate the compatibility of existing uses wltW alternative uses from a marketing perspective. o' Evaluate the effects of development problems on alternative new , uses. This will inciudo consideration of potential' problems created by soil contamination from previous uses. The market for each of the alternatives will be identified and analyzed as follows: o Competitive Position Competitive facilities serving the market area of the redevelop- ment project will be Identified and evaluated. o Survey of Real Estate Professionals Owners, managers, developers and realtors active in -this area will be interviewed to determine the current demand or interest for space in this area. This will include, in the case of commercial use, a determination of the types of tenants interested in space and the general rent structure supportable by the market. Residential analysis will include sales prices or rental rates supportable by the market. o Project Market Demand Based on the market research conducted in the previous tasks, the consultant team will identify the market demand for selected rede- velopment alternatives. The specific products of this study would be a bound report including,•aii .'. site inventory data, alternative concepts, refined concept, and Implemen- tation strategy. • COST - SOUTHWEST'NEIGHDORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT STUDY • win . Based upon the proposed work program the folo g estimated hours would. be required by BRW: Prin- Senior Profes- Tech - Task cipal Associate Associate sional nician Labor Cost Site ' Inventory 8 32 16 20 40 S 4,900 Alternative Programs 32 56 48 40 72 S 12,100 Implementation Stategy 32 40 24 60 $ 8,400 Market Study James B. McComb and Associates $ 4,600 ' TOTAL S 30,000 BRW would propose that the City of Brookyn Center would be billed monthly for work performed on an hourly basis at the rate of 2.78 times salarf cost. It is assumed that for this cost the City will provide all- necessary data and BRW will plan on attending two neighborhood meetings and two city council meetings. Also included are the various meetings with city staff and all reproduction and "report costs. For any new soils investigation, traffic data, generation of new data, or additional public meetings the City would be billed for additional fees. - 9.- . APPENDIX C ; IMPLEMENTATION The City shall issue Work Orders as follows: Work Order 1: Site Inventory $ 4,900 Work Order 2: Alternative Programs b 12,100 Work Order 3: Implementation Strategy S 8,400 Work Order 4: Market Study $ 4,600 No work shall be initiated by BRW on Work Orders 1 and 2 until the City Manager authorizes BRW to proceed. No work shall be initiated on Work Orders 3 and 4 until the City Council authorizes BRW to proceed. 10