Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 07-25 CCP Regular Session 7 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JULY 25, 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 - July 11, 1983 7'. Final Plats: a. Subdivision of Registered Land Survey 1537 (Site of Spec. 10 and 11 and adjacent property along Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard) Planning Commission Application No. 82004 1. Final plat approval 2. Subdivision Agreement approval *8. Performance Bond Release - Dale Tile, 4815 France Avenue North :e 9. Resolutions: -- a. Receiving Engineer's Report, Establishing Humboldt Avenue Street Improvement Project No. 1983 -11, A proving Plans and Specifications and ` Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1983K) *b. Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Providing for Hearing on Proposed Assessment for 69th - 70th Avenue Street, Sanitary Sewer, and Water Main Improvements *c• Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Providing for Hearing on Proposed Assessment for 51st Avenue North Water Water Main Improvement Project No 1982 -07 d. Approving Agreement with Lindberg Pierce, Inc. for Architectural Services Relating to Park Facilities Improvement Project No. 1983 -10, -This agreement provides for the furnishing of architectural services for renovation of Kylawn and Bellevue Park shelter buildings, for replacement of the Freeway Park shelter, and construction of trash enclosures and comfort station screening at various parks. e. Requesting The Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation to approve a reduction of the speed limit on 69th Avenue North from Shingle. Creek Parkway to Humboldt Avenue North CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- July 25, 1983 e. Requesting The Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation to approve a reduction of the speed limit on 69th Avenue North from Shingle Creek Parkway to Humboldt Avenue North *f. Accepting Bid for Tennis Courts Resurfacing at West Palmer, Kylawn and Grandview Parks *g. Authorizing Execution of Agreement for Soil Engineering Services for Central Park Tennis Courts 10. Ordinances: a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Allow Truck Rental and leasing as a Special Use in the C2 Zone -This ordinance was first read on June 27, 1983, published on July 7, 1983, and is recommended for a second reading this evening. A public hearing on the ordinance is scheduled for 8:00 p.m. b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Allow Manufactured Housing in the R1 and R2 Zoning Districts This ordinance was first read on June 27, 1983, published on July 7, 1983, and is recommended this evening for a second reading. A public hearing on the ordinance has been scheduled for 8:00 p.m. c. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Classify a Portion of 69th Avenue North as a Major Thoroughfare -This ordinance was first read on June 13, 1983, published on June 23, 1983, and is recommended for a second reading this evening. A public hearing on the ordinance is scheduled for 8:00 p.m. 11. Planning Commission Items (8:15 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 83032 submitted by Shawn Taylor for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into three lots the large parcel of land at 5435 Bryant Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 83032 at its July 14, 1983 meeting. b. Planning Commission Application No. 83033 submitted by Hilltop Builders, Inc. 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. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 83033 at its July 14, 1083 meeting. c. Planning Commission Application No. 83034 submitted by Hilltop Builders, Inc. for a variance from Section 35-400 and Section 35 -700 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow front and rear setbacks and front greenstrip to be less than that required by ordinance. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 83034 at its July 14, 1983 meeting. d. Planning Commission Application No. 83055 submitted by Paul Desvernine- Iten Leasing for site and building plan and special use permit approval to _ remodel the commercial, building at 4301 68th Avenue North for use as an auto and truck rental and leasing center. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 83035 at its July 14, 1983 meeting. � R CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- July 25, 1983 e. Planning Commission Application No. 83036 submitted by Paul Desvernine Iten Leasing a variance from the Sign and Zoning Ordinances to allow continuation of a nonconforming sign board, 36' inheight and over 190 sq. ft. in area more than two years after the previous message has been removed. The Planning Commission recommended denial of Application No. 83036 at its July 14, 1983 meeting. 12. Consideration of Local Addendum to IUOE, Local No. 49 Master Labor Agreement. 13. Discussion Items: a. Contingency Plan for Water Use Restrictions b. Agreement with Howe, Inc. -The agreement would acknowledge that expansion of a building on the Howe site would not constitute an expansion of the use of the manufacturing operation. *14. Licenses 15.' Ad j ou.rnment r 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 JULY 11, 1983 CITY HAIL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL or ean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Public Works Sy'Knapp, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, Mr. Jim Thompson, representing the City `Attorney's office, and Administrative Assistant Tom Bublitz. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Theis. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the Open Forum session this evening. He inquired of the audience if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There none, he proceeded with the regular agenda items. CONSENT AG A END Mayor Nyquist inquired whether any Council members had any agenda items they wished removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Theis requested item 8j be removed, and.Councilmember Lhotka requested items 8f and 8g be removed from the Consent. Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1983 There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of June 27, 1983 as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka,,Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. FINAL PLAT - EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES FIFTH ADDITION There was a motion by Councilmember* Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the final plat of Earle Brown Farm Estates Fifth Addition (Planning Commission Application No. 83025) subject to the following conditions: 1. Receipt and approval of Homeowners' Association Annexation Documents by the City Attorney. 2. _ Receipt of certification that all taxes currently due on the property to be subdivided have been paid in full.. Voting°in favor:. Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers hhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none.. The motion passed unanimously.. 7 -11 -83 -1- ' ti } RESOLUTIONS `b 0. 83 -92 Member Bi1179wes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1982 -D (CENTRAL PARK WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -05 AND KYLAWN PARK WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -06) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott,. and upon vote being taken thereof, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said' resolution was.declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -93 Member .i l�Mwes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1982 -H (69TH -70TH AVENUE STREET, SANITARY SEWER, AND WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1982 -09, 1982 -10; 1982-11, AND EVERGREEN SOCCER FIELD IMIPROVEMTIINT PROJECT NO. 1982-16) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereof, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -94 Member B!1 awes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1982 -N (LIFT STATION NO. 3 IMPROVUENT PROJECT NO._ 1982 -26) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereof, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -95 Member Bill awes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1983 -D ( 63RD AVENUE NORTH WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1983 -02) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereof, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist,: Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO 83 -96 Member i�ll introduced the following resolution and moved-its adoption: 7 -11 -83 _2_ RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS ON AUGUST 8, 1983 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereof, the. following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 83 -97 Member Bill awes introduced the follo�ri.ng resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT PROPOSALS FOR TWO ELECTRONIC CASH REGISTERS AND TO AMEND THE 1983 GENERAL FUND BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereof, 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. RES OLUTION NO. 83 -98 Member ill — Mies introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF MR. HARRY BRADFORD The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereof, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly Passed and adopted LICENSES: There a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the following list of licenses: AMUSEMENT DEVICE - OPERATOR Brookdale Plitt Theater 2501 County Rd. 10 Budgetel Motel 6415 James Circle Denny's Inc. 3901 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Farrell's 5524 Brooklyn Blvd. Ground Round 2545 County Rd. 10 Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Dr. Meriwether's 2101 Freeway Blvd. Show Biz Pizza 5959 John Martin Dr. AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR Century Corporation 2910 W. Montrose Ave. Dahlco Music 119 State St. — National Amusement Co.. 3925 Louisiana Circle 7 -11 -83 -3- FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Munch Box Snack Service 6840 -20 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. GARBAGE AND REFUSE VEHICLE LICENSE Browning- Ferris Industries of MN 9813 Flying Cloud Dr. Hilger Transfer Co. 8550 Zachary Ln. Midwest Grease Buyers, Inc. P.O. Box.2222 Shobe & Sons 3621 85th Ave. N. Art Willman & Son 62 26th Ave. N.. Woodlake Sanitary Service 4000 Hamel Rd. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Jaycees 2106 55th Ave. N. Palmer Lake Park Evergreen Park Central Park MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Burnomatic Company 206 lst St. N. Prestige Heating & Air Cond. 7800 Main St. N.E. SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE Scenic Sign Corp. Box 881, St. Cloud TEMPORARY BEER LICENSE Brooklyn Center Jaycees 2106 55th Ave. N. Central Park r Evergreen Park Voting in favor Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers I,hotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Accepting Bid for Swimming Pool Ventilation Revisions in Civic Center HVAC System (Project 1983 -07). The Director of Public Works recommended the low bid of Rouse Mechanical, Inc., in the amount of $15,840 be accepted... He noted that there would be a deduction of $850 in the quote if the cutting and patching work was done by other than the contractor. Council-member Ihotka expressed a concern with the items left out of the bid by the consulting engineer. The Director of Public Works commented that this project was the first time the City has worked with this particular firm, and that normally, the work is conducted through an engineer or architect with the mechanical engineer providing only consulting on the mechanical aspects of the project. He explained that the first estimate prepared by the consultant was for mechanical work only, and that the best explanation he could offer, with regard to Counci- lmember I,hotka's concern, was that there was a problem with communication between the.consulting engineer and the City engineers office. 7 -11 -83 -4- Councilmember Theis inquired whether the work comprehended by the deletion of the $850 in the quote would still have to be completed. The Director of Public Works stated that the work would still have to be done and that some of the work could be done'viith City personnel.. He explained the specifications stated that the cutting and patching work should not be bid. He pointed out that the contractor submitting the low bid was aware of the $15,000 limit for invitations for informal quotations. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -99 Member Cene - ' oTaintroduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR SWIMMING POOL VENTILATION REVISIONS IN CIVIC CENTER HVAC SYSTEM (PROJECT 1983 -07) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereof, 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 Theis stated that the Council's displeasure with the work of the consultant should be relayed to the consultant. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Establishing Park Shelter Improvement Project No. 1983 -10, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1983 7-I). Councilmember Lhotka expressed a concern regarding the expenditure of $7,000 for architectural fees for the types of renovations and remodelings contained in the resolution. The City Manager explained that because of the cut backs in full time staff, and the lack of specific expertise in the architectural areas, the staff was recommending the use of a consultant for the preparation of plans and specifications and also for contract administration. - The Director of Public Works pointed out that the consultant's fee includes, not only the design and specification work, but also construction supervision. Councilmember Theis inquired how the architect would be paid and whether it was a percentage of the total contract. The Director of Public Works explained that the consultant's fee was a flat fee for design work, and then a fee per hour for contract supervision. Councilmember Theis stated that he would like to see the contract between the City and the architect for this project The Director of Public Works stated that the -bid date specified in the resolution should be changed to August 11, and the bid award date to August 22, RESOLUTION NO. 83-100 Member ill —Iawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARK SHELTER IMPROV -RENT PROJECT NO. 1983 -10, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEP FOR BIDS ( CONTRACT 1983-1) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing. resolution was duly seconded by member 7 -11 -83 -5- Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereof, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, _arid Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: Gene Lhotka, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 83-101 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MUNICIPAL SERVICE GARAGE SITE IMPROVF PROJECT NO. 1982 -28, PHASE III (COMPLETION OF STORAGE YARD AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS) , APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1983-J) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Ihotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Designating the City Manager as Signatory for Peace Officer Standards and Training Board Training Reimbursement Funds. He explained that 'state statute requires a Council resolution which would authorize and designate a City representative to sign for reimbursement funds received from the 'POST Board. He noted the funds are obtained from the 10% surtax on traffic fines, 90% of which goes to municipalities for police training. Council-member Theis requested the City Manager to explain some of the background information on the program. The City Manager stated that he had testified against the legislation in the Senate and House Committees. He pointed out that the POST Board approves all training for police departments in the State. He explained the League of Minnesota Cities opposed the 10% surcharge because of the possible tendency of judges to reduce fines because of the 10% surtax. He added that there is no proof that this will happen but only experience with the surtax will tell. M Councilmember Theis then inquired as to the cost of inservice training for police officers. The City Manager explained that any training done with existing police department staff is considered inservice training. He also reviewed the municipal budget for police department training. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -102 Member Gene�Nhot7a introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING BROOKLYN CENTER CITY MANAGER AS SIGNATORY FOR PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING BOARD TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT FUNDS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS Mayor Nyquist noted that it was 7:30 P.m., the appointed time for" consideration of the Planning Commission items. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that 7-11 -83 -6- . the applicant for the first three Planning Commission items had not yet arrived. Because-the applicant was not present, Mayor Nyquist proceeded to. the next Planning Commission item. PIRUiING C011 APPLICATION NO. 83031 SUBMITTED BY BROOKDALF CAR WASH FOR SITE AND BUILDING v SPEWAL USE PERMIT _ EXPAED THE CAR WAS Af _= . == BOULEVARD The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Councilmembers pages 7 and 8 of the June 30, 1983 Planning Commission meeting minutes, and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 83031. The Director of Planning &:Inspection proceeded to review the applicant's request and location of the subject parcel. He explained a car . wash is a special use in the C2 zone. He then reviewed the site plan showing the proposed addition to the car wash, and also reviewed the proposed modifications to the curb delineators in order to adjust the traffic flow into the stacking area and into the entrance to the car wash at the south end of the building. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 83031, after a public hearing at its 'June 30, 1983 meeting, subject to six conditions which he reviewed for Councilmembers. He explained the applicant requested a waiver of Condition No. 3 of the Planning Commission's conditions, in light of the applicant's past performance, and since the proposal does not include any landscaping. The Planning Director stated that, he would have no problem waiving this condition, based on the past performance at the car wash. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the required notices of this evening's hearing had been sent and that the applicant was present this evening. Councilmember Hawes inquired what the cost of the bond would be to comply with Condition No. 3. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated the amount of work comprehended by the bond would amount to between $1.,000 and $1,500, and that generally, the applicant would post cash for such a small amount. At the request of Councilmember Lhotka, the Director of Planning -& Inspection presented and reviewed the building elevations for Council members. Councilmember Lhotka inquired what would happen if something in the application would go wrong and the bond is waived. The Director of Planning & Inspection explained, that if the applicant fails to perform, he would be cited for violation of the zoning ordinance, and because of the nature of the modifications, he would not be able to drive out of the car wash entrance.and exit since the bond covers curb and gutter construction. Councilmember Lhotka inquired of Mr. Thompson; representing the City Attorney's office, if he had any problem with waiving the condition. Mr. Thompson replied that he had no problems with waiving Condition No. 3• Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the *purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83031. 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 Lhotka to 7 -11 -83 -7- close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83031. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Council-member Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Application No. 83031, subject to the following conditions: I. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. 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. 4. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist; Council members Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMIS APPLICATION NO. 83018 SUBMITTED BY HOWE, INC. FOR A VARIANCE FROPfI ECT OWN 35 -700 OF THE CITY ZON NG URDINANCEOALHOW — A5 FOOT WIDE U 5TR1' ADJACEN TO $MtS IN --BOULE AT=�G MTS - E S FON 1MWE ,lei . PLANNING COQ ISSION APPLICATION NO. 83029 SUBMITTED BY HOWE, INC. FOR SITE PLAN TP z 'AI; TO INSTALT 14 GT IN Tn NM=S7 7r Afi AVENUE N RTH THE INTERSITTIHN OF 49TH AVE�N E NORTH AND BR7O= BOULEVARD. PLANNING ISSION APPLICATION N0. 83027 SUBMITTED BY HOWE, INC. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO COMBINE INTO ONE PARCEL THE EXISTING HNIE SITE AND A PARCEL OF LAND MING`V Bg TTIEHIGITUY Ti f d ti ', i I D P79T7 AV= N 'I`A 79 71 D FRTO YN BOULEVARD. The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members pages 9 and 10 of the June 30, 1983 Planning Commission meeting minutes, and also the Planning Commission information sheets prepared for Application Nos. 83018, 83026, and 83027. The Planning Director reviewed the appeal matter previously before the City Council regarding the use of the highway department property, by the applicant, for parking purposes. He reviewed the agreement between the City'and the applicant regarding this matter. He noted the agreement has been executed by the City and Howe, Inc., but has not yet been filed, because it has been held up by a legal description which Howe, Inc. is to receive from the highway department. 7 -11 -83 _8_ The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed the location of the subject parcel, and also a site plan of the subject parcel comprehending the variance contained in Application No. 83018. He noted that if the variance is not approved several parking stalls would have to be eliminated in the proposed area. The Planning Director pointed out that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 83018, subject to the condition that a preliminary plat and site plan agreeing with the proposed variance be submitted. The Planning Director reviewed the site plan submitted with Application No. 83026. He explained that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 83026 at its June 30, 1983 meeting, subject to six conditions which he reviewed for Council members. He also noted the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Commission Application No. 83027 at its June 30, 1983 meeting, subject to three conditions which he reviewed for Council members. He added that Condition No-3 be striken from the conditions since no easements exist. w The Planning Director noted the Planning Commission held the required public hearing on the applications, and that notices of this evening's required public hearings had been sent, and that the applicant is present this evening. Councilmember Ihotka recalled the discussion regarding the consideration that the use of the property does not constitute an expansion of the manufacturing operation. The Director of Planning noted that the stipulation in the agreement between the City and Howe, Inc. covers this, and that Mr. Bill Howe and the City Manager have signed the agreement. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83018. 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 Hawes to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83018. Voting in favor:. Mayor Nyquist, Council-members Ihotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Couflcilmember Ihotka to approve Planning Commission Application No. 83018 on the grounds that the standards for a variance are met. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council-members Ihotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none.. The motion passed unanimously.* There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Planning Commission Application No. 83026, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a performance agreement with a supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) prior to final plat approval. 2. Underground irrigation shall be provided in all landscaped areas within the project. 7 -11 -83 -9- 3. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around the 14 parking spaces proposed on the plan. - 4. A 5 high privacy fence shall be deemed adeq screening if placed atop the 3' berm to provide the required 8' of screening. The plan shall be modified to indicate such a 5' high opaque fence. 5. Plan approval is subject to the provisions of the stipulation agreement entered into by Howe, Inc., and the City in resolution of Application No. 83001. 6. 14 employee parking spaces west of the' middle building (granted by variance) will be discontinued for use pursuant to the above stated agreement, and will be used exclusively for buffer setback area in accordance with the zoning ordinance, and for`access. purposes pursuant to previously granted City Council approval. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis'. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83027. 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 Planning Commission Application No. 83027. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Planning Commission Application No. 83027, 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. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Leo Hanson who thanked the Council for all their efforts over the last several years with regard to Howe, Inc. and the surrounding neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION 110. 83028 SUB14ITTED BY KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKIIi FOR ME BUILDING PLAN - e S E C = USE PM'L ML TOSS - = A DRtIVT RIFTOW N ATTENDANT :C 7P, I Z P 7.0 ,1�CY.YY RE ST 1T Afi -� BROOKLYN BOULEVARD —' r' he Director of & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members 7 -11 -83 -10- pages 2 and 3 of the June 30, 1983 Planning Commission meeting minutes, and'also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 83028. -He then proceeded to review the location of the subject parcel and the zoning of the area, and pointed out that convenience food restaurants in a C2 zone are special uses. He then reviewed the site plan submitted by the applicant, the proposed modifications to the entrances at the site, and also the proposed landscaping. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted the' Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 83028, subject to seven conditions which he reviewed for Council members. He pointed out Condition No. F requiring a landscape plan and schedule had already been met by the applicant. He stated the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Application No. 83028 at its June 30, 1983 meeting. He stated that the required notices for the public hearing this evening had been sent, and a representative of the applicant was present this evening. Councilmember Scott commented that the cars leaving the drive -up window would have to cross the traffic lane of on- coming traffic. The Director of -Planning & Inspection stated that this would be true, but that the entrance is 24' wide and that cars at the drive -up window have good visibility of the area, and that this should be no problem. .The Council discussed the vehicular and pedestrian traffic circulation on the subject parcel. Councilmember Theis suggested moving the pedestrian crossing east from its present planned location so the cars in the drive -up lane would not block it. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose-of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83028 and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. Mayor Nyquist recognized the representative of the applicant who stated that the 'restaurant only waits on one customer at a time, and that cars will be either at the menu board or the window. He noted that other fast food restaurants take three or four orders concurrently, but that Kentucky Fried Chicken only waits on one customer at a time. He explained the vehicle on the drawing immediately behind the car at the drive -up window is not a reflection of how Kentucky Fried Chicken waits on customers, and that the - second car is really _a misrepresentation. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83028. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers hhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Planning Commission Application No. 83028, 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. 7 -11 -83 -11- 2. 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. 3. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 4­ Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 5 . B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 6. Underground irrigation shall be provided in all landscaped areas, 7. A directional sign indicating pedestrian crosswalks shall be installed in the median south of the building and west of the crosswalk indicating that the crosswalk must not be blocked to pedestrians. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,.Councilmembers Lhotka, - Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 83030 SUBMITTED BY BRUTGER COMPANIES, INC. FOR MIN.�g IDE ITv TO 32 TO W1 5( USE LOTS AND ONE C71 _ LOT THE A THE NdFFTHEAST C_0= 07 NT A�V� TTMTNN fiRORlH LTTAC DRIVE. ThTh — qty Manager explained the applicant is returning to the traditional approach with regard to subdividing the property for townhouse lots, and has chosen not to condominiumize the-townhouse portion of the development. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted the plat submitted is noncontroversial and that the Council could waive the requirement that the applicant be present, if the Council wishes. There was a consensus among Council members to waive the requirement that the applicant for Planning Commission Application No. 83030 be present. The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed the application and location of the subject parcel for Council members. He proceeded to review the site plan of the proposed senior housing project. The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed for Council members page 6 of the June 30, 1983 Planning Commission meeting minutes, and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 83030. The Director of Planning noted the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application on June 30, 1983, and no one appeared to oppose the project. He added the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application, subject to three conditions which he reviewed for Council members. He noted the applicant is proposing to begin construction on the project before the plat is filed, and that the final site plan will be based on an as- built survey. 7 -11 -83 -127 Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83030, and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one appeared to speak and he entertained. a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No'. 83030. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting aga inst: none. The motion passed unani mously.. - lY•. There was a motion by Councilmember I,hotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve Planning Commission Application No. 83030, 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 Homeowners' Association documents shall be submitted to the City Attorney for review and approval prior to .final plat approval. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. AIRPORT ZONING.BOARD Councilmember Scott questioned why she was appointed to the Airport Zoning Board since she was under the impression that Councilmember Hawes expressed an interest in this area. The Director of Planning &Inspection pointed out that there are two, organizations dealing with the airport, one being, the Airport Zoning Board and the other being, a Tri —City group organized to review and study'the Crystal Airport. Councilmember Theis stated, that he would be willing to be involved in the Airport Zoning Board, if Councilmember Hawes did not want to become a member. Councilmember Scott suggested that Councilmember Theis could serve the alternate to the Zoning Board, since Councilmember Hawes was already involved with the Tri City organization. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seoonded by Councilmember I,hotka t6 appoint Councilmember Hawes to the Crystal Airport Zoning Board, and to appoint Councilmember Theis as the alternate to the Crystal Airport Zoning Board. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting aga.in�;t: none. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF WATER PROBIRIS IN 6300 TO 6500 BLOCKS OF ORCHARD AND UNITY AVENUES. Councilmember a noted he had received a call from a resident regarding water problems in the 6300 to 6500 blocks of Orchard`and.Unity Avenues. The Director of Public Works stated that the staff was aware of this problem and that this is an area where rusty water has been coming through the pipes. He added that the staff is looking at various options but at this point has found nothing that the staff feels comfortable with to solve the problem. -11 -83 -13- L. Councilmember Lhotka inquired whether the pipe, was installed erroneously. The Director of.Public Works explained that the pipe in this area was the only water main available after World War II, and that there are no records in the project files regarding how much of this type of pipe there is in the City. Councilmember Lhotka then asked how long the problem has been going on. The Director of Public Works replied that he was aware of the problem for the past five years, but it is estimated that the problem has been experienced in the area for the last 15 to 20 years. The City Manager explained the problem appears to be scattered since some homes have the problem and. some don't. He added that the staff has worked with Mr. Al Weyrauch regarding several attempts to solve the problem, including flushing the pipes, and super chlorinating the pipes. -At first, he explained the staff thought it might be an individual problem but it has become apparent that it is an area wide problem He explained the staff has considered several alternatives to the problem, including internally lining the pipe, replacing the pipes, and chemical treatment of the water at the well site. The Director of Public Works explained that, even if the water lines are replaced in one area, this would not guarantee the problem would be solved, since the problem could still migrate in from other areas. He explained that past actions in the area to deal with the problem, included flushing, and super chlorination. He explained the super chlorination apparently did the job for a short time but the problem came back. He added that the alternative which appears to have the best possibility, presently, is treating the water at the well site. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he would like to be kept informed and updated on the situation. The Director of Public Works .stated that the staff would be coming to the Council with a report on the situation within the next 30 to 60 days. Councilmember Lhotka commented that the period of 5 to 15 years during which the problem has occurred is a considerable amount of time. The Director of Public Works stated that he cannot speak for what went on before but the present staff has spent a considerable amount of time on the problem. The City Manager commented that the staff wants to assure that any solution that. is undertaken will actually work to solve. the problem. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he is concerned that the person that he spoke with felt the answer he was getting was that "something is being done," but that was the extent. The Director of Public Works asked Councilmember Lhotka, that if the name of the person could be relayed to the staff, he could follow up on the situation. LIONS PARK. TRINIS COURTS Councilmember Hawes inquired if there were any problems with regard to the construction of the Lions Park Tennis Courts.' The Director of Public' Works commented that the contractor hired to do the surfacing feels that the subgrade 'is not adequate for his requirements. He added that the staff maintains that the specifications indicated the existing conditions of the site and that the contractors protests are not warranted. Councilmember Hawes then inquired whether Twin City Testing has confirmed the contractor's belief with regard to the site. The Director of Public Works stated that there has been no testing of area done by Twin City Testing to his knowledge. He added that, the staff suggested the hiring of a consultant, but as of last Friday afternoon the .contractor had not done this. ADJOU ' here was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to 7- 11--83 -14- adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: TTIVor Nyquist, Councilmembers I,hotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against; none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 8:59 P.m- Clerk Mayor 7 -11 -83 -15- , 741 CITY OF 63 S HINGLE HINGLE C REE K PARKWAY AY B ROO TI� j ��T BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 �j 1J l� TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C EhTTER TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: Jim Grube, Assistant City Engineer DATE: July 22, 1983 'RE: Final Plat of Proposed Registered Land Survey Planning Commission Application No. 82004 (Site of Spec. 10 and 11 and adjacent property along Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard) Mr. L.A. Beisner has petitioned the City to grant final approval of the referenced Registered Land Survey. The following conditions were placed on the preliminary plat by the City Council at its March 22, 1982 meeting: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. Tract C shall be legally encumbered to parking for development on Tracts A and B, such encumbrance to be filed with the final plat at the County prior to issuance of building permits for Spec. 10. 4. The performance guarantee submitted to ensure completion of site improvements on Tract B, R.L.S. No. 1537 shall be retained until completion of all parking - lot improvements on the proposed Tract C are completed in accordance with approved plans and ordinance requirements. 5. Approval of the plat consitutes a waiver of the normal ordinance require- ments of frontage on a public street for Tracts B and C in light of the cross access agreements governing all tracts within the proposed R.L.S. and Tract A of R.L.S. No. 1537. 6. The applicant shall enter into a standard utility maintenance agreement with the Engineering Department and shall provide as -built utility information for City records prior to final plat approval. - 7. A performance agreement and financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to final R.L.S. approval to assure the following: a) the regarding of the large amount of fill located on the proposed.Tracts C and D in accordance with the City Engineer's recommendation; „74 m4l &r#" July 22, 1983 Page 2 b) the construction of a flowage way from Shingle Creek Parkway to Shingle Creek in a manner approved by the City Engineer; and c) said improvements to be completed by October 1, 1982. 8. The applicant shall provide an easement for storm sewer purposes across Tracts A, B and D, the location of which shall be _approved by the City Engineer. 9. Building permits for Spec. 10 (approved under Planning Commission Application No. 80016) will not be issued until this proposed R.L.S. has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with the County. The developer has provided necessary documents to encumber parking areas as required under condition 3. The document has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The developer has agreed to enter into the utility maintenance agreement by execution of a Subdivision Agreement. Final execution of the utility maintenance agreement will not be required until the R.L.S. has been filed at the County. The developer has provided the necessary financial guarantees required under condition 7 and easements required under condition 8. The developer must submit an updated Abstract Title or Registered Property Report to the City Attorney for review and approval. In addition, the developer must provide as -built utility information as required under condition 6. It is recommended that the City Council approve the final R.L.S. at its July 25, 1983 meeting, contingent upon (1) receipt and approval of the required Registered Property Report and utility as -built information; (2) execution of the Subdivision Agreement; and (3) furnishing the financial guarantees as required by the Subdivision Agreement. A separate resolution approving the Subdivision Agreement is provided for consider- ation by the City Council. JNG: j n I I . sEPotC Yi! iWA��1AC2biY" A' i � y � . p il( Lr, N@' ASN3ei9tt i° �teT. �' � 4n9uU= �. i' 1:8�•.: art•sl3'C. >'ki`,.rxV.'A Ma_t ^i.•1&6ffi` die. Atis:. JF� itTA .�:at`.^dF' sn:4 JS2 t6T..NK'kt,..':1� ?.`A°S::A,.... T ..+ ?.,�. cP T.x'/ !{ 1tCS ;-•'• p p�' I?•I w ynr 0 4 /..r ( o—+.1/ p i'S84 °/9'39., yy G> ? ?6 p . J ttt��� P 308 4v H9 �p ° t B TRACT A 1 CT' h �, o TRA • • ��. �� ::• ` q E `_, r',' 25275 �` %, t I � "� A J 1 "5 ./781,G . -919•f �Bp. /9'i9'a c f � . 4 2 µ r ": air. — 414'/9• us p9 r 90 e2 '•4986 i .!' - 7 0 35 ° d5 " 5tr1 "ct/ ..7t+u'�� •3 572'0712 I✓ '.�•f ' T� \ i 5 ..y70 D T- \ T R ACT one, %r o T,o�f y B F l s V, 1537 . e h0� t r- _ s � /6'O g 5 g4"YV / 20 .1Q ?c RTC !/ S9 / y � `' v t • � � s ° no s ''¢ � BEARINGS SHOWN ARE ASSUMED O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT 0 700 400 - • - • •� SCAR IN Ft Ri • JILTILA & ASSOCIAT1:'S, INC. .._ - f�1t.�i�Jl f 1;1:. •,�I11 \'t�L'11ti `,i Pt.•1'.�:ll�` - 4 [ WF1B'MA[:1; 3'•RAK'X*'L'2& ILO: J' XT, �2.' 4' A'' i'+ �9AR�1 'S�1rtN.`SVd:.Xl'J'AP i•,�.'1+7 "9A7Y3'�wdY=� ✓= Via:.'•» 7 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION OF REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1537 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the subdivision agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and Shingle Creek Eleven and Shingle Creek Land Company is hereby approved. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk ( The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. o wl E SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into the day and year set forth hereinafter, by and between SHINGLE CREEK ELEVEN, a Minnesota General Partnership and SHINGLE CREEK LAND COPSPANY, a Minnesota General Partnership, hereinafter called the "Owner ", and the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER,a municipal corporation in the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called the "City ", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, The Owner of Tracts B, C, and D of Registered Land Survey No. 1537, which is located in Section 35, Township 119, Range 21, in the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, wishes to resubdivide the property as part of a new Registered Land Survey, hereinafter called the "Subdivision ": y NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: DIVISION 1 - APPLICATION OF THIS AGREEMENT 1.1 That the provisions of this agreement shall apply , to all portions of the Subdivision. All references to portions or tracts within the Subdivision shall be deemed to apply to all portions or tracts of the Subdivision, unless the context in which such reference is used clearly indicates it application to only specified portions or tracts. DIVISION 2 - UNPAID CURRENT ASSESSMENTS 2.1 That Exhibit A, attached hereto, summarizes the - unpaid portions of current special assessments which have been levied against the Subdivision for improvement projects previously completed by the City. That the Owner hereby acknowledges the ' benefits received from these projects. That these assessments will be apportioned to the various tracts of the Subdivision as summarized in the attached Exhibit B. - -- t DIVISION 3 - ADVANCE PAYMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 3.1 That advance payment of all special assessments on any tract within the Subdivision shall be made upon the sale of { such tract unless either: (a) fifty percent (50 %) or more of the interest in such tract after such sale remains with the Owner, or at least fifty percent (50%) or more of the issued and out- standing stock of any corporation owning such tract after such sale is owned by the Owner, or at least fifty percent (50 %) or more of the partnership interests of any partnership owning such tract after such sale is owned by the Owner; or (b) the City Manager of the City approves assumption of the special assessments by the purchaser at the time of sale, provided, however, that if the City Manager of the City does not grant such approval, the Owner shall have the right to request the City Council to grant such approval, and if such approval is granted by the City Council the a purchaser shall have the right to assume the special assessments on such tract. 3.2 That upon the sale of any tract within the Subdi- vision, unless one of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 3.1 hereof has been satisfied or has occurred, the Owner shall pay to the City CASH in an amount equal to (a) one and one -half times (1 -1 /2x) the estimated .total of all assessments for such tract for which the assessment roll has not been adopted by the City Council, plus (b) the total actual amounts of the assessments for which the assessment roll has been adopted by the City Council. That the payment made for each tract within the Subdivision in accordance with this paragraph 3.2 shall be applied by the City first to the assessment for such tract ` I and then the balance, if any, shall be refunded to the Owner. DIVISION 4 - FUTURE UTILITIES CONNECTIONS AND HOOKUP CHARGES 4.1 That Exhibit C, attached hereto, summarizes the e utility connections and hookup charges which will be made to the various tracts within the Subdivision as they are developed. That the Owner hereby acknowledges the benefits received from these connections and hookups and that the Owner will be respon- sible for the payment thereof in accordance with established - City policies. -2- DIVISION 5 - OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OWNER 5.1 That grading and development of the Subdivision is to be accomplished in such a way as to assure in perpetuity, an adequate flowage way to allow unobstructed overland flow of excess storm water from the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and 67th Avenue westerly to Shingle Creek. The maximum elevation of any permanent structure within said flowage way shall be 844.0 (U.S.G.S.. datum). The Owner shall provide a financial guarantee, in the amount of $5,000.00 to insure completion of said flowage way construction by October 1, 1982. Failure of the Owner to complete said construction by October 1, 1982 shall be just cause for the City to complete the improvement. All costs incurred by the City including, but not limited to contract costs, engineering cost, administrative cost, legal costs, and capitalized interest costs, shall be deducted from said financial guarantee, and the balance, if any, shall be refunded'to the Owner. The Owner shall provide the City with easements as shown on Exhibit D to allow operation and maintenance of said flowage way. The consideration for said easements shall be $1.00. 5.2 That in the event the City experiences costs for completion of the site improvements under Sections 5.1 and 5.2 in excess of the financial guarantee provided by the Owner, the City shall have a lien against the property until such time as the City is reimbursed. 5.3 That the Owner shall provide for installation of survey monuments as comprehended under Chapter 15 of the Brooklyn Center City Ordinances. Said monumentation shall consist of installation of cast iron monuments at all block corners and cast iron or steel pipes or rods at all interior lot corners, points of deflection of block lines, and points of deflection of lot lines. The Owner shall provide a financial guarantee in the amount of $800.00 to guarantee said monumentation shall be installed - within 30 days of approval of the final Registered Land Survey by the Brooklyn Center City Council. -3- 5.4 The Owner shall provide an as -built survey of all existing utilities, accurately depicting their location within the Subdivision. 5.5 That, upon installation of lateral water mains and /or lateral sanitary sewer mains within the Subdivision, the Owner shall provide an as -built survey, accurately depicting the location of said utilities. In addition the Owner shall execute a Water and Sewer Main and Fire Hydrant Maintenance and Inspection Agreement (see sample Exhibit E) for all utility installations, both existing and proposed. 5.6 That the Subdivider will be required to provide a financial performance guarantee to assure that the on -site improve - ments will be constructed, developed and maintained in conformance with the plans, specifications and standards as required by the 1 City's zoning and platting ordinances. That the Subdivider shall execute a Performance Agreement (see sample - Exhibit F) in conjunction with the issuance of the financial guarantee, thereby acknowledging the conditions under which said guarantee has been provided and will be released. 5.7 That the Owner will be required to pay SAC charges as described in Exhibit G. DIVISION 6 - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 6.1 The site performance guarantee submitted to ensure completion of site improvements on TRACT B, Registered Land Survey No. 1537 shall be retained by the City until all parking lot improvements of TRACT C of the Subdivision are completed in in accordance with approved plans and ordinance requirements. k 6.2 That the following additional exhibit, attached hereto, is made a part hereof by this reference: Exhibit H - proposed Registered Land Survey (Planning Commission Application 82004) - -4- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The parties have hereunto set their hands this day of , 1983. BY SHINGLE CREEK ELEVEN a General Partnership BY Panis, Inc. a Minnesota Corporation BY C.E. Sameluk ITS President STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. F ENNEPIN T O H COUNTY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this } day of 1983 by , the of Panis, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, General Partner of SHINGLE CREEK ELEVEN, a Minnesota general partnership, on behalf of Shingle Creek Eleven. Notary Public My commission expires _ SHINGLE CREEK LAND COMPANY, a General Partnership BY Lombard Properties Company, a General Partnership BY Brooklyn Development Company, a General Partnership BY Richardson Properties Inc., a Delaware Corporation BY Donald P. Leaney ITS President STATE OF MINNESOTA) - - ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) t The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1983 by the President of Richardson Properties Inc., a Delaware corporation, General Partner of Brooklyn Development Company, a Minnesota general partnership, a General Partner of Lombard Properties Company, a Minnesota general partnership, General Partner of SHINGLE CREEK LFS]D COP °_PANY, a Minnesota P P in le Creek Land Company. i n behalf of Shingle P general partnership, 0 9 g P -5- Notary Public My commission expires jr CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER BY Its Its (SEAL) WITNESSED: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN SS. On this _ day of 1983, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared and , to me personally known who, being each by me duly sworn they did say that they are respectively the and of the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by its authority of its and said and acknowledged said instrument to be the free, act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public My, commission expires { SU MMARY OF LEVIED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS-ON EXISTING PROPERTY WITHIN PROPOSED R.L.S. EXHIBIT A E X I S T I N'G P A R C E L TOTAL OF ASSESSMENTS CURRENTLY BEING PAID WITH TAXES Property Principal Balance Payment due with Identification Description Original after 1923 tax property taxes Number Amount payment payable in 1983 35- 119 -21 -12 -0009 Tract B, Registered Land $200,438.21 $143,656.14 $ 37,001.66 Survey No. 1537 35- 119 -21 -13 -0007 Tract C, Registered Land $220,938.51 $146,665.98 $ 33,825.52 Survey No. 1537 35- 119 -21 -13 -0008 Tract D, Registered Land $ 92,120.51 $ 57,080.85 $ 12,982.49 Survey No. 1537 $513,497.23 $347,402.97 $ 83,809.67 SUMMARY OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS EXHIBIT B i • TRACT DESIGNATION TOTAL OF ASSESSMENTS CURRENTLY BEING PAID WITH TAXES Proposed Existing Original Amount Principal Balance after j 1983 tax payment Tract A 36.27% of Tract B and 1.27% of Tract C, $ 91,660.23 $ 65,545.47 Registered Land Survey No. 1537 38.20% of Tract B and 1.29% of Tract C, Tract B Registered Land Survey No. 1537 $ 96,394.57 $ 68,936.27 Tract C 1.6.53% of Tract B, Registered Land Special assessments for this property have been Survey No. 1537 apportioned by area to proposed Tract A (48.76 %) and proposed Tract B (51.24 %) above. 9.00% of Tract B, 97.44% of Tract C "Tract D and Tract D, Registered Land Survey $325,442.43 $212,921:23 No. - 1537 1 $513,497.23 $347,402.97 All existing assessments shall be apportioned by relative area using the percentages stated above. Iff I a EXHIBIT C FUTURE UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND HOOKUP CHARGES A. Responsibility for Utility Service Connections It is the responsibility of the Owner to install all water and sanitary sewer laterals and service connections as may be required to provide service to any portion of the Subdivi- sion. B. Hookup Charges 1. There will be no hookup charge for sanitary sewer service other than the "SAC" charges as described in Exhibit G. 2. As provided in the Subdivision Agreement, dated February 5, 1981, for Tracts B, C, and D of Registered Land Survey No. 1537, a portion of the Subdivision is subject to a water hookup charge. A water hookup charge has been assessed to Tract _B, Registered Land Survey No. 1537. Those portions of Tracts C and D, Registered Land Survey No. 1537, which abut Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard, have been assessed for water main to a depth of 135 feet. The remainder of said parcels, not previously assessed is subject to a water hookup charge as follows: 1 within Tract C, R.L.S. No. 1537 664,006 square feet within Tract D, R.L.S. No. 1537 147,321 square feet Total area subject to hookup charge 811,327 square feet The 1983 hookup charge rate is $7.40 per 100 square feet. This rate is subject to an annual adjustment as determined by the City Council, based on the Consumer Price Index. The actual rate used to determine the assessment shall be that in effect when a utility permit is issued for connection to the municipal water system. The estimated assessment based on the 1983 hookup charge rate is: Total area subject to assessment 811,327 square feet 1983 water hookup assessment rate $ 0.074 /square foot $ 60,038 The entire area subject to this assessment is encompassed within Tract D of the Subdivision. Upon issuance of a utility permit for connection of Tract D, - o the municipal water s h Subdivision stem, the water t Y of the S b P hookup charge shall be levied as a special assessment against said tract, for such period and at such annual interest rate as the City Council may determine when the levy is adopted. The Owner agrees to the assessment of a water hookup charge as set forth above. '8 EXHIBIT E WATER AND SEWER MAIN AND FIRE HYDRANT MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION EASEMENT /AGREEMENT THIS EASEMENT /AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 19 between the City of Brooklyn Center, A municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City ", and a corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, its successors and assigns, here - inafter referred to as the "Owner ". It is intended that the term "Owner" shall apply to subsequent or part owners. - WHEREAS, the Owner holds title to certain property within the City of Brooklyn Center, County of Hennepin, described as: WHEREAS, the above described property is served by the City sanitary sewer, storm drainage and water systems and the connection thereto is made through lateral mains and drainage ways constructed upon said private property; and WHEREAS, because damage to or faulty operation of said lateral mains and drainage ways constructed on private property could result in loss of water, contamination, loss of pressure, infil- tration, flooding, or other damage to the City systems or other properties, it is necessary that the City have control over and access to said mains and drainage ways for the purposes of mainte nance, inspection, and repair; THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED between the parties hereto: 1. The City shall have access to said lateral mains and drainage ways and to the accessories connected thereto for the purposes of inspection, repair and maintenance whenever the Director of Public Works in the exercise of reasonable discretion shall determine that such access is necessary; 2. Whenever inspection, repairs, or maintenance are necessary, the City may, upon request of the Owner or after reasonable notice to the Owner, under the circumstances, on its own volition, perform such work as is necessary, and the Owner shall reimburse the City for the cost of labor, �, - -- materials and equipment used in the work, plus a fixed charge of forty per cent (40 %) of said costs as re- imbursement for the proportionate cost of insurance, PERA contributions, vacations, sick leave, clerical, and other miscellaneous costs. 3. The Owner agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claim for damages or other 'relief arising out of or in connection with any work done by the City on said lateral mains and drainage ways and the acces- sories connected thereto, unless arising out of the negligence or wrongful act of the City or its agents 4. The Owners hereby convey to the City, its successors and I assigns, an easement for the purposes hereinabove set l` and across that tract of land herein- forth, over, under a above described. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Owner has caused these presents to -- be executed the day and year first above written. i Name of Corporation By: Its By: Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of _ , 19_, before me appeared to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that he the of a corporation, that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was executed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of and that said acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public State Deed Tax due hereon $ Torrens /Abstract Property This Instrument was drafted by: LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ 103 Brooklyn Law Center 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429 Tax statements for real property described herein should be sent to: "NO CHANGE:. • EXHIBIT F DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND INSPECTION CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PERFORMANCE AGREEMEN File No. This Agreement is entered into by hereinafter called the Developer and the City of Brooklyn Center, a Municipal Corporation, under the laws of the State of•Minnesota, hereafter called the City. THE WORK The Developer has received approval of its Development Plans by the City Council of the City (pursuant to City Ordinances), subject to the execution of this Performance Agreement, pursuant to the City Council approval of and in accordance with said Development Plans all of which are made a part hereof by reference. In consideration of such approval, the Developer, its successors and assigns, does covenant and agree to perform the work as set forth in the Development Plans, in the aforesaid Approval, and as hereinafter set forth, upon the real estate described as follows: The Work shall consist of the improvements described in the Development Plans, in the aforesaid Approval (to include any approved subsequent amendments) and shall be in with all applicable Statutes, Codes and Ordinances of the City. COMPLETION DATE The undersigned Developer agrees that the said Work shall be completed in its entirety on or before the day of 19 , and no extension of time shall be valid un- less the same shall be approved in writing by the City Manager. Said extension of time shall be valid whether approved by the City Manager before or after the completion date and failure of the City to extend the time for completion or to exercise other remedies hereunder shall in no way work a forfeiture of the City's rights hereunder, nor shall any extension of time actually granted by the City Manager work any forfeiture of the City's rights hereunder._ It shall be the duty of the Developer to. notify the City of completion of the Work at least 10 days prior to the Completion Date and to call for final inspection by employees of the City. MAINTENANC The Performance Agreement, in its entirety, shall remain in full force and effect for period of one year after actual completion of the Work to determine that the useful life of all Work performed hereunder meets the average standard for the particular industry, profession, or material used in the performance of the work. Any work not meeting such standard shall not be deemed complete hereunder. Notice of the date of Actual Completion shall be given to the Developer by the Director of Planning and Inspection of the City. FINANCIAL GUARANTEE The Developer agrees to furnish the City with a Financial Guarantee in the form of a cash` escrow, a bond issued by an approved corporate surety licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota and executed by the Developer as principal, or other Financial Guarantee as approved _ by the City Manager of the City, in the amount of $ . Such Financial Guarantee shall coRtinue in full force and effect until the City Council shall have by motion approved and accepted all of the Work undertaken to be done, and shall thereby have released the Surety and /or Developer from any further liability; provided however, that the City Council may by motion reduce the amount of the Financial Guarantee upon partial completion of the work, as. certified by the City Manager. Such Financial Guarantee shall be conditioned upon the full and faithful performance of all elements of this Agreement and upon compliance with all applicable Statutes, Codes, and Ordinances of the City, and shall further be subject to the following provisions which shall be deemed to be incorporated in such Financial Guarantee and - made a part thereof. E NOTICE The City shall be required to give prior notice to the corporate surety and the Developer of default hereunder before proceeding to enforce such Financial Guarantee or beforle then City undertakes any work for which the City will be reimbursed through the Financial Guarantee. Within 10 days after such notice to it, the surety shall notify the City in writing of its in- tention to enforce any rights it might have under this Performance Agreement or any Performance Bond by stating in writing the manner in which the default will be cured and the time within which such default will be cured, said time not to exceed 60 days unless approved by the City. (over please) REMEDIES FOR BREACH At any time after the Completion date and any extensions thereof, or during the Maintenance Period, if any of the work is deemed incomplete, the City Council may proceed in any one or more forth, and to collect an and all set fo Y f the following the undertakings herein , n �l ways to h overhead expenses incurred by the City in connection therewith, 9 includin but not limited to engineering, legal, planning and litigation expenses, but-the enumeration of the remedies here - under shall be in addition to any other remedies available to the City. 1) C ompleti o n by the City The City after.notice, "may proceed to have the Work r or b regular City a lobo Y forces, and neither b c ontract, b d Y 9 done e ither y o y y i the Developer nor the Corporate Surety may question st o n the manner of doing such work or the letting of any such contracts for the doing of any such contracts for the doing of such work. Upon completion of such Work the Surety and /or the • Developer shall promptly pay the City the full cost thereof as aforesaid. In the eventthat the Financial Guarantee is in the form of a Performance Bond, it shall be no defense by the Surety that the City has not first made demand upon - the Developer, nor pursued its rights against the Developer. 2) Specific Performance. The City may in writing direct the Surety or the Developer to cause the Work to be undertaken and completed within a specified reasonable time. If the Surety and /or the Developer fails to cause the Work to be done and completed in a manner and time acceptable to the City, the City may proceed in an action for Specific Performance to require such work to be undertaken. 3) Deposit of Finacial Guarantee. In the event that the Financial Guarantee has b een submitted in the form of a Performance Bond, the City may demand that the Surety deposit with the City a sum equal to the estimated cost of completing the work,•plus the City's estimated overhead expenses as defined herein, in cluding any other costs and damages for which the Surety may be liable hereunder, but not exceeding the amount set forth on the face of the Performance Bond, which money shall be deemed to be held by the City for the purpose of reimbursing the City for any costs incurred in completing the Work as hereinbefore specified, and the balance shall be returned to the Surety. This money shall be deposited with the City within 10 days after written demand therefor, and if the Surety fails to make the required deposit within 10 days, the City shall have the right to proceed against the Surety with whatever legal action is required to obtain the deposit of such sum. 4) Funds on Deposit In the event that the Financial Guarantee is in the form of Cash, certified check, or other arrangement making the Financial Guarantee im- mediately accessible to the City, the City may, after notice to the Developer, deposit the Financial Guarantee in its General Account. The City may then pro- ceed to complete the Work, reimburse itself for the cost of completion as de- fined hereunder, and return the balance to the Developer. PROCEDURES A cop of this Performance Agreement shall be attached to the.Gorporate Surety Bond, if any, and reference to this Performance Agreement shall be made in any such bond, but no corporate surety shall assert as a defense to performance hereunder, any lack of reference in the bond to this Performance Agreement. The original and two copies of this Agreement, properly executed, together with the appropriate Financial Guarantee shall be submitted to the City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer and the City have executed this Agreement this day of 19 Witness Witness Subscribed and sworn to before me this f:. day of 19 ... Zoning Official P/I Form No. 23 Rev. 6-77 EXHIBIT G SERVICE AVAILABILITY CHARGE The Service Availability Charge (SAC) shall be levied against the parcel at the time a building permit is issued. The SAC charge is a one -time charge to pay the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for the debt service on reserve, or unused capacity available for future wastewater flow to the area's inter- ceptors and treatment plant in accordance with the provisions of Subd. 3 and 4 of Minnesota Statutes 4730.08. Information taken from submitted building plans and appropriate related data shall be used in the determination of the number of SAC units attributed to each structure (in accordance with guidelines established by the Metropolitan Waste Control .Com- mission). A SAC unit has been determined to equal 274 gallons of daily sewage volume, and the charge for 1983 is $425 per unit. f c ' ` C! /v 01 F no%'1vn Cenfer EXHIBIT H REGISTERED LAND SURVEY N0. ' A t- B, (Sl p0�•tZ "W y L'i S �Zp6' 00 555.0 } r• •r' ar�l ,,�, o� B TRACT A `, CT � . � o TRA 1 • �•, Z N - „1 .- /�B pp. _. ;9194•• gp4%9'39•W / i� ( it ; ° �•5 _ __� .�-- '._ s e•a '/9'3 9 " ( 9o:z. % • ti 10 6. / 5 d SB4•l9'p9 Z7o�i" , 3 ; lA p/ NAtrsaE ti 70.o0--' 1 . - 384'19'J9'W III . J p 1 � %, T TRACT el ./y /in° °f N°. /537 I V ar r � — 44/.53— 'S2ii4• 6 ?./3 7.93..�y r N/6'O45'3q• yy / 2 �9jb - x �/ r R' t). J BEARINGS SHOWN ARE ASSUMED O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT - 0 200 400 fCALE IN FEET _. A1ERILA &- ASSOCIATES, INC. -- ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, SITE PLANNERS SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS i MEMORANDUM 1 n nd Inspection 1 r f P a nin a T0: Ronald A. Warren Director o _ 'i 9 FROM: Gary Shallcross, Planning Assistant DATE: July 21, 1983 SUBJECT: Performance Guarantee The following performance guarantee is recommended for release: 1. Dale Tile 4815 France Avenue North Planning Commission Application'No. 81071 Amount of Guarantee: $5,000.00 Obligor: Dale Tile Company All site landscaping work has now b.een completed, including provision of a 5' wide greenstrip along west property line. Recommend total release. B y Ronald A. Warren, Director of Plannin arfd Inspection I, Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 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) WHEREAS, the City Council has received a report from the City Engineer regarding the feasibility of completing the widening of Humboldt Avenue North at 69th Avenue North at an estimated cost of $48,570.00; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary and in the best interests of the City of Brooklyn Center to complete said improvement: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The City Engineer's Report is hereby accepted. 2. The following improvement is hereby established and ordered constructed: HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1983 -11 "3 3. The plans and specifications for said improvement as prepared by the City Engineer are approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than seven (7) days prior to the date for receipt of bids, and specify the work to be done, state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. on August 18, 1983, at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers at City Hall by the City Clerk and City Engineer, will then be tabulated and will be considered by the City Council at 7:00 P.M. on August 22, 1983, in the Council Chambers, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid_ bond, or certified check payable to the City for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. 5. The accounting for Improvement Project No. 1983 -11 shall be done in the Municipal State Aid Fund Account No. 2611. Date Mayor ATTEST; Clerk l RESOLUTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. N ,RY_EY-0MON > — - N i - - N °5a• A�Y� 1 CID SIGN AS;! c ISTA� V r HUMBOLDT AVE ul o i� 4 i MIDWEST m rn AREA { -- - INSURANCE O ' W 1SC� I 1 CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY RBROOKLYN V VOKL 1� u T �T CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 ENTER 77' ENGINEER'S REPORT PROJECT 1983 -11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Street widening PROJECT LOCATION: - Humboldt Avenue North from 69th Avenue northerly approximately 400 feet DISCUSSIQN: The staff has observed an increase in traffic congestion at the Humboldt Avenue -69th Avenue intersection since the completion of the F.A.I. 94/ T.H. 100 improvement projects. Completion of this access to the federal /state highway systems coupled with the continued development within Brooklyn Park adjacent to Humboldt Avenue has resulted in a marked increase in the use of Humboldt Avenue, thereby demonstrating a need to eliminate (or reduce) the "bottleneck" at 69th Avenue. Traffic counts taken at the intersection show that approximately 8900 vehicles per day pass along Humboldt Avenue north of 69th Avenue while approximately 6000 vehicles a day pass along 69th Avenue west of Humboldt Avenue. A review of the traffic accident history reveals that an average of 7 accidents have occurred in the intersection over the past two years. While it is logical to assume that continued development within the City's industrial park, continued development within Brooklyn Park adjacent to Humboldt Avenue, and construction of an access along proposed T.H. 252 at Humboldt Avenue will result in an increase in traffic along the roadway, staff considers it essential that the Humboldt Avenue -69th Avenue intersection be designed to provide efficient means of moving vehicles in all directions. Based upon such consideration, the staff has reviewed design proposals for short term (or interim) and ultimate geometric improvements. Interim Design It is proposed that Humboldt Avenue be widened northerly of 69th Avenue to provide two northbound and two southbound lanes for a distance of 250 feet. The roadway would then be tapered back to the existing 2 lanes, about 200 feet southerly of 70th Avenue North. Construction of northbound lanes will result in elimin ation of the "right turn only" restriction and the right lane of northbound Humboldt Avenue as it approaches 69th Avenue. In addition, construction of two southbound lanes will reduce congestion at the bus stop on Humboldt Avenue. Necessary modifications to the existing utility systems include relocation of storm sewer catch basins and a fire hydrant. It is anticipated that the existing sidewalk system located along the easterly side of Humboldt Avenue will not be affected by the proposal. "7!e .So.ketlu tq Mace � .. July 22, 1983 - Engineer's Report 1982 -11 Page 2 This design should be regarded as an interim improvement project which should be adequate for 3 to 5 years. Ultimate design for this intersection should contemplate total reconstruction, including channelization, installation of traffic signals and grade adjustments (69th Avenue should be lowered approximately 18 inches). Final design details will depend on the effects on traffic volumes resulting from continued development in Brooklyn Park, continued development of the Brooklyn Center Industrial Park area, and the development of T.H. 252. It is noted that, due to the necessity to adjust the 69th Avenue grade, none of the construction accomplished under the interim project will be "salvageable" under the ultimate design. Funding for construction of the proposed interim design is available from the City's local Municipal State Aid fund account (Regular M.S.A. funds cannot be used since the proposal would not meet current M.S.A. standards) However, it is anticipated that funding for the ultimate design proposal will be available from the City's Regular M.S.A. account. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the interim proposal be approved for construction in 1983. Such an improvement would reduce traffic congestion in the intersection, and allow the City an opportunity to further investigate the implications of the anticipated growth of the area. SUMMARY: A summary of the estimated costs are as follows: Construction Cost $ 38,400.00 Contingencies (15% of Construction Cost) 5,760.00 SUBTOTAL $ 44,160.00 Engineering (9% of Construction Cost) 3,970.00 Administration (`1% of Construction Cost) 440.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 48,570.00 _ It is my opinion that the proposed project is feasible on the basis of the conditions and considerations outlined above. Respectfully submitted, SK: jn b Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 69TH -70TH AVENUE STREET, SANITARY SEWER, AND WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the construction of Improvement Projects Nos 1982 -09, 1982 -10, and 1982 - 11 is complete and the tabulated costs are as follows: 69TH - 70TH AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 - Contract Cost $ 53,651.25 Land Acquisition Purchase 7,728.12 Taxes 3,058.88 Abstract 213.00 Easement 1,200.00 Legal Fees 1,883.75 Consultant Fees 2,030.00 Other Costs (Soil Testing) 2,515.76 SUBTOTAL $ 72,280.76 F � Engineering 12,426.17 Administrative 722.81 Legal & Bonding 722.81 SUBTOTAL $ 86,152.55 Interest 4,951.67 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 91,104.22 69TH -70TH AVENUE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -10 Contract Cost $ 9,013.90 Engineering 2,110.85 Administrative 90.14 Legal & Bonding 90.14 SUBTOTAL $ 11,305.03 Capitalized Interest - 894.68 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 12,199.71 L RESOLUTION NO. 69TH -70TH AVENUE WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -11 Contract $ 9,010.00 Engineering 2,086.80 Administrative 90.10 Legal & Bonding 90.10 SUBTOTAL $ 11,277.00 Capitalized Interest 1,168.48 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 12,445.48 WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the City Council that a proposed assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The portion of the cost of Improvement Project No. 1982 -09 to be assessed against those properties between 69th and 70th Avenues and Dupont Avenue and Camden Avenue (extended) abutting, and benefited by, said improvement is hereby declared to be $10,679.14. 2. The portion of the cost of Improvement Project No. 1982 -09 to be paid be the City is hereby declared to be $80,425.08. 3. The portion of the cost of Improvement Project No.. 1982 -10 to be assessed against the benifited'areas of Lots 50, 51, and 52 Auditor's' Subdivision No. 309 and Lots 1 and 2 of Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4 Evergreen Estates is hereby declared to be $7,238.16. 4. 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 5. 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 rate of interest on the unpaid balance equal to the rate established by Council in conjunction with these proceedings. RESOLUTION NO. 6. The portion of the cost of Improvement Project No. 1982 -10 to be paid by the City is hereby declared to be $4,961.55. 7. The portion of the cost of Improvement Project No. 1982 -11 to be assessed against the benefited areas of Lots 50, 51, and 52 Auditor's Subdivision No. 309 and Lots 1 and 2 of Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4 Evergreen Estates is hereby declared to be $5,850.56. 8. The Council acknowledges prepayment of special asses ments for Improvement Project No. 1982 -11 attributable to Lots 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 9. 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. 10. The portion of the cost of Improvement Project No. 1982 -11 to be paid by the-City is hereby declared to be $6,594.92. i L 11. A hearing shall be held on the 22nd day of August, 1983, in the City Hall at 8:00 P.M. to pass upon such proposed assessments and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvements will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessments. 12. The City Clerk is directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessments to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvements. 13. The City Clerk shall cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment rolls not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Date Mayor ATTEST: - i Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote in taken thereon, r o be en her on the following � � R voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. q0 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 51ST AVENUE NORTH WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -07 WHEREAS, Improvement Project No. 1982 -07 has been placed under contract (Contract 1983 -H) and the estimated costs are: Contract Cost $ 26,958.00 Engineering 2,426.22 Administrative 269.58 Easement 3,500.00 I Legal 2,000.00 ESTIMATED TOTAL $ 35,153.80 WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the City Council that a proposed assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. That portion of the cost of Improvement Project No. 1982 -07 to be assessed against the benefited properties located southerly of Upper Twin Lake, northerly of the Soo Line Railroad, and westerly of East Twin Lake Boulevard (extended) is hereby declared to be $32,651.18. 2. The portion of the cost of Improvement Project No. 1982 -07 to be paid by the City is hereby declared to be $2,502.62. 3. 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. 4. A hearing shall be held on the 22nd day of August, 1983 in the City Hall at 8 :00 P.M. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvements will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. f 5. The City Clerk is directed to cause a notice of the hearing on -_ the proposed assessment to be published once in the official g i newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall g' state in the notice the total estimated cost of the improvement. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 6. The City Clerk shall cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll 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. r _,, qol Member - introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH LINDBERG PIERCE INC. FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RELATING TO PARK FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1983 -10 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute an agreement with Lindberg- Pierce Inc. for the furnishing of architectural services for renovation of the Kylawn and Bellevue Park shelter buildings, for the replacement of the Freeway Park shelter building, and for d comfort station screening construction of trash receptacles an g at various parks (Project No. 1983 -10). The fee for said services shall be based on hourly rates as provided within said agreement, with a maximum total fee of $6,000.00 plus printing costs and materials testing services. i Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk ti 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 - Lindberg Pierce, Inc. Architects Suite 710 600 First Ave. North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 James H. Lindberg (612) 332 -3339 Robert L. Pierce G July 13, 1983 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Attention: Mr. Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works Dear Mr. Knapp: We are pleased to have the opportunity to present a proposal for Architectural / Engineering service on shelter building improvement projects in Kylawn and Bellevue Parks, new shelter building in Freeway Park, prototype dumpster enclosure for ten (10) neighborhood parks as well as temporary toilet screens in five locations. We would suggest being compensated on an hourly basis not to exceed a maximum total amount. Our current hourly rates are: Principals Time $35.00 /hour Senior Designer 32.00 /hour Drafting Time 22.00 /hour Engineering Services 35.00 to 45.00 /hour We would propose maximum compensation for complete architectural and engineering services including assistance during the bidding period, review of shop drawings and field observation services not to exceed six thousand ($6,000) dollars. Our proposed compensation would not include the actual cost of printing the bidding documents or materials testing services. The city -would furnish the topographical survey for the Freeway Building. Your consideration of our firm is appreciated. Sincere Y, Approved by City Council • / Date Robert Pierce A B y . Mayor I� S Accepted By City Manager �L Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION TO APPROVE A REDUCTION OF THE SPEED LIMIT ON 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY TO HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, the existing posted speed limit on 69th Avenue North between Shingle Creek Parkway and Humboldt Avenue North is 40 miles per hour ;,and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Brooklyn Center City Council that a 40 miles per hour speed limit is excessive and constitutes a hazard for pedestrians and bicyclists on 69th Avenue or crossing 69th Avenue; and WHEREAS, the posted speed limit on 69th Avenue Westerly of Shingle Creek Parkway is 30 miles per hour and the posted speed limit on 69th Avenue Easterly of Humboldt Avenue is 35 miles per hour: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation is hereby requested to conduct a speed and hazard survey and to approve a reduction in the posted speed limit on 69th Avenue between Shingle Creek Parkway and Humboldt Avenue North. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. e Member introduced the following resolution and - moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR TENNIS COURT RESURFACING AT WEST PALMER, KYLAWN, AND GRANDVIEW PARKS WHEREAS, the 1983 General Fund Budget provides for the expenditure of $11,550 for tennis court repair; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 1982, Section 471.345 as amended provides that for contracts under $15,000, the contract may be made by obtaining two or more quotations; and WHEREAS, the following quotations for tennis court surfacing at West Palmer Park, Kylawn Park, and Grandview Park have been obtained by the Director of Public Works: Bidder QUOTATION Sjostrom, Inc. $7,338 C &H Construction 7,920 I.C. Sports, Inc. 8,395; and WHEREAS, the quotation of Sjostrom, Inc., in the amount of $7,338, is the lowest responsible bid received. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT _RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that bid of Sjostrom, Inc., in the amount of $7,338, is hereby tt accepted and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said firm in that amount. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. �s Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. j RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR SOIL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR CENTRAL PARK TENNIS COURTS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute an agreement for soil engineering services with STS Consultants Ltd. for the Central Park tennis courts. The fee for said services shall not exceed $2,950.00 without additional authorization by the City. 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 t 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 OO KLY�T BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 l� TELEPHONE 561 -5440 CENTER TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: July 22, 1983 RE: Soil Engineering Services for Central Park Tennis Courts The staff has solicited proposals from two soil engineering firms for the purpose of determining the soil conditions at the site of the proposed Central Park tennis courts. The proposals submitted by the firms are as.follows: STS Consultants Ltd. $2,800.00 to $2,950.00 Braun Engineering & Testing $3,700.00 Both firms presented proposals based on an hourly charge; however, a representative of Braun Engineering & Testing admitted the firm has a considerable work load and is not "hungry for work ". In comparison, a representative of STS Consultants Ltd. indicated that the work could be done immediately, implying that his firm could use the work. It is the staff's opinion that the proposal of STS Consultants Ltd. is reasonable and it is recommended that it be accepted by the City Council. A resolution authorizing execution of the agreement is attached. Respectfully submi ted, SK: jn "'7!c SoNCctlsu� �Zau C� �` CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 25th day of July, 1983 at p.m. at the City Hall, 5301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow truck rental and leasing as a special use in the C2 zoning district. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES TO ALLOW TRUCK RENTAL AND LEASING AS A SPECIAL USE IN THE CZ ZONE 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. Sp ecial Uses (n) Automobile and truck- rental and leasing Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date ( Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) M CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 25th day of July, 1983, at 8:00 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow manufactured housing in the R1 and R2 zoning districts. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES TO ALLOW MA14UFACTURED HOUSING IN THE Rl AND R2 ZONING DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS Section 1. Section 35 -900 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -900 Dwelling - A building, or portion thereof, designed or used predominantly for residential occupancy of continued nature, including one- family dwelling, two - family dwellings and multiple family dwellings, including earth- sheltered homes and manufactured homes but not including hotels, motels, commercial boarding or rooming houses, tourist homes and [trailers] recreational vehicles, as travel trailers, camping trailers pick -up campers, motor coaches, motor homes and buses Manufactured home - A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which in the traveling mode, is eight body feet or more in width or 40 body feet or more in length, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with a permanent foundation when connected to required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning (if any) and electrical systems contained therein, except that the term includes any structure which meets all the requirements and which bears the HUD seal of certification of compliance with the Federal standards as required by State law. Section 2. Section 35 -530 of the City Ordinances shall be amended in the following manner: Section 35 -530 Buildings in R1 and R2 Districts. 4. No basement, cellar, garage, tent (trailer] or accessory building shall at anytime be used as a residence or dwelling, temporarily or permanently. 5. All dwellings shall be on permanent foundations which comply with the State Building Code and which are solid for the complete circumference of the dwelling, except that accessory uses such as screened or enclosed porches, canopies, decks, balconies, stairs, etc. may be placed on a noncontinuous permanent foundation as approved by the Building Official. ORDINANCE NO. b__ The wi dth and the dep o f t main portion of any dwellin built aft July 23, 1983 shall be no less than 18 Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 _ N,ayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date ( Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted) . 10 � CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the ''11th day of July, 1983 at _ 8:00 parr. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to classify a portion of 69th Avenue North as a major thoroughfare. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF TI-TIE CITY, ORDINANCES TO CLASSIFY A PORTION OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH AS A. MAJOR THOROUGHFARE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 35 -900 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Thoroughfare, Major - For the purpose of this ordinance, major thoroughfares include all state, county, and federal highways (including interstate freeways), and the following municipal streets: 1. Xerxes Avenue North from T. H. 100 to 59th Avenue North and from F.A.I. to Shingle Creek Parkway] 2. Shingle Creek Parkway from C. T. H. 10 to i C . T. H. 1301 69th Avenue North 3. France Avenue North from T. H. 100 to 50th Avenue North; 4. Humboldt Avenue North from F. A. I. 94 to 70th Avenue North; 5. Freeway Boulevard from Xerxes- Avenue North to Humboldt Avenue North; 6. 69th Avenue North from Shingle Creek Parkway to Brooklyn Boulevard. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1983. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date _ ( Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted) . 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 JULY 14, 1983_. CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER ` The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order, by - Chairman George Lucht at 7:34 p.m-. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Holly 11alecki, nary Sinmons, Nancy Manson and Donald Versteeg. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald 11arren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioner Ainas had called to say he would be unable to attend the evening's meeting and was excused. APPROVAL OF HINUTES - June 30, 1983 f'totion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Versteeg to approve the i ;linutes of the June 30, 1983 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor- Chairman Lucht, Commissioners 'lalecki, Simmons, Manson, Sand- strow and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. C ONTINUATION OF APPLICATION NO. 83029 (lies' Standard) Chairman Lucht then informed the Planning Commission and those present that Application No. 83029 would not be considered ' ,but s eyed at this evening' meeting, 9 would be continued to a later date. APPLICATION NO. 83032 (Shawn Taylor) Following llow�n the Chairman s xl e a a io 9 t n he n .t S ecretary introduced first item p u the i Y of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into three dots, the large parcel of .land at 5435 Bryant 'Avenue North. The Secretary re' - viewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 33032 attached). Com1missioner Sandstrom asked whether there was any proposed building for either of newly created lots. The Secretary answered that the lots were large enough for duplexes, but that he did not know of any plans for construction. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether she had anything to add. An undentified associate . ociate of the applicant answered that they had nothing to add. Commissioner Simmons asked about the status of 11r. Erickson, for whom the plat :is named. Shawn Taylor answered that t1r. Erickson is in a nursing horse. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 83032) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked.whether anyone r esent wished to s y p speak to the a p p lication. ear' p H Ong none, he called for a motion to 1 c ose the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Plaleck'i seconded by Commissioner Pianson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.' ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 83032 (Shawn Taylor) Motion by Commissioner Hanson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 83032, subject to the following conditions: 7 -14 -33 -1- 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 egments which encroach Y s ac into the proposed Lots 1 and 3 and i`nstail 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 ttalecki, Simmons, Hanson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 33033 A14D 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 P,5.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 fora 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. i1r. 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 Manson stated that landscaped area appeared unusually small to her. She asked f1r. Gerrish how he.felt about that. 11r. 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. Ile stated that he felt the site was well landscaped and that this would help -make the site more attractive. Commissioner 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 living 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 owner of the Twin Lake (North Apartment complex, stated that she felt the proposed development would have a detrimental effect on the Twin Lake North Apartment complex. She stated that the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for front and rear setbacks make sense and should not be varied from in this case. She pointed ou.t 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 sitmply that the land area of the parcel was extremely small for the size building being proposed. Ms. Kathy Hoore 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. ir. 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. Ms. 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 County Road 10 came after the development of 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 11alecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.: Commissioner Versteeg asked.whether anything in ordinance required a mininum play area available. The Secretary responded in the negative. Coriiissioner 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 Chairman Lucht asked the Commission to consider whether the Standards for a Variance were net. 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 cor:ipliiientary. 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 built if the requirements of the ordinance were enforced. The Secretary responded in.the affirmative, noting that the building could Commissioner r u] not be mor 0 2 i omm ssione Sandstrom o g e than i0 t 0 wide. C . 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 mi.niriize 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 City. The Planning Assistant answered that he was not aware of any other lots of that particular shape, but noted that there are a nurciber 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 question of quality, the Planning Assistant pointed out that the building would contain units of 'about 1,100 sq. ft. each with direct connection between the residential building and the garages and a 6' wide corridor. He pointed to these aspects as indications of quality. Commissioner "Ialecki 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. Fie 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 -03 -4- j 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 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION N0, 83034 (Hilltop Builders, Inc.) 1 - Motion by Commis - sinner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Hanson to recommend approval of Application No. 8,3034 on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are met. While the motion was on the, floor, Commissioner Hanson stated that she had a problem with Standard (c) regarding the requirement that the hardship not be caused by anyone presently or formerly having an-interest in the property. Com- missioner Nalecki pointed out that the City was a party to that decision. The Planning Assistant suggested that the Planning Commission consider the historical context of the present configuration. He stated that the previous owner of the 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 - chat when the previous owner died, his residence was torn down leaving a small vacant parcel. He likened the situation to'that of the Earle Brown Farm where parcels have been created in order to preserve historic structures. Later, the farm buildings may be destroyed -and the parcels are no longer appropriate. He stated that his might turn out to be poor planning, but that at the time decisions are made, they appear appropriate. In response to a question from Commissioner Manson regarding County Road 10, the Assistant City Engineer showed the previous alignment of that road. Chairman Lucht commented, however, that the County Road was realigned prior to the development of the Twin take 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. Fir. 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 builder could expand one unit to make a luxury unit on the third floor or that a unit on the first floor could be used for a "storage or recreation room. He stated that the builder would comply with the limitation of only 11 units. He stated that the likely solution would be to expand a couple of the apartment units into the space that would have been used by the 12th unit. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83033 (Hilltop Builders, Inca: Motion by Commissioner tialecki seconded. by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 83033, subject to the - following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and-approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of 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. 7 -14 -83 -5- _4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. 6612 curb and gutter shat -i be provided around all parking and driving areas. 6. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide for two 6" diameter trees in accordance with Section 35 -410 of the Zoning Ordinance prior to consideration by the City Council. 7. Plan approval comprehends an 11 unit apartment building which is consistent with the density.requirements of the Ordinance. 8. Any construction within the County Road 10 right -of -way shall be completed under a permit issued by Hennepin County. 9. The applicant shall enter into an easement agreement with the City for street.and utility purposes, said easement to be over the southerly 7•' of the easterly 15' of the property. - Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Halecki, Simmons, Hanson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RE CESS The Planning Commission recessed at 8:55 p.m. and resumed at 9 :13 p.m. APPLI NOS. 83035 and 83036 (Pau DesVe.rnine /Iten Leasing) fllowing the re ess, the,SS oreta intro uce -he -next two i.tems o usines a reques - C for si e e � and buildng p� n and specia use permit approvat �o remodel the commercial building at 4301 -63th Avenue North for use as an auto and truck rental and leasing center and also, a request for a variance from the Sign and Zoning Ordinances to allow the continuation of a nonconforming sign board more than two years after the previous message has been removed. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application 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 wall were extended along the east and west walls as propo.sed,- 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 Servomation building-was much further than the Iten building. Commissioner Versteeg asked for the location of the roof sign in quesion. The Secretary pointed out that 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 -33 -6- followed a brief discussion of the existing area of the sign and that permitted by the Sign Ordinance. The Secretary stated that the present area of the sign is about 325 sq.. ft., but that it.would fall within 190 sq. ft. limitation if it were not more than 6' above the parapet line. He also explained that part of the sign would be wall sign below the parapet line. In answer to a uesti'on from Commissioner Sandstrom regarding q San stro g rding the Ryan Olds sign, the Secretary stated that the sign at Ryan Olds has been changed from the original Velie Olds sign. He stated that the variance granted in the early was really just for a',message` change, not for reusing a nonconforming sign two years after it had been discontinued. Commissioner Sandstrom-asked whether the case in question is not also a message change. The Secretary pointed out that there is presently no message on the sign board and there has not been one for over four years. Chairman Lucht stated that granting the variance would defeat the nonconforming usei :provisions of the Zoning and Sign Ordinances. Commissioner - Simmons stated that she did not feel this was really . a hardship case. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt the application met Standard No. 3 of the Sign Ordinance Standards for a Variance ( that there be.no detrimental impact on surrounding property). Chairman Lucht pointed out that if this variance were granted, everyone.would want a higher than permitted roof sign and that everyone would basically be entitled to one. Commissioner - Simmons stated that she felt that the breakdown of the Sign Ordinance would detrimental to property generally throughout the City. .Commissioner Sandstrom stated.that he felt the sign board was of the building. Commissioner Manson a :reed, but stated that a sign board only 6' above the parapet line would look better than the existing sign. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the parapet linelwas not the roof line. The Secretary pointed out that it would be considered the roof line if the building.were_ remodeled in accordance with the proposed site plan. Commissioner Malecki pointed out that to recommend a variance, all of the three standards have to be met. She stated that she felt the first two standards were not met at all. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt a hardship could be shown in this case. the Secretary pointed out that the applicant proposes to take down the existing screen fence which extends from the Iten Chevrolet Service building to an area east of the Servomation building. He pointed out that if this fence were removed it would allow 11 w much greater visibility of the building in question-and would allow for the use of a great deal of conforming wall signery. Commissioner Versteeg asked whether the applicant had made a trial run to see if a sign 6' above the parapet line is adequate. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Mike Iten, of Iten Chevrolet, explained that a.11 of the property occupi -ed by Iten Chevrolet and the. old Servomation building is owned by Iten Automotive Sales and Service, which leases the properties! Iten Chevrolet and Iten Leasing. Chairman Lucht asked whether all the property is owned by one entity. Mr. Iten again explained that two separate corporations lease property that is owned by one company. The Secretary explained that the Zoning`Ordinance requires platting of parcels into one parcel if they are occupied by a common use and are under common ownership. He noted that the two parcels were under different uses although the same ownership. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant why he was leaving in a second driveway to the west of the building. Mr. Iten explained the background of the Iten involvement with the Servomation building He explained that the building had been gutted and used for storage about four years ago. He pointed'out that Servomation did not want to leave their sign on the building and so it was painted over. He stated that, after much scrutiny, the decision had been made to use the building for a leasing business. Mr. Iten went on to explain other details of the business 7 -14 -33 -7- I arrangement'. He stated that Iten had originally agreed to close the.westerly access in order to meet the parking requirement. He explained that the business that would be moving in, would not need all the parking that is required under the ordinance since most of the building would still be in storage. Mr. Iten went on to say that there was no drainage problem on the site. He felt that curb and gutter were not necessary and stated that confining the water on the site would require the use of storm sewer. He added, however, that,he would be willing to put in the curb and.gutter'if the Rockwell people, (the business to the west), asked for it. He concluded by saysng this part of 68th Avenue North looks bad and that reuse of the building would benefit property values in the neighborhood. The Assistant City Engineer recommended that the Planning Commission consider re- quiring curb and gutter along the west side of the site for the purpose of deline- ation of a- greenstrip area and to control drainage. He stated that uncontrolled drainage would affect the adjacent property with the runoff from the paved area. He also pointed out to the Planning Commission that opportunities to require im- provements in business sites are rare and recommended that the Planning Commission take the opportunity to require the improvements that would be required of a new site. fir. Iten pointed out that no one in that area has curb and gutter but the Osseo Brooklyn Bus Garage. He stated that if the paved area were bounded by curb and gutter, something would have to be done with the blocked up drainage. He stated that there is no water problem now. He appealed to the Planning Commission on the grounds that he was trying to clean up the area and make it look better: Chairman Lucht stated that he was bothered by the attitude of: if I get what I want, I will clean up. He asked whether there was no other motivation to clean up the site. Mr. Iten stated that he would have to reconsider the project if they did not get the approval they wanted. He stated that he might lease out the building to a whole different coiiipany. There followed a discussion regarding the use of the westerly side of the property. 11r. Iten explained that it was being used at present by Iten employees as overflow parking. Chairman Lucht pointed out the need for a parking agreement between the two sites. The Secretary stated that it is important to have as much landscaping as possible on 68th Avenue North, but that the provision of an additional access was not an ordinance violation. Mr. Iten then addressed the matter of the sign variance. He stated that he felt that the existing sign structure should be relettered. He stated that he did not think there was any detriment to the surrounding area. He explained that the re lettering of the existing sign board should be allowed to provide the nevi firm with as much visibility as possible. He stated that it was a hardship if a person could not use his property. He stated that he did not think there was anything negative about the requested sign variance except in relation to the ordinance. Chairman Lucht stated that he did not have qualms either, except for those raised by the ordinance. fir. Iten pointed out that he had taken his time to make what he felt was the right business decision about the use of the Servor�ation building. Plow, he said, he is being penalized for taking time to make the right decision. Commissioner Simmons pointed out in return that Mr. Iten took his time, not as a favor to the City, but out of business judgment. She stated that the City must take the opportunity to get rid of a nonconforiiiing use. She also stated that other businesses would want the same sort of sign if this variance were granted, fir. Iten interpreted her comments as being opposed to signs generally, Cornmissi.oner Simmons explained that the City does allow many signs which conform to the ordinance. Chairman Lucht stated that the proposed variance would have to meet the Standards for a Variance.. fir, Iten stated that the same sign could have been used when Iten had bought the building, but not now. He cited cost factors and stated that his i 7- 14 -33 -8- hardship is economic. Chairman Lucht stated that he.did not think the situation was at all unique. Mr. Iten stated that he'thought the sign was unique. The Secretary pointed out that many gas stations have parapets that once were in- tended for signs, but that these have been discontinued since the adoption of the Sign Ordinance. He stressed that imposing the Sign Ordinance does not dis- allow legitimate signs, but that it does require phasing out of nonconforming uses. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 83035) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the special use permit for auto truck - rental and leasing and 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 Versteeg to close the public hearing.. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 83036) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the sign variance application. He 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 (lotion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commiss-ioner Manson asked how far the blacktop went on the west side of the site Mr. Iten explained that it went all the way to the property line. Mr. Paul DesVe.rnine stated that there was no water problem on the site. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that if there was no problem, there'should be no need for curb and gutter. Chairman-Lucht pointed out that curb and gutter is an ordinance re- quirement and that this is one of the opportunities the Planning Commission would have to bring the site up to conformance with current standards. There followed a discussion on the need for curb and gutter. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that there was no return'on the investment in curb and gutter. Commissioner Simmons' pointed out that the lack of curb and gutter could result in a cost to the . neighboring property. Chairman Lucht stated that the curb and gutter would make the site look better. He pointed_ out the normal requirement for a.5' greenstrip along the west property line and stated that curb and gutter would be needed to prptect that greenstrip. Mr. DesVernine asked why the 5' greenstrip was needed along an interior property line. The Secretary explained that it.i the policy of the Planning Commission to require 5' of green area along the interior property line from each abutting use so that a 10' green area is established. Mr. pesVernine asked whether this was an ordinance requirement. The Secretary responded in the negative and ex plained that it is a standard policy. Mr. Iten asked what the purpose'of the policy is.. The Secretary answered that it is primarily an aesthetic consideration. Chairman Lucht stated the purpose was to do what the applicant has stated he wants to do, namely make the site look better. Chairman Lucht asked for comments on the sign variance application. Commissioner Sandstrom asked the applicant if he could live with a reduced roof sign. f1r. Iten answered that if that is what is allowed, he could probably live with it, although the idealwould be to have the existing sign board: Mr. Iten stated thathe would prefer to have a roof sign 6' above the parapet line, than to take the sign board down entirely. ACTION RECOHMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION 110. 83036 Paul DesVernine /Iten Leasin Motion by Commissioner flanson seconded b Commi sioner �l y s f a ecki to recommend denial of Application No. 83036, on the grounds that the Standards for a Varia are not 7 - 14 -83 -9- i met. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Sandstromi and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The notion passed. A CTION REC OHMEl•dDIN G APPROVAL O F APPLI NO. 83035 (Paul DesVernine /Iten Leasin i Notion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to recoinnend 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 a . g p re subject to review and nd a royal b the pp Y Building Official with respect to applicable nodes 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 a parapet wall line prior to the issuance of permits. p 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'Leasin property rior 9 p p Y p to the issuance of permits. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Hanson, Sandstrom and - Versteeg. Voting against: none.' The motion passed. A PPLICATIO14 NO.-83037 (Cramer Company) The Secretary then introduced the last 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 at 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 expl.ained the process for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment which required a public hearing by the Planning Commission and review by the Pietro 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 he 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. fie 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 sinila r 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 hei so that the water would never get very deep in the pond. He'added that the area adjacent to the residences could be fenced. Comm,issione.r 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 a,s to whether the ponding system will work. - PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 8303 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 Pis. Dawn Harre addressed the Planning,Commission - regarding the traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard. Per. 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 coming.out of the office complex. He stated that there were a lot of accidents in this area of Brooklyn Boulevard and asked how ei;iergency 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 hones 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. Coa;imissioner 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 south-. The Secretary :answered that it would have to be lifted by all of the people partici- pating in the covenant. Hs. Harre stated that the traffic coming 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 askad whether this was a licensed horse occupation. Hs. .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 -wa.y streets are not all that rare. ;lr. 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 Hr. Finnvik and Hs. 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 pollution-from the parking lot lights. 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. 11r. Williams stated that berming does not keep anything out and expressed concern regarding undesirable characters coming to the office complex at night and perhaps II 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 possibility 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 t the property. She expressed concern about kids getting down into the property and also expressed concern regarding runoff and'dirt from the lot causing pollution generally in the neighborhood. She also expressed concern regarding the possibility of gaining access to the site frog Indiana Avenue 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 RECOMNEN DING CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 83037) Motion by Commissioner Nalecki 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 flalecki, Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: 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, 1983 meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Halecki to adjourn the 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. 83032 - Applicant: , Shawn Taylor Location: 5435 Bryant Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide into three lots the parcel of land at 5435 Bryant Avenue North. The existing parcel of land is zoned R2 and is bounded on the north, west, and south by several'single- family homes and on the east by Bryant Avenue North. Across Bryant Avenue North is a duplex and two single- family dwellings. The dimensions of the existing parcel are 150.65' deep by 252' wide for a total area of 37,964 sq. ft. A two storey single- family home is located in the approximate center of the existing parcel. The existing legal description is a metes and bounds description. The easterly 150.65 feet of Lots 2 and 3, Block 4, Bellvue Acres. The proposed legal descrip- tion is: Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Sander Erickson Addition. Lots l and 3 are 83' x 150,65' for a total area of 12,504 sq. ft. This exceeds slightly the minimum lot area requirement of 12,400 sq. ft. for a two - family dwelling in the R2 zone. Lot 2 is 86' x 150.65' for a total area of 12,956 sq. ft. Although this lot is presently occupied by a single - family dwelling, it is also large enough for a two - family dwelling. There is presently a 15' x 30' brick shed on the northerly most lot, Lot 1. There are no setback deficiencies if this structure is used as an accessory structure. However, it should be clearly pointed out to the applicant and any prospective buyers that use of this structure as a dwelling is prohibited. There is also a horseshoe- shaped driveway in front of the existing house which extends a few feet into the proposed Lot 1 and about 25' into proposed Lot 3. These driveway segments should be removed and a new. driveway configuration should be installed prior to final plat approval. Separate water and sewer services have already been installed for the newly created Lots I and 3. Sewer assessments have been P aid . However, water assessments have not yet been paid. The applicant will, therefore, have to enter into a subdivision agreement with the City to assure payment of these assessments. Altogether, the preliminary plat is in order and approval is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject: to review and 'approval by the City Engineer . 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances.' 3. The 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 l 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 assess- ments for water service. 7 -14 -83 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 zone at a density of up to 16 units per acre. The parcel in question is 29,311 sq.ft. in areawhich allows 10.85 or 11 units at a density of one unit per 2,700 sq. ft. of land area. The reason for the discrepancy is that planning staff were initially given a figure of over 31,000 sq. ft. as the area of the property which would support 12 units. -However, a boundary survey by 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 the east and west ends of the building. In addition, there is one handicapped stall. This meets the parking requirement of two spaces per unit. The access to the property is toward the easterly edge of the lot, about 38' from the , east property line. A 20' wide driving lane runs in front of the building to connect 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 (2 *1" 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 (2'-z" 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 the adjacent R5 development, the fence will serve to block out headlights. The drainage plan calls for a catch basin on the east and west sides of the site to take drainage from each of the two parking areas. B612 curb and gutter is to be 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 their garages without going outside._ The proposed building is intended to blend in well with the larger Twin Lake North complex and appears to be designed with the same high quality.. 7 -14 -83 -1- Application No. 83033 continued Altogether the 'plans appear to -be in order and approval is .recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2.' Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement_ and supporting financial guarantee 'On 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 parcel. Finally, the applicant claims that the variance will not , be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. While they are not elaborate, we agree with the arguments of the applicant. The parcel in question is only 110' deep at its narrowest point and 124' deep at the widest point. The 60' front setback and 40' rear setback .would leave only 10' of buildable area. This would be a difficult situation for a in le -famil h i s g y home; (which would have 20' of buildable area) for an apartment building, it is basically impossible. It might be to build a row of 20' deep townhouses on the property (town. houses are a permitted use in the-R5 zone) , but we do not feel that the right to build apartments should be foreclosed. Moreover, such a townhouse development would probably present other aesthetic and zoning - problems. Therefore, in 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 totally unique. There are other shallow lots in the City and an R5 development on a- corner lot might well face similar problems. Nevertheless, we concur that the property does have a fairly unique shape ands given its zoning, requires a variance to be buildable. 7 -14 -83 L_ 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 the Standards for a Variance appears to be met. 7 -14 -83 -2- f Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83035 Applicant: Paul Desvernine /Iten Leasing. Location: 4301 68th Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan. /Special Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to remodel the existing Servomation Building at 4301 68th Avenue North and conduct auto and truck rental and leasing therein. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded by 68th Avenue North on the north, by Iten Chevrolet on the east and south, and by another commercial building on the west. Auto and truck rental and leasing are proposed as a special use in the C2 zoning district. A recent ordinance to allow this is scheduled for 2nd reading by the City Council at its ' next regular meeting (July 25, 1983) . As to site improvements, the applicant proposes to close two of three accesses onto 68th Avenue North, preserving one access west of the building and sharing one access immediately west of Brooklyn Boulevard with Iten Chevrolet. The ' applicant also proposes to curb the parking area west of the building adjacent to the front and west side greenstrips. Six "boulevard" trees are proposed: two Marshall Ash, two Royal Red Maple, and two Black Walnut or Skyline Locust. Underground irrigation is noted on the plan as required by ordinance. Although much of the 15,000 sq. ft. building will be utilized for storage, we have requested the applicant to provide a parking plan to satisfy total retail use of the building (123 spaces). The plan submitted thus far shows 130 stalls, eight (8) of which are suspect. It is clear, however, that more stalls could be added if the minimum stall size were used. Also, use of some of the stalls is contingent on a joint access agreement being concluded with Iten Chevrolet. A copy of such an agreement, filed at the County, and including provisions to allow drainage across common property lines should be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of permits. The primary structure alterations proposed include applying a plaster insulation to the walls and roof of the building and covering the exterior with a stucco finish. The existing fence between the old Servomation (Iten Leasing) building and the Iten Chevrolet building will be removed and replaced with a new 10' high solid wall with panels having a texture to match the proposed exterior of the building Both will be painted to match the existing Iten building. The building is presently equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system which needs some alterations prior to occupancy of the building. The applicant has submitted no letter addressing bhe Standards for a Special Use Permit (attached) . We do feel, however, that the standards are met in this case. The proposed use is certainly compatible with surrounding businesses. No diminution in property values should result. The parking shown on the site, provided a cross access agreement is filed, is adequate to meet the requirements of this or any retail use of the property. Also, the closing of two unnecessary accesses onto 68th Avenue North should help reduce any traffic problems associ- ated with the site. 7 -14 -83 ^I Application No. 83035 continued Based on the foregoing, approval is recommended subject. to at least the following conditions 1. The special use permit is subject to - all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations, and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. The special use permit i-s issued to the applicant as operator of the facility e fac h t and is n Y nontransferable. ansferable . 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, e utili g, g t t 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 sub- mitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. PP . 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 gutt.er shall be provided around all parking and driving areas 7-14- _2_ L �I Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83036 Applicant: Iten Leasing Location: 4301 68th Avenue North Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 34 -140, Subsection 3.A. (3) to allow a roof sign more than 6' above the roof -line and more than 26' above the first floor level at the old Servomation building located at 4301 68th Avenue North. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded by 68th Avenue North on the north, by Iten Chevrolet on the east and south, and by a commercial building on the west. Roof signs are permitted-in lieu of permitted freestanding signs provided the height and area of a freestanding sign is not exceeded. The Sign Ordinance' allows roof signs to project not more than 6' above the roof -line of a building, provided this height is no greater than that allowed for a free - standing sign (in this case, ' 26') . The applicant wishes to retain the existing sign board which extends to approxi- mately 36' above the first floor and 22' above the roof -line. The allowable size of a freestanding sign for a building of 15,000 sq. ft. is 190 sq. ft. in area. Signs, as 'permitted by the City's Sign Ordinance -, are listed as accessory uses in the Zoning Ordinance and must conform to these standards as well. The existing Sign board is a nonconforming use which has not been used for a ,sign board for over 2 years. Under the Zoning Ordinance, nonconforming uses which cease for over two years may not be resumed, but must conform with the requirements of the City ordinances. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he argues that the existing sign structure is an integral part of the building and is needed to over- come the building's poor physical location. He states that relettering the existing sign structure is the most economical way to achieve exposure. He also states that granting the variance will improve business in Brooklyn Center and that their plan will promote the value of surrounding property and benefit the public welfare. He concludes by saying that, without the proposed sign, it is questionable whether the entire remodeling project can be economically justified. The Sign Ordinance stipulates that a variance from its provisions may be granted after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: 1. A particular hardship to the owner would result if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out; 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land or the use thereof for which the variance is sought and are not common, generally 'to other property or uses within the same zoning classification; 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. 7 -14 -83 _1_ Application No. 83036 continued The applicant alleges that a hardship will result if the letter of the regulations is enforced in that the project may become nonviable. We have heard this refrain before: "if only I could have a bigger and higher sign, my business would prosper and the whole community would benefit." Unfortunately, the economic benefits may Well be spent elsewhere while the aesthetic impact is definitely felt. within the' community. We must remember that the .purpose of the Sign Ordinance is to allow "necessary visual communication," not profit maximizing communication or some other financially based criterion. Staff would assert that signery 6' above the roof -line, or a freestanding sign of 190 sq. ft. in area and 26' in height, does allow for necessary visual communication in this case and that this standard presents no hardship to the proposed use than it does to other uses within the -City. As to uniqueness, the situation in question is- certainly not unique. There are many businesses in Brooklyn Center which do not abut directly on a major thoroughfare; yet they conform to the City's Sign Ordinance (e.g. the other busi- nesses on 68th Avenue North) . And it is certainly conceivable that a sign within the restrictions of the Sign Ordinance would be visible from the site to Brooklyn Bouevard. Finally, we believe that the current oversized sign board is a detriment to the public inasmuchas it exceeds the community standards for roof signs and imposes more excessive advertising in an area of the Boulevard that is already heavily signed. We believe that granting this variance will lead_ others to want the same. excessive signery; and the City will be hard pressed to deny their appeals if the variance is granted in this case. Although there are obviously costs associ- ated with altering the sign, we feel that the Sign and Zoning Ordinances should be strictly _followed in this case to assure equitable treatment to all businesses in the City. Denial of the variance request is, therefore, recommended on the basis that the Standards for Sign Ordinance Variances are not met. 7 -14783 -2- 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 by 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 esidential and vice versa). Such an Y ( ) 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 RI, 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 service would be connected to an $" existing service extending from Brooklyn Boulevard. 7 -14 -83 -1- Application No. 83037 continued 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 w 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 Flan amendment is held on July 28, 1983 7 -14 -83 -2r CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOK BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENr"ER TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: July 22, 1983 RE: Contingency Plan For Water Use Restrictions On Thursday, July 14th, the City's water supply system pumped 12,044,000 gallons. During the late afternoon hours of that day, the amount of water remaining in our water tanks dropped to less than 1/2 million gallons despite the fact that all of our existing wells were pumping at full capacity nearly all day.(Two of the pumps were shut down very briefly during the time that the contractor on our Well No. 9 project detonated a charge of explosives as part of his well - development procedure and two other pumps were shut down briefly to allow normal maintenance operations.) This appears to be the highest one day demand ever recorded by our water supply system. The previous high of 11,804,000 gallons was recorded on July 10, 1980. Although it is not a cause for alarm, the conditions noted on July 14th demonstrated a need to develope a contingency plan for the imposition of water use restrictions in the event of future emergencies. Types of Emergencies The types of emergencies for which contingency plans should be developed include: 1. High domestic use rate Commen it is estimated that the peak hourly use rate on July 14th was greater than 24 million gallons per day (i.e. greater than 1 million gallons per hour). The total rated maximum capacity of all of our existing wells is 15.1 mgd (i.e. 625,000 gallons per hour) . 2. Fire flow requirements Comment The total water used at the two biggest fires in Brooklyn Center history was 1.0 million gallons and 1.2 million gallons respectively. Both occurred over approximately an 8 hour period. 3. Pump or equipment failure Comment For design purposes, water supply systems are normally evaluated on the basis of "firm capacity" - i.e. with the largest well assumed to be out of service. Brooklyn Center's firm rated capacity at this time is 1 2 mg (5P0,000 gallons per hour). " ?fce So.ecetlsicg � a ae July 22, 1983 - G.G. Splinter Page 2 4 Power failure Comment Although Brooklyn Center's wells are serviced by a "looped" electrical transmission system and Northern States Power has identified service to these wells as high priority in the event of a power failure, it is obvious that a total power failure is a possibility. At this time, no standby power system is available within the City, except on a rental basis from heavy equipment dealers. Recommended Contingency Plan Elements To assure the City's ability to deal with the different emergencies, I recommend that the following elements be incorporated into a contingency plan: Step l - General Warning An informational plan to simply inform our citizens of possible problems and requesting their voluntary cooperation in reducing water usage during peak demand periods. Step 2 - Restrictions on the use of water for lawn and garden sprinkling. I recommend the use of an "Odd- Even" sprinkling plan whereby persons whose address ends in an odd number are allowed to water their yards only'on days that end on an odd number; and persons whose address ends in an even number are allowed to water their yards only on days that end with an even number. Enforcement of restrictions should be accomplished by the use of Code Enforcement Officers and Public Utility Department Employees. Step 3 - Commercial /Industrial Use Curtailment At the same time that sprinkling restrictions are imposed, it is recommended that large commercial and industrial users be individually notified of the problem, and requested to voluntarily reduce their usage. _Step 4 Total Prohibition of Use for Lawn and Garden Sprinkling and Other Use Restrictions This measure would only be necessary in the event of complete or near- complete power failure. Depending on many variables, this step could include actual shut -off of water supply. Our contingency plan should include guidelines for implementing the various steps. - Preliminary analysis indicates that, with our existing system (Well No. 9 will not be in service until late this year) Step I should be implemented any time we have a water demand of approximately 10 mgd. Steps 2 and 3 should be implemented when a water use analysis indicates that the amount of water remaining in our water tanks may drop to 1 milliongallons some time during the day to assure that a 1 million gallon reserve is available at all times for fire fighting purposes. Step 4 implementation depends on a wide variety of variables, but obviously should occur when circumstances demonstrate the need for drastic action. July 22, 1983 G.G. Splinter Page 3 Finally, our contingency plan should include provisions for obtaining standby power in the event of a serious power failure. Observations .Analysis of the operating characteristics of our system on peak days demonstrates that our Well No. 9 project is needed in order to minimize the need for water use restrictions. It also demonstrates that the next capital improvement project which should be considered is the construction of a ground -level reservoir, thereby confirming the recommendations contained in Black and Veatch's studies of our system. The question of when that additional capital investment should be made relates directly to the question of what kind of water use restrictions are acceptable to the community. It is akin to the question of how much insurance I'm willing to pay for. Respectfully submitted, SK: j n - Licenses to be approved by the City Council on July 25, 1983 / AMUSEMENT DEVICE LICENSE - OPERATOR Brookdale East Cinema 5801 John Martin Drive Chuckwagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave. N. P . Ch of Police W A a AMUSEMENT DEVICE LICENSE - VENDOR Gene Winstead & Co. 9624 Lyndale Ave. S. Ch f of� Police W Q FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE . Los Primos Brookdale Center - CIA, - g . .lt,, �11�.�� Sanitarian GARBAGE AND REFUSE VEHICLE LICENSE Big Garbonzo 15238 Central N.E. Gallagher's Service, Inca 1691 91st Ave. N.E. Sanitarian ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE . St. Alphonsus Catholic Church 7025 Halifax Ave. N. (7 stands) Sanitarian �p - MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Comfort Heating & Air Cond. 3111 California St. N.E. Hoove -Aire, Inc. 6840 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. (` Building fficial NON- PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE oca Cola Bottling 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd. Duke's Standard 6501 Humboldt Ave. Skelly Service 63rd Brooklyn Blvd. . Vicker's Oil 6830 Brooklyn Blvd. Sanitarian' RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Lucille M. Pagel 6031 Brooklyn Blvd. Gary & Vicki Zimmerman 6527 Brooklyn Blvd. Gale W. Pierce 6538 Drew Ave. N Doyle & Jennifer Henning 5200 France Ave. Ken Larson 6225 France Ave. N. William E. Goins 4100 Janet Lane Vernon Vendel 5651 Knox Ave. N. Henry Johnson & Joe Thomas 6736 Scott Ave. N. George H. Boomer 4518 63rd Ave. N. Richard R. Dawson 3955 69th Ave. N. Director_of Planning and Inspection Renewal: Irvin & Ruth Schloff 4819 Azelia Ave. N. Eugene J. Sullivan, Harold Hubert, Howard Oien 5407 Brooklyn Blvd. REN'T'AL DWELLING LICENSE - cont. Howard A. Oien & Eugene Sullivan 5809 Brooklyn Blvd. Donald L. Parkin 5624 Camden Ave. N. Daniel Gronseth 5306 Howe Lane Michael & Donna Kaplan 5715 Knox Ave. N. Amos Levang 4100 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Le Ray & Keith Mortensen 4110 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Randy Elam 4200 Lakebreeze Ave. N. James & Shirley Anderson 4204 Lakebreeze Ave. N. James & Bobbie Simons 4210 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Outreach Group Homes, Inc. 507 69th Ave. N. .�J�• �JQ`f Director of Planning and Inspection TEMPORARY ON -SALE BEER LICENSE ' St. Alphonsus Catholic Church 7025 Halifax Ave. N. Ch e of Police GENERAL APPROVAL: Gerald G. Sp i ter, City tl6frk